couldn’t have said it better myself

A friend from Immigrate2US thought I would enjoy the writings of Mark Morford, of the San Francisco Chronicle. I read a few of his columns and indeed found him humorous and well-spoken. In addition, I found this column that I literally couldn’t agree more with, on the topic I said I didn’t want to talk about anymore, gun control. However, I think this very succinctly states the way I feel about this issue.

Advertisements

8 Responses to couldn’t have said it better myself

  1. lois bruss says:

    Thanks for including this article on your blog. I also totally agree. People having guns is becoming more & more of a problem in the U.S. Gun manufacturers probably invest in politicians who will support their business. Does that sound too cynical ?

  2. muy contento says:

    Gunmakers are not the probem – we are. To get elected president of the USA, a candidate has to unconditionally support two issues – gun rights and Israel. If either policy eventually takes the country down (it’s possible) we are ready to go. Even liberal John Kerry had to out and shoot a goose during the campaign and show his NRA membership card.

  3. jack Bruss says:

    Laura:
    As you know, I don’t own a gun and never have, but until all the bad people in the country decide to lose their guns, I strongly do not want the Government to make good people put away theirs. So with that as a backdrop for my following comment, I will say I tried to read this article you say you couldn’t agree more with, and I am surprised that you would even offer it up here.

    While good people can debate the merits or non merits of gun control, the author in this article, like many liberal authors, offers insults and cheap shots, but no coherent arguments in favor of his opinion.

    Examples abound: “gun fetishism”, in Texas “it’s A-OK to shoot and kill someone for pretty much looking at you sideways”, “mostly due to the vicious power of the tiny-but-vocal gun lobby and especially given the faux-cowboy gun-lovin’ warmonger who currently holds the White House veto stamp in his insolent little fist right now.”

    That’s just in the first 4 paragraphs, and there’s much more like that in the rest of the article. When an author has to resort to insults, sarcasm, and Bush bashing as arguments, then perhaps he’s on the wrong side of an issue.

  4. laurafern says:

    Okay dad, point taken, the beginning is a bit insulting to Conservatives who still support Bush, but of course, there’s no love for Bush here, so that stuff doesn’t even phase me. Further, I would say this column is no more inflammatory or insulting than the ones you send out by such writers as Bert P., and certainly less so than the words of Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter, who you claim to respect, but anyway, here are the parts of the article that I really like:

    “But even the obvious fact that no new gun-control laws are likely to emerge hasn’t stopped the pro-gunners from tossing up what is easily my favorite pro-gun argument of all time, one that’s popped back up on blogs and forums and in right-wing columns all over the Net in response to VT, like some sort of cute, thuggish mantra of happy cancerous violence.

    It goes like this: If only more people had guns, no one would get shot. If only everyone was armed and everyone was packing heat and everyone knew everyone else could kill them at a moment’s notice, why, no one would dare shoot each other for fear of getting killed themselves before they even had a chance to enjoy their own murderous rage.

    In other words, the solution to the too-many-guns-too-easily problem? Even more guns.

    More to the point: If the professors and students at Virginia Tech just so happened to carry their own swell Glock 9mm in their backpacks or in their purses just like insane sullen loner Cho Seung-Hui, maybe he would’ve been less likely to go on that rampage because, gosh golly, he’d surely know he’d be quickly shot dead by 100 trigger-ready students as soon as he fired the first shot. And what satisfaction is there in a brutal gun rampage if you don’t get to kill more than a handful of kids? It’s such perfectly insane logic, they should print it on the NRA brochure. Hell, maybe they do.

    I love this line of thinking. It’s like bashing your own skull with a brick and calling it intellectual stimulation.”

    and

    “Here is the flip-side argument. It is at once simple and obvious and makes a calm sort of moral sense, and is therefore is sneered at by every gun lover and bitter Second Amendment misinterpreter and NRA lobbyist in the land.

    It goes like this: If all guns were banned outright tomorrow, or even if we took the strict British/Swedish approach and only allowed them for hunting and in highly controlled shooting clubs, well, guns would slowly but surely disappear from the popular culture. As a fetish, as a gang weapon, as some sort of bogus macho self-defense argument, as an obvious and too-easy means to shocking schoolyard massacre, guns and the fear-based culture they create would, slowly but surely, fizzle and die.

