In response to my last post, Craig Moore attempted, poorly, to catch me up in some kind of hypocrisy and he missed my point completely. That's not very surprising. He has an agenda and I was being deliberately obscure, though using terrific music in the effort. So, for those few who might want to know what I was thinking, I just figured I'd explain it.
Back in 2004, the 'Brady Bill' assault weapons ban on sale was set to expire. Both Presidential candidates in debate waffled about their support for such a thing, politically blaming Congress for what at the time, amounted to inaction concerning a 'hot button' issue in the great culture war between right and left. A few things have happened since then. An asshole with two handguns and a lot of loaded clips became the most prolific mass shooter in American history at Virginia Tech. An asshole who looks like Sideshow Bob dressed in combat gear shot 70 people in a theater, killing 12. And an asshole walked into a school and killed 20 six and seven year old children, as well as 6 adults trying to save those lives. As Craig pointed out, in 2004 I called the gun control debate trivial. It isn't trivial anymore. Things do change. For one, the NRA has convinced a remarkable amount of America that gun control means gun confiscation. For two, we've elected a black President, a President that many including the NRA have worked to convince people wants to take your guns to spur racial fear. (It should be noted that Obama is the first President elected twice by a majority of the popular vote since Dwight Eisenhower.) And three, oh yes, assholes are mass killing our children.
Here we are in 2013 having the gun control debate again. The political will has shifted, but it seems the arguments never do. That fascinates me more than any policy change. Policy follows the wind of culture, but culture follows the desires of those who make it. Since the St. Reagan endorsed 'Brady Bill' passed, FAUX News has become the dominant source of TV misinformation. The Tea Peeps have risen. The NRA has shifted focus from promoting gun safety and responsible ownership to lobby support for gun manufacturers and universal ownership of their product, regardless of qualification. The SCOTUS has decreed a right to keep arms, though still refuses to address the qualifying clause. We have the Bush doctrine of foreign policy which says 'get them before they get you'. And our culture, politics and policy has become increasingly divided, antagonistic and extreme. Yet the arguments concerning gun control really haven't changed that much, save in decibels.
Since the Newtown shootings, I've had several arguments with my brother concerning efforts of gun control. These haven't been policy arguments. On policy, we probably are fairly much in agreement, though I think he would favor a more extreme interpretation of such. No, our arguments have been about 'the opposition'. He recently posted a Facebook update about the ill-use of his good reason at the hands of "liberals". His reasoning was okay, for what it was, but he is doing the same as those awful "liberals" are doing. He is striving in all righteous victim-hood against those most extreme who influence policy the very least. He paints all gun control advocates with the very same brush. They are going 'take his guns'. Of course, they are arguing against gun-nuts, gun addicts, redneck shooters, holding my brother to a standard of wacko that isn't even remotely applicable, which is exactly the same mistake as he makes with them. That's the part of the argument that fascinates me.
The progression of the argument is lamentably historic: You can't talk about this tragedy because it's still raw and people are emotional. But people do and they should. Of course, removed from the tragedy, people are still emotional, both sides attempting the high moral ground. Both sides hold that the very worst of the other is the norm. Gun Grabbers! Gun Addicts! Shortly after the Newtown shootings, I posted on Twitter that anyone who brings up 'penis' isn't really interested in discussing gun control. They are interested in demeaning gun owners. I attempted, gently, to point out to others that those who are concerned about gun crime will never, ever, come to take your guns away. EVER. But that is where the argument has gone and will continue to go, nonetheless. ~sigh~
Which brings me back to the previous post and my point in posting it. Common ground. This should be the point of discussion but I have no confidence it will be. 'Gungrabbers' want to protect their children, their families, their property and their society. 'Gun-nuts' want to protect their children, their families, their property and their society. It doesn't matter if you use a Broadsword or an AR-15 or legislation. You want the same things, people. Get a fricking grip.