There’s a common thread linking conservatives’ positions on gun control, immigration, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: the constant need to stoke fear.
Yep. There's an article, but that's the gist of it. Fearmongerers suck.
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Gordon, Where is the line between reasonable caution and fearmongering? I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about me. I don't wear two earbuds on the street because it encourages Condition White (I.e., cluelessness to any threat, like a crazy driver or bicyclist, or a potential mugger). And I recommend the same behaviour to my kids and colleagues. Reasonable caution or fearmongering? I've taken martial arts for years because its fun, but I do scan for threats and I do run mental scenarios. Reasonable caution or fearmongering? I have a concealed carry permit ( easy to get here and originally prompted by my wife being out on a list by some right wing bloggers) and carry when it seems appropriate (I'm not a No Days Off fan), like when there will be no alcohol and a more than usually dangerous location. Not fearmongering, because no one knows about it, but is it Reasonable caution? I have concerns that the progressive left is actually interested in eliminating or at least sharply limiting gun ownership (based upon personal interactions as well as the use of the word 'confiscation' by people like Feinstein and Bloomberg). Reasonable caution or fearmongering? Being a progressive and a gun owner does pose some social problems :-).
You say, "What exact change in immigration law would "prevent" two future Tsarnaev brothers from carring out another bombing? It's absurd." But you are all for new gun laws. So I ask you, "What exact change in gun laws would “prevent” a future Adam Lanza or James Holmes from carrying out another attack?" Talk about shredding the constitution!
Your claim the conservatives need fear to keep them in power is offset by the lefts desire to make everyone dependent on the government to keep them in power.
I'm a progressive gun owner too. I worry more about firearms in the hands of crazy right-wing nutjobs than I worry about government overreach. There will always be crazy people who do bad things. At least make them reload more often during their killing sprees.
People don't fear government overreach because it is so incremental, or made in the heat of the moment where "everyone" agrees something must be done (Patriot Act due to 9/11 or gun control due to Sandy Hook). If we are not careful, we will turn into Barney Fife gun owners limited to one bullet.
I'm amazed that the progressives are always sane gun owners and only the right has the nut job gun owners. Do the names James Von Brunn, Amy Bishop or Chris Dorner ring a bell?
I worry more about guns in the hands of left wing nut jobs.
5 comments:
Gordon,
Where is the line between reasonable caution and fearmongering? I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about me.
I don't wear two earbuds on the street because it encourages Condition White (I.e., cluelessness to any threat, like a crazy driver or bicyclist, or a potential mugger). And I recommend the same behaviour to my kids and colleagues. Reasonable caution or fearmongering?
I've taken martial arts for years because its fun, but I do scan for threats and I do run mental scenarios. Reasonable caution or fearmongering?
I have a concealed carry permit ( easy to get here and originally prompted by my wife being out on a list by some right wing bloggers) and carry when it seems appropriate (I'm not a No Days Off fan), like when there will be no alcohol and a more than usually dangerous location. Not fearmongering, because no one knows about it, but is it Reasonable caution?
I have concerns that the progressive left is actually interested in eliminating or at least sharply limiting gun ownership (based upon personal interactions as well as the use of the word 'confiscation' by people like Feinstein and Bloomberg). Reasonable caution or fearmongering?
Being a progressive and a gun owner does pose some social problems :-).
You say, "What exact change in immigration law would "prevent" two future Tsarnaev brothers from carring out another bombing? It's absurd." But you are all for new gun laws. So I ask you, "What exact change in gun laws would “prevent” a future Adam Lanza or James Holmes from carrying out another attack?" Talk about shredding the constitution!
Your claim the conservatives need fear to keep them in power is offset by the lefts desire to make everyone dependent on the government to keep them in power.
I'm a progressive gun owner too. I worry more about firearms in the hands of crazy right-wing nutjobs than I worry about government overreach. There will always be crazy people who do bad things. At least make them reload more often during their killing sprees.
People don't fear government overreach because it is so incremental, or made in the heat of the moment where "everyone" agrees something must be done (Patriot Act due to 9/11 or gun control due to Sandy Hook). If we are not careful, we will turn into Barney Fife gun owners limited to one bullet.
I'm amazed that the progressives are always sane gun owners and only the right has the nut job gun owners. Do the names James Von Brunn, Amy Bishop or Chris Dorner ring a bell?
I worry more about guns in the hands of left wing nut jobs.
I read this article completely on the topic of the comparison of newest
and preceding technologies, it's amazing article.
Here is my blog - Louis Vuitton Bags
Post a Comment