Frustration because the same people who are so quick to yell "murder" regarding abortion are often also quick to defend the right to own guns, no matter how many people, including children are murdered.
It's been suggested that the anti-choicers care about unwanted babies until they're born, but don't want to fund services for them once they're actual out-of-the-womb people.
In any case.
It was foolish of me to put them together, no matter how stupid I think it is that both of these things are true at the same time. Because though it got a bunch of retweets, it also garnered me some attention from both gun owners and anti-choicers. Because, duh, lemongloria, "murder is illegal, and dismembering babies should be."
That was a popular one. A number of these people seem to support Ted Cruz. Anyway, now I know who some of the Ted Cruzers are.
I texted Rachel, who is a social media and women's rights expert, and asked what to say in response to the first person about dismemberment of the unborn.
She gave me a suggestion, and then reminded me that you don't have to say anything. Unless you want to be in a back-and-forth all day.
I most certainly did not. I said nothing. I responded not at all.
As my dear friend Mark Bennett said some years ago (and I still refer to this list on the regular), "If you don't have to deal with a crazy person, don't."
Sometimes I remember this advice and sometimes I unfortunately do not.
Someone also called me a racist, suggesting I want to take guns away from black people and make them unable to defend their families.
What? I want to take guns away from everyone. So that nobody can attack anyone else with a gun.
Not all anti-choicers are crazy, but it is true that we will never agree. So I did not engage.
Not all gun owners are crazy, but we don't keep the crazy ones from owning guns.
And the argument that you need a gun to defend yourself from an intruder? If your intruder doesn't have a gun, why do you need one?
After Sandy Hook, I was naively sure that things would change. How could anyone defend gun ownership when so many children had been killed?
But nothing changed.
My friend Wendy said, "Once we decided that slaughtering children was unworthy of action, it was over."
I hate to agree, but I think I have to.
And I'm sticking to tweeting about my kids. I'm just not a controversial person.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell said! Sometimes it feels like the power of the NRA is so overwhelming, and the movement toward common sense is so slow, if non-existent, that it is easy to quit fighting. Like drowning, they say its easier once you quit struggling. The problem is, then you die. We have to keep fighting, even if they are little battles. We need more blogs like this. And there are other, small ways, to effect change. Like telling your friends who have guns in the house that, "I love you, but my children can never come to your house". Or getting involved in your children's schools to make sure the crazy voices calling for teachers to be armed are not the only voices being heard.
ReplyDeleteOh, thank you. I feel like other people could word this better, but I just feel so angry and powerless about the whole thing. It is true, you are right. If you quit the struggle then you die. And we need to make our voices heard. It just seems pretty hopeless at the moment.
DeleteThank you for putting yourself out there and I'm sorry you were harassed for your views. This whole situation is insane and we're all feeling a little out of control and hopeless.
ReplyDeleteI think if you put stuff out on the Internet, you have to be open to people disliking it. I'd never tweeted anything contentious beforre, nor had I had anything retweeted more than a couple times. So my audience has been very small and like-minded.
DeleteA... racist..? I just.. what?
ReplyDeleteI'm fairly used to getting yelled at by anti-choice folks and I'm fairly able to let their "arguments" wash over me without provoking a reaction, but HONESTLY. This is just.. what. No. I'm sorry you were attacked. Your tweet is highly sane and rational, in my opinion.
Thank you! It's just random and weird, right? It makes no sense.
DeleteHypocritical statements coming from those whom don't understand their responses and how it impacts their own lives too. Point in case, here's one for you: a co-worker with Native American ancestry (distantly) accused another co-worker of being an "Indian giver".
ReplyDeleteBlogging comes with a certain territory of attack (for lack of a better word) from those whom don't agree, however, it shouldn't stop you from voicing the opinion of the 'other side'. Please, don't stop posting your thoughts; your opinions eco the thoughts of your followers.
Wow, I haven't heard the term "Indian giver" in forever!
DeleteI will keep blogging but I'm going to keep Twitter posts uncontroversial, I think. It's a broader potential audience.
Lisa as a gun owner, I don't think taking guns away from everyone is the right solution. Admittedly, I'm biased having grown up hunting and shooting. However, I'm also not a member of the NRA (I'm a former member) as I believe they are way off the mark and do not believe they want to be part of any solution that regulates guns. They in fact are downright militant and irrational in their literature. I hunt, but mostly I shoot trap and skeet, shoot Sporting Clay and occasionally target shoot. My position on gun ownership is this. Gun owners have a responsibility to ensure that their guns are secured and stored appropriately, and this includes ammunition. I have no objections to legislation that would mandate that I have my guns secured appropriately, and that there are consequences if they are not. Why don't I object? Because a responsible gun owner already should be doing this; however, there are a lot of irresponsible ones, and thus having legislation that mandates this is necessary. BTW for those that argue that they need a gun for home defense, guess what you still can. There are very effective quick access solutions that wouldn't impede your ability to retrieve a gun and use it, if you needed to. I have no objection to registering my guns, though many I know would think I'm nuts for having this position. I have no issue with background checks and other requirements to own a gun. Now many gun owners will argue this is restricting gun ownership and that having guns regulated is a violation of our Constitutional Rights; however, I would say, you are allowing individuals to own guns providing they meet certain criteria. It is clear to me that felons, those with severe mental issues and others who have indicated they want to harm others shouldn't own guns, and we need to find a way to effectively identify these individuals and prevent them from owning and purchasing guns. I believe your mental status should be a factor in gun ownership. For example, someone with severe memory loss or advance Alzheimer’s probably should own a gun or be allowed to freely access guns without supervision if they are already a gunowner. Finally, you will always have a black market for guns, and that will not go away, thus if an individual really wants a gun, they will get one illegally; however, we could and we should make the punishment for guns that are obtained illegally very severe.
ReplyDeleteWhy are there so few voices raised in support of this type of responsibility?
DeleteChris, thank you so much for your thoughtful and thought-provoking message. I really appreciate you taking the time to articulate this. I think your position is completely reasonable and logical. It is, of course, much more nuanced than just taking all guns away from everyone. After I wrote this I realized that I have some friends with guns--really smart, responsible people, people I would trust to have a gun. People like you, who hunt, and others, who I think in fact have handguns. People who are nothing like the lady whose kid accidentally shot himself with her handgun that was in her open purse at Walmart. Stringent regulation of them, and much more difficulty in acquiring them such as you are proposing, and strict punishment for illegal guns, all of those things seem to me like they would make our society much safer. I don't know how we identify those who are likely to harm others and prevent them from acquiring them, but generally making guns much tougher to purchase would I think help with this.
DeleteAustralia mandates most of the above and although there is certainly a black market, it has not led to crazy criminals running with handguns down the streets of Sydney (although the naysayers warned that would happen when these restrictive laws came in). And we haven;t had a mass shotting since 1996 (the POrt Arthur massacre that led to the new laws). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia.
ReplyDeleteNicole (not Big D!...must change that one day!)
Hi Nicole! The Big D always makes me laugh. I'm glad to hear this about Australia. I feel like there are so many countries with laws that we could model ours after. But people here get all up in arms about the right to bear arms. Plus the gun lobby has SO MUCH MONEY.
DeleteI want to give these people sending snarky remarks to you a talking to!
ReplyDeleteI would really like to hear you give someone a talking-to, Heather!
Delete