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.
I couldn't agree with your last paragraph more, Rob. Luvs ya!
Posted by: Britt | January 15, 2013 at 06:50 PM
You are quite mistaken that I as trying to catch you. I was interested in knowing how you may or may not have changed your opinions. BTW it was not what you wrote in 2004, but 2009. http://www.leftinthewest.com/diary/2723/
In terms whatever the "gun control/grab/ban" attempts that will be put on the table, will they affect the .5% of gun owners that use guns to commit crimes, or the 95.5% who are law abiding? Does your sympathy for the "gun control" argument require a symbolic sacrifice by the 95.5% for politicians to merely appear having done something to stop the .5%?
Posted by: Craig Moore | January 16, 2013 at 10:18 AM
Wow, that's mighty interesting there, Craig. Especially given that I answered your 'question' in the last post. My opinion of the 'Brady Bill' hasn't changed at all, in the years I've been writing about *why* it was bad legislation which started well before 2009. Research is more than finding a quote, Craig.
And you still spectacularly miss the point of the post. Sympathy is a human ability for reasoned understanding of what another values and desires. It does not imply agreement or really anything at all, save that one has thought about those things. Dave Budge explained and argued for sympathy much better than I can or can be troubled to in his post concerning the Ideological Turing Test. Oh looky there. That's actually one of the tags used in this post. As Dave well argues, Sympathy facilitates better discussion, understanding, and frankly helps keep one from looking like an idiot.
By way of example, perhaps you could explain how my, or any, sympathy for the "gun control" argument requires anything from anybody? That's funny. It doesn't, mostly because I don't agree with some of the proposals of that stance, I don't write policy and I certainly disagree with your bad logic against the 'opposition'. Since you missed this point completely, even though it's plain in the post, one thing I have no respect, tolerance or sympathy for is the "symbolic sacrifice" of the privileged victim.
First, almost every gun owner is a legal gun owner, until they aren't. Sideshow Bob bought his firearms, his ammunition, his combat rig, his smoke canisters and the materials for napalm online - all legally. He didn't become a member of your evil .5% until a very tragic night in Aurora. If you have a proposal to identify the folks who 'will in the future' commit gun crimes, I'm sympathetic and all ears. But you don't, because almost every gun owner is a legal gun owner until they aren't.
Second, my wife suffers from sinus trouble and allergies. She is a consumer of Sudefedren, and the percentage of people who use that legally is likely much higher than those who use it for nefarious purpose, especially relative to firearms. Her possession of 200 tabs of Sudefed can't be used to kill 20 school kids in a matter of minutes. But, to purchase that necessity, she has to show ID, sign her name and buy it in limited quantity. That is a sacrifice, but far from symbolic. Irksome as it is, we the great society have decided that we must control this tool, because some people are doing wrong. One argument I've yet to find a hole, and trust me I've looked, is that no one outside of law enforcement or the military needs an assault style weapon. We just don't. My wife's sacrifice for quality of life is very real. If little (or BIG) Billy can't get the AR-15 with a compass in the stock from Santa Claus, that sacrifice is truly symbolic and completely meaningless. Little Billy might grow up without the chance to own a weapon that could slay his enemies, see them driven before him and hear the lamentations of their women. I can think of at least a hundred times that a grenade would have come in handy and improved my quality of life. Sad, I can't buy one. The folk I would have fragged would probably disagree with my sense of 'need' anyway. They lack 'sympathy' for me, and they damned well should.
Third, and this is the important part, we live in a Democratic Republic. Whether I have sympathy for X, Y or Z doesn't really matter and your opinion of my sympathies matters even less; except maybe to you, and I don't care about you. You should be arguing the point you desire with those you elect, and not weakly attempting to deride me. I think you are ridiculous. What gets "put on the table" will get discussed, debated and hashed into some kind of sausage. If you don't get what you want, well that's kinda your problem. I would suggest your efforts would be better spent coming up with solutions that serve the will of both sides, which seems remarkably the same. That was the point of the post, which you quite obviously missed, Craig. Trolling my happy ass doesn't actually change anything, just so's you know.
Posted by: Wulfgar | January 16, 2013 at 04:39 PM
I agree, neither my sympathies nor my quest for clarification of firearm issues matters to you. I have neither the energy nor the motivation to explore the matter further with you. You win. I have been vanquished. Celebrate your victory. Doesn't matter that we may be closer to agreement than you may otherwise imagine. Now focus on the true enemy of your ire. http://www.ktvq.com/news/baucus-and-tester-react-to-obama-gun-plan/ and http://www.jontester.com/issues/protecting-gun-rights/ Perhaps they will yield to your will as well.
Posted by: Craig Moore | January 16, 2013 at 06:09 PM
I wasn't trying to "vanquish" you, Craig. I just think you're being silly for even thinking it's a competition. Looking to me in your "quest" for "clarification of firearm issues" is really silly. I'm a blogger, not a lawyer or a Senator.
But I thank you for thinking me important enough that Senators might "yield to my will". YAY me! Can you even identify what "my will" even is? Yeah, I kinda doubted that.
Posted by: Wulfgar | January 16, 2013 at 06:34 PM