December 19, 2012


Facebook is calming a bit, but one locution is going to drive me mad <groucho_voice>...and I could walk!</groucho_voice>

I think ThreeSourcers might get a kick out of this Coffee Party USA piece in its entirety, but I wanted to discuss:

Dear friends who think we need more guns in the classroom to protect our children: Why stop at arming teachers? Why not arm children? How far will you go in thinking that easy access to guns is the solution to the problem of gun violence in our society? Do you want any regulation at all? Do you want buying assault rifles to be as easy as getting a Slurpee from 7-11? Would you allow children to purchase guns? Do you really think easy access to combat weapons is about personal freedom? Do you really think that's what founding fathers had in mind when they made enormous sacrifices to build America? I can't understand how you're thinking about this.

Yeah! Huh? What about it? Knuckle-draggers! What say you?

I just wanted to share that -- but the phrase which is used elsewhere less aggressively is "arming teachers." As if we are going to make it mandatory: Israeli boot camp, them a county-issued AK-47. A $100 fine if you forget to bring it to work.

I know I am asking a lot of decency from the opposition, but I really want them to admit that the idea is to allow those who legally carry and feel comfortable to behave at work as they would behave at home or at the mall. This brings the percentage of armed teachers from zero to > 0 -- pari passu the potential risk of return fire to weenie adolescents. Same as the Mall, same as the street. Uncertainty protects those not packin'.

Gun Rights Posted by John Kranz at December 19, 2012 4:45 PM

And to think I was called an extremist on Facebook today. Is there no middle ground between "absolutely none" and "everyone's packin'?" Forget fifty, that is 79.2 million shades of gray.

Posted by: johngalt at December 19, 2012 6:09 PM

I'll go a little farther, order:

Yes, Why? Do you mean 19-year-olds, they shoot mortars in the Army, y'know. Pretty dern far. Yes, we shouldn't force anyone to carry. You can't buy "assault rifles" right out of a gun shop now, schmuck. No, the question shows your stupidity, or your insincerity. Hell, yes! Double hell, yes!

And finally, I CAN understand how they're thinking. That's the difference; they don't understand us, we understand them, and disagree.

You're welcome.

Posted by: Ellis Wyatt at December 19, 2012 8:48 PM

"I can't understand how you're thinking about this"

Clearly the author isn't even bothering to try. Do people even read what they write?

Posted by: Terri at December 20, 2012 8:01 AM

The author is founder of "The Coffee Party" and I can almost forgive that terrible expropriation. The tenor, tone, and content are what I would expect.

I'm far more troubled by the poster. He's a PhD, used to work for me, super bright, very nice, capable of measured and reasoned debate. I asked whether -- like the author -- he had been shouted down, told to shut up or called names by his Facebook friends.

No but "I think she did a nice job with some of the arguments I've read out there, which is why I reposted."

Sign me up with @Terri: I don't see any clever arguments in the whole piece; it is just a series of strawman attacks.

And thanks @Ellis. But do we get credit? We have to understand them, their side is pushed in our face 23 1/2 hours a day (Only a brief respite on 3src or Ruminants...)

Posted by: jk at December 20, 2012 9:05 AM | What do you think? [4]