    It would not be instantaneous. It would not be easy. But slowly, as manufacturing largely ceased and gun shows shut down and fewer and fewer new firearms entered the channel and the black market slowly dried up from lack of decent supply, and as the upcoming generation simply wouldn’t know a world where guns were prevalent and easy and stupid as paint, well, guns and the numb ultraviolence they inspire would disappear within a single generation, maybe two.

    I know, it would ruin the all-American fun of shooting. I realize a beloved American hobby would have to be replaced by, well, roughly 10 thousand other options. I know it would infuriate countless collectors and responsible gun owners who merely appreciate the craftsmanship, the gun-maker’s art, the simple joy of shooting deadly weapons into controlled targets and who have zero urge to kill anything, ever. I know.

    But, well, so what? Giving up such a rather hollow, morally indefensible, outdated pleasure seems a tiny price to pay for the end result of a dramatically less violent America, a less suspicious, reactionary worldview, a nation not shot through with an undercurrent of fear and blood-drenched headlines and childish notions of angry, armed retaliation.

    Hell, we’ve done it before, with all sorts of other harsh social practices and beliefs that, we finally realized, served the soul of our species not at all and actually caused much deep harm. Slavery. Hangings. The slaughter of Indians. Monarchical rule. Chamber pots. Flamethrowers. Smoking on airplanes. Lack of women’s suffrage. Eugenics.

    Really, has the time not come for guns to exit the wary American dream? Can we not even imagine it?”

  5. jack Bruss says:

    The problem I have with this author is that after you get through his passionate (and sarcastic and insulting) rhetoric, assuming you can stand to read that far, he makes no case! And it’s a typical Liberal non logical argument. For example, he first miss-states the conservative argument as in “If only more people had guns, no one would get shot. If only everyone was armed and everyone was packing heat and everyone knew everyone else could kill them at a moment’s notice, why, no one would dare shoot each other for fear of getting killed themselves before they even had a chance to enjoy their own murderous rage.” No conservative would ever say that, but he implies that that is our argument.

    Then he adds some more miss-statements of what conservatives think, and concludes with this brilliant reasoning: “I love this line of thinking. It’s like bashing your own skull with a brick and calling it intellectual stimulation.” Huh?? What in blazes does that mean?

    Liberals like this writer consistently refuse to argue the merits of issues. A conservative could quite reasonably argue that in a free society people should have the right to bear arms to protect themselves and others from bad people who would harm them. A healthy debate on the pros and cons of that statement would be worthwhile. But liberals never go there. They prefer to get up on their high horse and use insults, sarcasm, and passion as arguments.

  6. laurafern says:

    “No conservative would ever say that, but he implies that that is our argument.”

    Dad — please look at the Journal Sentinel’s Sunday Symposium. These are letters to the editor, but there are a few that have this opinion.

    http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=594044

    Here is another example:

    http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1900601.htm

    The important part is:
    “John Velleco from the group Gun Owners of America says if there were more guns on the campus, students might have stopped the gunman sooner.

    “It’s tragic to mandatorily disarm the citizenry and create these gun-free zones which in a sense give these deranged madmen easy targets,” he said.”

    Here’s another one, same idea:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821848/posts

    Here’s a letter to the editor:

    http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770417094

    Here’s Newt Gingrich saying it:

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/04/gingrich_defend.html

    Just a few examples. I could list hundreds more I just found from a simple google search. Now, some of these people might fall slightly on te Libertarian side of things, but point being, lots of Conservatives have been suggesting this in recent days.

  7. jack Bruss says:

    What I meant was that no conservative would state his opinion the way your author did. That is that “no one would get shot” or that “no one would dare shoot each other”. Again, I was just showing how your author felt compelled to overstate the conservative opinion before he lampooned it with his ludicrous hitting your head against the wall analagy.

    The fact is if someone on campus did have a gun, the shooting spree may have ended earlier – we’ll never know. The pros and cons of allowing law abiding citizens to arm themselves, if they so chose, is worthy of discussion, but to repeat myself, liberals don’t want to go there- they seem to like the cheap insult better.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: