As we all know, there is a debate raging about gun control
in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and scores of others
around the country lately. But things keep getting stuck due to disagreements
over what is to blame for our culture of gun violence, as well as what the
limits of the Second Amendment are, and what this means for gun control. Most
people in favor of gun control claim the NRA is blocking all progress, but
that’s not the case. In fact, the NRA has offered a simple solution to this
whole conundrum.
The NRA’s solution to the gun control impasse is this: They
suggest having a big gunfight over the issue, with the two sides facing off
against one another, and whoever wins the gunfight gets to set policy on gun
control.
Now, doesn’t that sound fair? And doesn’t it make sense that
if their right to bear arms is going to be infringed upon that they’d want to
“go out in a blaze of glory”? (Darn you, Bon Jovi, for starting this whole
glorification-of-gun-violence thing with your song: “Blaze of Glory”!) After
all, they keep on saying they’ll give up their gun when it gets pried from
their cold, dead hand. So this offer has apparently been there all the time.
And as such, how can anyone reasonably claim they’re not offering potential
solutions?
And wouldn’t a big gunfight over gun control be super cool?
I mean, it’d be just like in all those movies, video games, and salacious news
reports! Only it would be real! And
think of the irony! (And the hot lead-y.) But then again, I suppose the gun
nuts would claim that it’s hypocritical for the gun control side to use guns,
since they want to ban them, so maybe they’d have to use something else; like
invective, for instance.
(Just kidding! Nobody’s really offering solutions on the
impasse.)
