But Where Will You Go When You Leave?
South Carolina lawmakers threaten to secede from the Union — again!
First off, the political menacing by South Carolina lawmakers, Rep. Mike Pitts, Rep. Jonathan Hill, and Rep. Ashley Trantham have little to no basis in plausible reasoning. What seemingly is an empty threat could very well be a form of extortion that perverts the democratic process of deliberation and debate by the premise of the argument they put forth. There should be a special ballot on the issue of 1)the validity of legally purchased firearms, 2)the soundness of a federal program that would warrant confiscation of legally purchased firearms.
The results of this special ballot would provide logical support for the conclusion of South Carolina seceding from the United States.
Even more menacing but conspicuously missing is newly elected Rep. Ralph Norman, who actually pulled out a loaded 38-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun at a diner that held a town hall styled meeting with constituents to make an obtuse point in defense of guns.
“I pulled it out to make a point that guns don’t shoot,” he said. “People shoot.” Norman is “tired of the guns being blamed.”
“I’m not going to be a Gabby Giffords,”
“I don’t mind dying, but whoever shoots me better shoot well or I’m shooting back.”
Now what makes Norman’s reasonings implausible or better yet idiotic is that it presupposes that any gun control measure proposed on actual human beings is the result of guns being blamed for homicides via gun violence. I am not sure if it’s the semantics that is causing the confusion here, but guns are inanimate objects. Since guns are inanimate objects there is little reason to defend them. The personification of guns in this instance is lunacy. Defending guns in this way is basically an exercise in anthropomorphizing guns. Our reality is not cartoon-based.
But if you want to promote domestic tranquility by defending the people (which in essence is what politicians are elected to do)— innocent victims of gun violence, children, people who don’t want to use guns or have no desire to use guns, people who don’t like guns, or people who love guns, people who don’t want to use them to kill other human beings, and wouldn’t contemplate misusing guns, people who actually use them for sport, and people who use them in the face of imminent danger, then defending all of these people and not guns — or its personifications, would be plausible.
Now If only humans were given that much empathy as the gun does in these debates then the world would be a better place.
Guns in the hands of criminals should relatively be a difficult feat to accomplish in comparison to guns being in the hands of responsible, sound-minded gun owners. But to hear this elected official tell it, you would think they are one and the same to which many, many rational gun owners would disagree.
There you go…