Take Washington Post writer Jennifer Rubin, who recently used her column to criticize “Republican Second Amendment absolutists.” Claiming the GOP should “address…guns,” Rubin condemns politicians who refuse to talk about “concrete, reasonable measures to reduce gun violence.” She accuses such politicians of “craven hypocrisy,” and implores lawmakers to “discover a sense of moral obligation” and show “concern and legislative determination” on the topic of gun control.
Notably missing from this column is—wait for it—any specific proposal for “concrete, reasonable measures to reduce gun violence.” It’s not there. There’s not even a vague proposal, not even a half-hearted gesture toward anything resembling a proposal. Generally, if one is seeking a legislative change, one tends to have an idea of what that change would actually be.
This is a perennial feature of gun-control partisans: a great deal of blustery talk about “moral obligation” with virtually no meaningful ideas as to what we are supposed to, you know, do about gun violence.
It’s Time For Gun Controllers To Put Up Or Shut Up
Generally, if one is seeking a legislative change, one tends to have an idea of what that change would actually be. Not U.S. gun controllers.
Notably missing from this column is—wait for it—any specific proposal for “concrete, reasonable measures to reduce gun violence.” It’s not there. There’s not even a vague proposal, not even a half-hearted gesture toward anything resembling a proposal. Generally, if one is seeking a legislative change, one tends to have an idea of what that change would actually be.
This is a perennial feature of gun-control partisans: a great deal of blustery talk about “moral obligation” with virtually no meaningful ideas as to what we are supposed to, you know, do about gun violence.
It’s Time For Gun Controllers To Put Up Or Shut Up
Generally, if one is seeking a legislative change, one tends to have an idea of what that change would actually be. Not U.S. gun controllers.
