MC:
I have to break this down, and, although it is not necessary because I do find we have a cordial relationship, you know this is delivered with due courtesy.
how can anyone not be an anti-gun alarmist when you cite 38,000 gun deaths in 2016? No other developed country has even a slight fraction of that amount.
Well, of the 38,000, approximately 24,000 are suicides and, regrettably, very few of those deeply, emotionally injured people can be salvaged. What the Left does is to casually toss out the "38,000" number, irresponsibly attach the vague description the death was the result of a firearm to lead their gullible followers into believing guns are a plague and a threat to decent society. If it is not a firearm, it could be pills, drink, a rope, gas, opening the veins, or jumping in front of a bus. Tragic, yes, but one of the many dangers in society we can not prevent. Moreover, the Left may talk about mental illness, a conversation we need, but they never talk about stripping kitchens of knives or outlawing the sale of rope.
The number of suicides is irrelevant to your argument. Without a gun, the victim would have more time to reconsider their impending action, and many, I'm sure, would.
It is relevant; it is actually very relevant. Do we not break down the cause of auto accidents, train wrecks, or aircraft disasters separately? Each incident has a cause, some different than others. Incidents in which innocents die in autos are caused by faulty fuel lines; and others are caused by drivers operating a vehicle while under the influence. Some aircraft crash because of pilot error, bad weather, or hijacking. Some trains slip off the rails. They must be treated differently. While I'm on the subject, I'd like to add most Left-leaning publications never make any mention over the number of accidental firearm deaths.
This stuff about the New York Times and Time is irrelevant, as well. What about the Wall Street Journal, Fox News and the darling of the gun crowd, yes, your own Chicago Tribune. Let's not forget Chuck Todd of Meet the Press who tosses softballs to gun supporters.
I chose those publications because they are respected in some circles as indisputable sources of facts, figures and statistics. The citations I offered were done in good faith. As far as the
WSJ, I read it every day, cover to cover, and find it filled with varying opinions encompassing both sides of the political spectrum. It is, in fact, the only American news source I read. I do not watch Fox at all, nor do I read the
Tribune or
Sun Times. I find both of Chicago's newspapers are stand-ins for journalism and simply bellow Left-wing groupthink.
Many of those 22,000 gun laws are weak, redundant, or unworkable. Despite what many believe, gun laws in Illinois are very lax thanks in part, to the black caucus in Springfield.
Of over 22,000 gun-control laws, most are weak? What are you looking for? With all due respect, I hear this argument all the time: When gun-control laws fail to achieve the expressed goal of reducing or eliminating gun violence, the Left perforce repeats the need for more gun-control laws.
The much maligned NRA? Wow. They fight to let mentally handicapped people purchase guns. They fight to keep gun ownership information private. They sit idly by while Alex Jones denies that Sandy Hook ever happened or that Lakeland kids made up some of the horror they witnessed? Maligned? C'mon on
Democrats have pushed for ex-cons and prison inmates to have the right to vote. I own four firearms, all of which have been disabled and sit handsomely on my office wall behind glass. In my view, they are trophies and decorative items. I am not a firearm owner otherwise; I do not have a FOID card; and I have only fired a weapon once. Just no interest, but others have the right to own a firearm without their personal information broadcast in public. Look at the hue and cry over online security breaches: People were screaming over Internet hacks in which their personal information was exposed. Why should gun owners have their personal information revealed simply because they own a firearm?
I watched Sandy Hook unfold and was horrified. Alex Jones is a crank with zero credibility. As a comparison, MSNBC's hero, Rachel Maddow, an utter crackpot, habitually retails absurd Russia conspiracy theories on his evening show, and not a word is voiced as he brainwashes his audience with propaganda and outright lies about alleged collusion with Russia.
Before we go on, I want to remind you both you and I witnessed Watergate evolve. The Senate Committee on Watergate was established in February 1973. Scarcely four months into the probe, the panel had secured the cooperation of a White House aide and had obtained testimony from dozens leading even the brain dead to know Nixon was guilty.
We are closing in on one year, and Mueller (a good man caught up in a mess), has secured a handful of guilty pleas, all of which are entirely unconnected to the 2016 presidential election, but Maddow is out howling every night, vomiting up this nonsense on cable television. I don't own Jones, the Right has to contend with him, but Maddow is the Left's version of Jones. He just has a larger platform on MSNBC to hawk his fictions and apocalyptic visions.
They employ Dana Loesch to spread nasty nonsense.
Loesch enunciates reasoned arguments to preserve the right of gun owners.
On the contrary, the Left reflexively seizes on mass shootings and with an unholy glee is perfectly comfortable trotting out lawmakers with gruesome images of dead children to emotionally blackmail citizens to invite them to their anti-gun cause. Pretty sickening tactic, but when you have no argument and seek an end, its "anything goes" for the anti-gun crowd.
Most "lefties" have no problem with you owning a gun for hunting and/or protection. To claim that we want to take all guns is crazy. We could argue that assault weapons are a gateway to flame throwers or cannons. What about a billionaire who wouldn't mind owning a fighter jet. Sounds crazy? Check with your people first for craziness.
I disagree. The Left is singularly determined to repeal the Second Amendment. Period. While you can argue allowing the unrestricted sale of automatic weapons is a gateway to flame throwers or cannons, I can easily argue the slow infringement on legal gun ownership is a gateway to a full repeal of the Second Amendment. Despite this, I have never heard anyone say flame throwers, mortars or cannons should be part of the conversation. In contrast, I routinely hear the Left call for a repeal of legal gun ownership, and it's growing.
Billionaires like their toys...........and, for clarity, I did
not vote for the blowhard New York real estate developer, but I would have
never voted for the serial prevaricator from Park Ridge.
The law we would like to see would forbid the manufacture, sale or possession of any multi-firing weapons. Any gun, regardless of nomenclature, that fires ammunition rapidly.
This on top of the other 22,000 gun-control laws?
This is an awfully vague demand. It would have to include very specific language, which I don't think many on your side of the political divide would be willing to add.
But in 20 years, though, American society could be rid of these terror weapons. But so what if it takes multiple decades? At least, by 2040 or so, the mess would be cleared up and your grandchildren won't have to duck in class.
I heard the same argument in the 60s and crime has only increased.
Here is my offer to you: I pledge to you my support to repeal the Second Amendment for a period not exceeding three years beginning January 1, 2019. By the Left's rationale, gun crime will be virtually non-existent at midnight January 1, 2019.
If, by chance, there is a single death by a firearm over the three-year period, we revive the Second Amendment and repeal every gun-control law on the books at any level. Agreed? It seems to be a fair trial period.
Finally, you actually wrote, Am I to assume you are suggesting some of the fatalities caused by Cruz's actions while armed with an automatic weapon are acceptable, but some are not?
I've had countless exchanges with you over the last 15 years. I've never been snide.
