In the days since the high school attack in Parkland, Florida, rhetoric about guns has ramped up to a fever pitch, but nothing has come close to what happened in reaction to a Dec. 28 report on firearms and self-defense in the U.S. during 2017, sent by an unidentified anti-gunner.
The message in response to the article was short and ugly:
Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?
Guns are an emotional subject, some suggest they are even toxic. But the tone of the message signals just how extreme the gun control crowd can get. A few years ago, CFL’s Joe Newby received a message from one person who advocated the extermination of National Rifle Association members.
This raises a question about gun control advocates. How can you have a rational conversation with someone who wants you dead?
It also reveals something about the anti-gun mindset. They’re okay to have someone else do their killing for them. They seem to be a bit squeamish about doing the job, themselves.
Various gun control groups have labeled themselves as “gun safety” or “gun responsibility” organizations, but that simply masks what they are after: Gun control, or in the case of some lobbying groups, outright gun bans, particularly on so-called “assault weapons,” which are semi-auto lookalikes of military firearms, but in actuality are modern sporting rifles.
All of this has come bubbling up in the aftermath of the Florida tragedy. Emotions are running high, and so are blood pressures.
But it’s been our experience that the only people who wish death on their opponents come from the anti-gun side of the debate.