When you’ve lost the logical and factual arguments, there’s no point in hiding your real motivations anymore.
As both sides in the gun-control debate mobilize for a possible second act on Capitol Hill, could we please retire the argument that taking step X on guns wouldn’t have prevented tragedy Y?
That talking point has been a recurring theme in the gun debate, from Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley to Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp to the National Rifle Association. It even informed Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s response last week to Erin Lafferty, whose mother was shot to death in December at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. “As you and I both know, the issue wasn’t a background-check system issue at Sandy Hook,” Ayotte said at a town meeting in Warren, N.H., defending her vote against the Manchin-Toomey bill adding a background-check requirement for sales at gun shows and online.
Yet arguments like that ignore the fact that step X—whether it’s expanded background checks or other proposals before Congress—might well have helped prevent or mitigate some horrendous past incident, and could spare us future tragedies.
Got that? Let’s not argue about whether this or that unconstitutional piece of gun-grabbing fascism would prevent the crime we’re using as an emotional whip to force the issue, because it might well prevent some other crime. So the argument about whether it will prevent crime needs to be “retired.” Because we lost that one.
Or in other words, the argument needs to be “retired” from use by the pro-2A side only. Liberal-fascists will reserve the right to keep using it themselves, naturally. We just need to stop responding with the actual facts, because doing so makes them look like the fools and liars they truly are.
Or in still other, simpler words: SHUT UP, she explained.
And remember, nobody is talking about such things as taking anyone’s guns away, or establishing any national databases to be used later on in the confiscations nobody really wants.
And, yes, expanded background checks might have kept Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from killing 13 people and themselves in the 1999 Columbine massacre. Three of the four guns the two 17-year-olds used in the shootings were purchased for them at a gun show by Robyn Anderson, then 18. “I would not have bought a gun for Eric and Dylan if I had had to give any personal information or submit to any kind of check at all,” Anderson said in a statement in 2000. “I wish a law requiring background checks had been in effect at the time.”
An expanded background-check system is only as good as its database.
Oh. Um. Well. SHUT UP!
Newtown parents are aware that a better background-check system would not have kept guns away from Lanza, whose mother had a huge cache of weapons and ammunition in their home. But they and others involved in the push for expanded background checks and other new laws are looking toward the future, not the past. “They don’t want what happened to them to happen to somebody else,” says Malte. “That’s the overriding factor.”
And there it is, reappearing just that quickly: the very argument we’re supposed to be “retiring.”
Wanna know what the real “overriding factor” is? We will not comply with any new gun-grabbing legislation. If you persist, we will fight you. Holding people who haven’t killed anybody responsible for some random lunatic’s murders is a grave injustice. Stripping them of their single most important Constitutional right under false pretenses is a far graver one. When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.
We know what you people are. We know what you really want. You are not going to get it. Not without a fight.
Come and take them, motherfuckers.