06-15-2016, 12:38 PM
(06-15-2016, 12:02 PM)Mikebert Wrote: The first response from the Republican candidate for president was to stop Muslim immigration--as if that would stop an attack from a citizen who was born here. This statement provides elite signaling on how members of the conservative tribe should view this incident. Hence Danilynn's drawing a connection between Pulse and 911.
The interesting question for me is why does the shooter's Muslim background drive out the usual "good guy with a gun" or armed citizenry narratives following large-scale mass murders?
Why not focus on the fact that in a nightclub in a right-to-carry state there would likely have been a dozen guys carrying who could have gunned this guy down were they not patted down for weapons.?
[url=https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/06/robert-farago/florida-gay-nightclub-massacre-proves-armed-security-isnt-effective/][/url]
Keeping guns out of the hands of those who would abuse them would not be a trivial exercise. Naturally, blue politicians are saying the usual, but the weapons used were among the most common law enforcement weapons in the world. There aren't enough magic ponies around to make them go away. An assault weapons ban isn't indicated by this event as assault weapons weren't used, but they'll posture and preen anyway.
The conservatives interpret the 2nd as in part a right to be able to defend one's self. Pat downs and taking of weapons are designed to take away said right. As you say, why not give law abiding people a chance at survival? If what we are doing isn't working, why not try a change? Isn't that one definition of insanity, clinging to a failed policy?
But values don't shift. We'll all cling to existing values. We're all insane.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.