2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,977
- 52,250
- 2,290
this is an explanation of the genetic insanity that makes up the brains of anti-gun activists....
The Bizarro Morality of America’s Gun-Control Debate
The Left knows that it can’t strip Americans of their individual right to bear arms, much less confiscate their weapons, without ripping our nation apart.
So they retreat to the second tenet of their bizarro morality: that all good people should respond to a mass shooting by supporting legislation that wouldn’t have prevented that mass shooting.
Every time such a massacre happens, Democrats trip all over themselves offering gun-control proposals that are the functional equivalent of trying to respond to a flu outbreak with heart medication.
The aftermath of last week’s Orlando attack is a perfect example:
Connecticut’s Chris Murphy filibustered on the Senate floor for 15 hours to ensure votes on proposals to ban people on a terrorist watch list from obtaining weapons and to expand background checks to gun shows and Internet sales.
Neither proposal would have prevented Omar Mateen’s massacre. He wasn’t on a terror watch list (he’d been removed), and he passed a background check to purchase his weapons.
-----------------
But here, the final principle of progressives’ bizarro morality rears its head: Claims that armed citizens could potentially stop a killer are invariably met with howls of rage and derision from the Left.
“How dare you introduce more guns into this discussion?” they demand.
Yet let’s consider what happened in Orlando.
Even if one presumes that the initial exchange of fire was conducted in the midst of maximum chaos (not even an armed police officer could stop the initial attack), the gunman later spent hours in the club.
He talked on the phone. He texted. He washed his hands.
All while terrified survivors hid in bathroom stalls or played dead.
Is it unreasonable believe that — in those circumstances — a concealed weapon in the hands of a competent citizen could have saved lives?
The Bizarro Morality of America’s Gun-Control Debate
The Left knows that it can’t strip Americans of their individual right to bear arms, much less confiscate their weapons, without ripping our nation apart.
So they retreat to the second tenet of their bizarro morality: that all good people should respond to a mass shooting by supporting legislation that wouldn’t have prevented that mass shooting.
Every time such a massacre happens, Democrats trip all over themselves offering gun-control proposals that are the functional equivalent of trying to respond to a flu outbreak with heart medication.
The aftermath of last week’s Orlando attack is a perfect example:
Connecticut’s Chris Murphy filibustered on the Senate floor for 15 hours to ensure votes on proposals to ban people on a terrorist watch list from obtaining weapons and to expand background checks to gun shows and Internet sales.
Neither proposal would have prevented Omar Mateen’s massacre. He wasn’t on a terror watch list (he’d been removed), and he passed a background check to purchase his weapons.
-----------------
But here, the final principle of progressives’ bizarro morality rears its head: Claims that armed citizens could potentially stop a killer are invariably met with howls of rage and derision from the Left.
“How dare you introduce more guns into this discussion?” they demand.
Yet let’s consider what happened in Orlando.
Even if one presumes that the initial exchange of fire was conducted in the midst of maximum chaos (not even an armed police officer could stop the initial attack), the gunman later spent hours in the club.
He talked on the phone. He texted. He washed his hands.
All while terrified survivors hid in bathroom stalls or played dead.
Is it unreasonable believe that — in those circumstances — a concealed weapon in the hands of a competent citizen could have saved lives?
