SuperMatt
Site Master
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
- Posts
- 7,862
- Solutions
- 1
I don’t agree that we just let the gun nuts win. People assume the 2nd amendment has always been interpreted in such a ridiculous way. It hasn’t. We don’t need to change it: just interpret as written instead of ignoring the whole bit about the militia and WELL REGULATED.Was listening the Joe Walsh show from the other day. He’s right wing but not insane right, and if nothing else when I don’t agree with his views he at least articulates them well and admits his view aren’t the only or correct views. However I was a little shocked at the angle he introduced to the gun debate. He’s pro second amendment but admits we have a shooting problem in the country. What shocked me was he suggested that maybe we start by just accepting regular mass shootings as part of living in the US with our kind of freedoms. As appalling as that is, it’s probably closest to the reality compared to anything that might possibly be done about it.
He also brought up one of the favorite straw men deflections of 2nd amendment supporters, the fact that we don’t seem to care about all the shootings in poor gang infested neighborhoods. He even mentioned some high numbers in those killings. What does that have to do with anything and how is that a defense? Is there anybody out there claiming to be against mass or spree shootings but pro poor neighborhood shootings?
He’s generally a reasonable guy, but what I’m hearing is somebody flailing around in an attempt to defend the indefensible realizing their defenses are exhausted and played out, to use an appropriate pun, out of ammo.