Other great line: “The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting.”
2 thoughts on “Not mad at the guns”
pentamom
How do you refute a story like that? And even more to the point, how do you refute a story like that without sounding like a jerk?
I didn’t know that story about the L.A. riots, but that is a terrific example to bring up if you want to dispute the idea that powerful weapons have no valid self-defense value. Maybe that’s true in Brady-land where nobody ever hurts anybody else if they don’t already feel threatened, but civil disorder and riots do happen.
You know I almost took back that comment about Brady-land, remembering that nobody would make the argument that John Hinckley only shot up Reagan and his staff because he felt threatened, but the whole “Brady” thing is really not about James Brady anymore, is it? So I think it’s still fair to say that in the worldview that drives the movement, being threatening is a greater threat to your safety, than being able to defend yourself is a protection to it.
How do you refute a story like that? And even more to the point, how do you refute a story like that without sounding like a jerk?
I didn’t know that story about the L.A. riots, but that is a terrific example to bring up if you want to dispute the idea that powerful weapons have no valid self-defense value. Maybe that’s true in Brady-land where nobody ever hurts anybody else if they don’t already feel threatened, but civil disorder and riots do happen.
You know I almost took back that comment about Brady-land, remembering that nobody would make the argument that John Hinckley only shot up Reagan and his staff because he felt threatened, but the whole “Brady” thing is really not about James Brady anymore, is it? So I think it’s still fair to say that in the worldview that drives the movement, being threatening is a greater threat to your safety, than being able to defend yourself is a protection to it.
I knew the story already, but to see her telling it in person in that setting was powerful.