Why is only one side in the gun culture war required to show respect? - By E.J. Dionne Jr.

[DonViejo]

February 21 at 7:35 PM

You have perhaps heard the joke about the liberal who is so open-minded that he can’t even take his own side in an argument.

What’s less funny is that on gun control, liberals (and their many allies who are moderate, conservative and nonideological) have been told for years that if they do take their own side in the argument, they will only hurt their cause.

Supporters of even modest restrictions on firearms are regularly instructed that their ardent advocacy turns off Americans in rural areas and small towns. Those in favor of reforming our firearms laws are scolded as horrific elitists who disrespect a valued way of life. And as the mass killings continue, we are urged to be patient and to spend our time listening earnestly to the views of those who see even a smidgen of action to limit access to guns as the first step toward confiscation. Our task is not to fight for laws to protect innocents, but to demonstrate that we really, honestly, truly, cross-our-hearts, positively love gun owners and wouldn’t for an instant think anything ill of them.

What is odd is that those with extreme pro-gun views — those pushing for new laws to allow people to carry just about anytime, anywhere — are never called upon to model similar empathy toward children killed, the mourning parents left behind, people in urban neighborhoods suffering from violence, or the majority of Americans who don’t own guns.

Depending on the survey, somewhere between 58 percent and 68 percent of us live in households without guns. But no one who belongs to the National Rifle Association is ever told to prove their respect for our way of life. Rarely is it pointed out that the logic of the gun lobby’s position is to create a world in which everyone will need a gun, whether we want one or not. (“Arm the teachers!” “Arm the students!”) I reported on Lebanon’s civil war in the 1980s, and I can assure you that a heavily armed country is not an ideal (or safe) place to live.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gun-owners-demand-respect-they-just-arent-willing-to-give-it/2018/02/21/0d18397c-173d-11e8-92c9-376b4fe57ff7_story.html

[2naSalit]

1. K&R

We have to be more aggressive.

I hope that there will be a children's march this year, late in the summer so it's close to election time.

[appal_jack]

2. Dionne's tune may change when it comes time to count votes.

Last edited Thu Feb 22, 2018, 09:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Here in the mountains of NC, Hillary was written-off wholesale for her views on guns by all but my most urban neighbors (and where I live, the 'urban' environment is quite small).

I really think that this moment offers Democrats' a better opportunity to push for universal healthcare (to include vision, dental, and mental health of course, unlike most plans we have now where your eyes, teeth, and mind state are optional), publicly funded child care, family leave, better educational systems and support, and even a guaranteed basic income. Making this country more compassionate, with a wider safety net could reduce mass shootings much more effectively than any realistic gun control proposal I have heard.

Calling for gun bans satisfies some Democrats' visceral urge to "do something," but it is still an authoritarian and simplistic response to a broad and complex social problem of pain and alienation among the populace.

-app

[TheSmarterDog]

3. So, what you're saying is rural voters don't RESPECT the lives & opinions of non-rural people.

Sort of Mr. Dionne's point.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. You just verified Dionne's writing as perfectly correct and

repeated the 'warnings' to about 2/3 of the country not to 'offend' the rural minority.

[appal_jack]

6. Offend all you want.

But when it comes to elections 2018 and 2020, remember your willingness to offend while wondering why so many voters cast ballots "against their interests," etc. All I'm saying is that many of my neighbors are single-issue voters on Second Amendment issues (and no, I don't determine my own vote that way).

-app

[uponit7771]

7. How many consider owning weapons of war a right? tia

[appal_jack]

9. Generally about half the people I know.

Of my neighbors and associates, about 50% (mostly men, but some women) believe that the individual right enumerated in the Second Amendment does and should protect the ownership of semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines.

The other half-ish (mostly women, but including some men) now favor further restrictions of one sort or another.

Of course, if we put all Constitutional rights to a vote, we'd be at risk of losing most of them, which is why we passed a Bill of Rights in this country in the first place.

-app

[uponit7771]

12. Un, the question is how many agree that we have a right to own weapons of war. I know

...its a loaded question but it reveals a lot IMHO

[Initech]

5. Because owning a gun is a right, yo! It says in my pocket constitution...

"Shall not be infringed!!!!!!!".

[Skittles]

8. I have zero respect for gun humping piece of shit COWARDS

they can all FUCK THEMSELVES

[hunter]

10. I suspect the gun humpers are minorities even within their own communities.

We have to empower the people suffering in those communities to speak out.

Gun fetishes are dangerous.

Why should I "respect" gun fetishes any more than I'd respect domestic abuse or sexual harassment?

"You know we love you, honey, but it's us or your guns."

Gun fetishes are disgusting.

[Dawson Leery]

11. This is the history of the world.

The traditionalists are always expecting those who they disagree with to just go along.

Respect for the progressive side is never to be had.

Since when were machine guns "a way of life"?

They did not exist until the 1900.