The state of Texas has been rocked to its core by the shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde. There’s no mystery why a lot of people are upset.
However, most lawmakers in the state aren’t suddenly shifting with the currents like a windsock at the airport. They’re holding firm to what they think is the right way forward.
That’s a problem for anti-gun lawmakers in the state, though, and some will say anything they can to try and force their colleagues to change their minds.
With the Lone Star State suffering mass shootings with what some call “numbing regularity”, Democratic lawmakers are proposing what they see as “common sense” measures to reduce the number of gun deaths.
“This has to stop. We have to stop the bleeding,” said Houston State Senator Carol Alvarado.
…
Among the control measures – increasing the age from 18 to 21 for the purchase of semi-automatic rifles, a “Red-Flag” law to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable, a 72-hour “cooling off” period after buying a firearm, and a mandatory background check for all gun sales.
“The fact that we are sitting here and have the ability to do something to help their grieving and to help stop the mass shooting and we don’t do anything, that’s on us,” said Alvarado.
That is absolutely disgusting.
First, let’s understand that this whole line of “reasoning,” if we can even call it that, is predicated in part on the assumption that everyone actually thinks gun control works, particularly these bills, they’re just not going along with it for whatever reason.
I assure Mrs. Alvarado, we do not.
Yet what bothers me most is this whole guilt trip he engaged in to try and pressure his colleagues. The parents are grieving and they can somehow help simply by forfeiting people’s rights?
Holy crap, that is both the worst argument I’ve ever seen and the most vile.
It’s an attempt at emotional blackmail. “How dare you! You could have eased their suffering if you weren’t such a cold, heartless bastard!”
Again, it’s disgusting.
Imagine the outrage if a lawmaker pushing an anti-abortion bill used a similar talking point. “These parents here lost their daughter when she died after having an abortion. The fact that we are sitting here and have the ability to do something to help their grieving and we won’t do anything, that’s on us.”
There would probably be rioting in the streets over the comment, yet for those who want to see gun control and would lose their minds at my hypothetical example, how is it any different? How?
No, Alvarado made her comment and no one will hold her accountable for it. Even if there was no counterpoint to provide, it wouldn’t somehow make his comments accurate or forgivable.
We do not give up our rights to appease someone’s grieving. We may sympathize with their loss, as we should, but that doesn’t give anyone license to run rampant over our right to keep and bear arms.
And emotional blackmail won’t change that.