Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "James O'Brien's shock at gun-wielding congressman and family | LBC" video.
-
@julianturner6337 : They don’t even interpret the 2nd Amendment correctly anyway, let alone the, “spirit,” in which it was intended. Even that Amendment has checks and balances written into it. But, we’re talking about a class of people who will un-ironically argue that their constitution cannot be interfered with at any level. When you’re explaining to them what the term, “Amendment,” means, it will quickly become apparent to you that you actually know more about their country, their history, legal definitions and basic grammar than they ever will.
I can respect the ones who just admit that they love their guns and don’t want to give up their favourite hobby because of a minority of psychopaths and criminals. But those people are generally open to legislation that makes background checks, banning of gun ownership among felons and other basic safety regulations mandatory. It’s actually the politicians, who use specious arguments, distorted and irrelevant statistics and just lies, who worry me far more. They have been paid by the gun lobbies and have access to mountains of research and lawyers to back them up, and still cannot make a, “logical,” argument. But they would shoot your grandmother in the face and rely on all that money to avoid jail after the fact. THAT’s the criminal minority we should all fear.
7
-
Yeah, that’s probably exactly what they would say if you asked them, too. The answer to this question is one of text and subtext: The card is, “supposed to tell you,” that they are sensible, “responsible,” gun owners, who can defang the dark side of public opinion by showing a family, “responsibly,” sharing their love of guns in the manner of a hobbyist, who has found an interest in which the whole family can share. “You too can bond with your kids over your shared love of home defence and your Constitutional, ‘rights,’ and Merry Christmas. Guns are wholesome.”
But the subtext is also clear. And that subtext is spoken out loud as the very motto of the National Rifle Association, and it’s an implied threat. “We are not helpless, indeed, we are dangerous. And you’ll have to take our weapons from our cold, dead hands.” Making it uniquely sinister.
British people are probably more mindful of the child abuse aspects and the hopelessness of reforming a country that legalises such deep indoctrination. Whereas American eyes, from more, “liberal minded,” states, probably just see an answer to the ongoing pressure in politics to reform gun laws, and hear the resounding, “No,” from Nashville.
In Britain, the parent who sent that picture around as a Christmas card, would be facing a prison sentence and have his kids promptly whisked away by the local authorities. In Nashville, they made him a Congressman. And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference between, “two nations separated by a common language.”
I will lose sleep because of that picture of the frightened, grieving child on the bus, and I wasn’t even in the same country, let alone, “responsible,” for local legislation.
4
-
@r0smor : You’re a genius. Seriously. It’s smart to want to understand rather than simply condemn out of hand. Indeed, we’ve seen that the head on, oppositional approach does not work. Moreover, it plays into the hands of the gun lobbies, who will scream, “They’re coming to take your guns,” as a response to ANY liberal legislation, let alone legislation that actually addresses gun control.
The first thing to understand is that it’s already too late. Depending on which statistics you believe, there are anywhere from two to five guns for every American in that country. So even a universally supported ban on guns would not get them out of the country now. That is not to suggest that effective, common sense measures cannot be of use. Far from it.
But to really get to grips with it, we have to address what we’re really dealing with: BIG BUSINESS. The two most toxic and difficult to challenge elements of America’s gun problem are the Politics and the MONEY. You are dealing with incredibly wealthy people, who use branding, advertising and all of the social media techniques, that are employed legitimately and nefariously, that people like Putin and Xi use for disinformation purposes in very similar ways. Lobbying to the point of corruption; advertising to the point of disinformation; infiltration to the point of spy craft.
Therefore, in an environment where common sense is not enough and hearts and minds are encouraged to be polarised, the first and most important step to taking away the gun lobby’s power is, “empathy.” They don’t just want to polarise the debate, but NEED everyone to be entrenched and in opposite camps.
Shocking incidents like this school shooting actually HELP the gun lobbies, because the arguments always get too extreme for any common ground to be reached. The VERY LAST THING that the gun lobbies want is for smart people like you to start stepping into no man’s land, meeting people from the other side and finding common ground.
But, if they are to be defeated at all, that is where they will fall, in the quiet, sensible spaces between the battle lines. Seriously. You made the best, smartest comment I’ve read all day on this. ✌️
4
-
The answer to this question is one of text and subtext: The card is, “supposed to tell you,” that they are sensible gun owners, who can defang the dark side of public opinion by showing a family, “responsibly,” sharing their love of guns as a hobbyist, who has found an interest in which the whole family can share. “You too can bond with your kids over your shared love of home defence and your Constitutional, ‘rights,’ and Merry Christmas. Guns are wholesome.”
But the subtext is also clear. And that subtext is spoken out loud as the very motto of the National Rifle Association, and it’s an implied threat. “We are not helpless, indeed, we are dangerous. And you’ll have to take our weapons from our cold, dead hands.” Making it uniquely sinister.
British people are probably more mindful of the child abuse aspects and the hopelessness of reforming a country that legalises such deep indoctrination. Whereas American eyes, from more, “liberal minded,” states, probably just see an answer to the ongoing pressure in politics to reform gun laws, and hear the resounding, “No,” from Nashville.
In Britain, the parent who sent that picture around as a Christmas card, would be facing a prison sentence and have his kids promptly whisked away by the local authorities. In Nashville, they made him a Congressman. And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference between, “two nations separated by a common language.”
I will lose sleep because of that picture of the frightened, grieving child on the bus, and I wasn’t even in the same country, let alone, “responsible,” for local legislation.
1
-
1