Contributors

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Compare and Contrast

I find the different reactions to tragedies like Columbine and Sandy Hook to be fascinating and, well, quite revealing. On the one hand we have the Sandy Hook Promise which talks of supporting families and making communities safer through education. We also have Rachel's Challenge which took the writings of the first victim of Columbine and turned them into a nation wide movement based on love and hope.

On the other hand, we have this:

Men armed with rifles walk through Portland to 'educate'

and this:




The guy in the photo above went into a JC Penny's with his gun to go shopping and prove a point, I guess.

I imagine the world that the people behind the Sandy Hook Promise and Rachel's Challenge are trying to live in. Then I imagine the world that the ass hats in Portland and Riverdale want to live in. It seems pretty clear to me which one is the better choice.

That would be the one that does not look like the NBC television show Revolution. 

What the fuck is wrong with these people? Rather than carry around their guns on a chest thumping parade, they should be...you know...out maybe helping people?

I think about how this culture created a person like Eric Harris, who walked up to Rachel Scott as she was eating her lunch outside Columbine, and shot her multiple times in the head, toros, arm, and legs and then I take in all the ugliness from the gun community, the idiots above being prime examples, that we've seen in the last few weeks since Sandy Hook (some of it here in comments) and I'm led to an inescapable conclusion.

They created  this problem and they should never EVER be put in charge of anything.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

So your claim is that thinking "Well, I don’t want to learn" and trampling fundamental rights to self-defense based on that willful ignorance is better?

Please explain how to break through the "Well, I don’t want to learn" head-in-the-sand idiocy without upsetting people. (Note: In general I think upsetting people is a bad idea because it usually doesn't work.) You're a professional teacher. Surely you know techniques to deal with those who refuse to learn.

Anonymous said...

Breaking,

Even hard-left MSNBC is admitting that the idiot who went on a killing spree in New Haven only used hand guns. The "scawey" AR-15 was not used.

Video here.

Anonymous said...

Why I Open Carry a Firearm
by Dan Griffin



In their March 1963 issue, Reader’s Digest printed a story about a black man who was admitted to the Arkansas School of Law in 1949. The Dean set him up with a room in the basement in which to stay between classes. The Dean ordered law library books delivered to him, commanded him to not wander around campus, and mapped out a back route for him to strictly follow to get in and out of his basement hideaway. Out of sight, out of mind, keep the peace. Hide yourself from others.


Read the rest at the link

Mark Ward said...

I find it interesting how poor the reporting on Newton has been. Perhaps it was the shock of it all but the story has changed so many times now that it's hard to know exactly what happened.

Anonymous said...

the story has changed so many times now that it's hard to know exactly what happened.

But we're supposed to abandon basic rights based on "what happened" there?

Mark Ward said...

One, we are not abandoning basic civil rights. Two, it's not just because of Newton. There is Aurora as well as all the rest from last year. We have a problem with gun violence in this country that's been going on for sometime and it's time for a critical look at all of the elements that play into this. Having to deal your sensitivities about guns exacerbates the problem.

Juris Imprudent said...

I find it interesting how poor the reporting on Newton has been.

You mean like your inability to point to any account that validates your assumptions about the young man being on SSRIs?

Juris Imprudent said...

We have a problem with gun violence in this country that's been going on for sometime

You weren't saying anything of the sort prior to Sandy Hook. You claimed that there was no reason for us to be concerned with Obama/Dem plans for gun control.

Have you forgotten?

Anonymous said...

"sensitivities"?

See here, here, here, and here. Gee, what reason do we have to be "sensitive"?

Mark Ward said...

I'm sorry, you're right. Sensitivity is not the right word. How about "giant paranoid leap based on a pathological hatred of the federal government?"

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, you're right. Sensitivity is not the right word. How about "giant paranoid leap based on a pathological hatred of the federal government?"

See, there you go. You complain about how you are treated and then immediately turn around and spout this inanity.

I wonder if you consider Scalia to be paranoid based upon what he said in Heller.

Anonymous said...

paranoid

Again, what makes it "paranoid". YOU were the one complaining about some people on the left actually trying to ban guns. As I explained to you before, it's not paranoia if they really are trying to do what you think they're trying to do.

Juris Imprudent said...

How about "giant paranoid leap based on a pathological hatred of the federal government?"

I don't know, how about fuck you - does that work for ya?

Anonymous said...

So, Mark…

It's been several days.

No better solutions for "Well, I don't want to learn" syndrome?

Then you have no room to complain.

Mark Ward said...

I thought juris ended this thread quite nicely:)

Anonymous said...

So you bothered to respond? But only to dodge again?

Where's this "discussion" you keep claiming you want to have?