Maybe you SHOULDN'T legislate from a position of ignorance. That idea has probably got some merit. Of course that means like half the Republicans would never be able to make a law about abortion again because they don't even seem to have the first good goddamn clue about how uterus-havers reproductive health works, and they make laws demonstrative of that fact literally any time they have the votes.
But hey, why let ethics ruin a good double standard!
The thing is, this could be such a great touchpoint for education and dialogue. This could be where gun lovers and gun aficionados step up to the plate to have a dialogue about which laws might really, actually make a difference in a situation like a school shooting. The NRA and gun advocates could be the LEADERS of this movement with their understanding and knowledge. They could help figure out what to look for in a background check, how to close loopholes, what hardware is the most dangerous (and perhaps least likely to be used in all the ways they advocate for), how to run buyback programs on existing weapons, and how to write these laws to try to make a substantive policy compromise.
(Every time there's a high profile mass shooting, someone suggests making AMMUNITION much harder to get. Would that work? I don't know. But I bet I know who would! People who enjoy guns responsibly.)
They could pioneer effective legislation and help make some real difference.
Instead they've allowed this to become a point of mockery and derision (which, if you're keeping score, is EXACTLY the sort of smug-ass snobbery that conservatives often cite as the main reason they don't like liberals). "Oh those people don't even know the difference between a magazine and a clip. I bet they leave their pinky fingers on the cup when they have tea too. For shame!"
And then, after they refuse to engage someone unless they're already a gun expert, they act all surprised Pikachu face when liberals organize the political will to pass unilateral bans.
And here's the real gut punch. This isn't just arcane elitism that shuts down conversation. That could at least be dismissed as self-sabotaging in a world of shifting political will. When leftists won't leave their "bootlicker" rhetoric at the local communist party meeting, the worst thing that happens is they can't figure out why their ideas are wildly popular but THEY never are.
But when this shit happens around guns, this behavior isn't just odious. It borders on the worst sort of willful ignorance and turpitude. Most of the laws ignorant white men pass will never affect them personally. They're just legislating morality about exactly the sort of topics where expertise is required.
When it comes to guns, the opposite is true.
If someone can have a gun aimed at their head, be killed by a gun, have their kids killed by a gun, have their friends killed by guns, live in fear of guns, and have to maneuver in a society in which people can open carry semi-automatic rifles into Kroger, they absolutely, positively get to weigh in with their political opinions on guns, even if they don't know a bump stock from a silencer, a machine gun from a semi-auto, or the exact body count at which a shooting becomes a "mass shooting." It is beyond reprehensible to claim that they don't get a seat at a table until they're an expert. Trying to silence them for this is not only a logical fallacy called the Courtier's Reply (a variant of argument from authority), but is the lowest, most cowardly tactic of those who can find no actual tenable argument.
A moment that could have been a chance to take the mantle of leadership turned into the cheapest opportunity to score a political point.
Bullshit rating: Technically that's an Indicus, not a Taurus, so I can't even take you seriously that you're complaining you stepped in bullshit.
Post a Comment