For Generation Narcissus, Every Opponent is Hitler and Every Conflict is WWII

What a great country.  Where else can you go to see allegedly mature adults respond to the slaughter of a classroom full of six year olds by uniting to compare one another to Hitler.

Obama, of course, is Hitler because he dictatorially confiscated all our guns signed a small fraction of the Executive orders Bush 43 signed to do a few modest changes in our gun policies–JUST LIKE HITLER DID!

And if you still don’t believe he’s HITLER and STALIN put together, here’s the proof:

Not to be outdone in this spectacle of sobriety of civil discourse, CBS’ Bob Schieffer compares the NRA to the Nazis and the signing of a few modest tweaks in our gun policy to the epic struggle to destroy the Third Reich. Oh, and the hunt for bin Laden too. Cuz he’s evil too.

Ever since “Saving Private Ryan” came out, it’s like Baby Boomers–having spent their youth in the struggle to get laid, smoke pot, and obsess over their portfolios and the right to consequence-free sex–have known that, compared to what their parents achieved (enduring the Depression, defeating the two worst tyrannies in history, sacrificially giving their ungrateful narcissistic kids the best standard of living in history, passing the Civil Rights Act, and putting man on the moon to boot), they have done nothing but earn their well-deserved reputation as Generation Narcissus. Rankling under the awareness of their deep self-absorbed moral inferiority to their parents, they now compare every trivial thing they do to DEFEATING HITLER!!!! in a particularly ridiculous attempt to compensate for their failure to measure up.

Dudes. Instead of pretending every opponent is Hitler and everything is always the moral equivalent of World War II, try just taking it small, offering little sacrifices, and not always having one eye on the mirror when you strike your pose of courage.

  • http://agapas.me Bob LeBlanc

    It seems that moral relativism has also had a hand in this. It’s no longer enough to say this is bad or good, or to say that act is morally wrong or morally good. These reduce to mere subjective opinions, which cause other people to shrug their shoulders and say, “so what?”

    In order to say that something is objectively evil, one must grab onto the only objective evil that the culture will agree on. Only Hitler and the Nazis are evil. Because Hitlers and Nazis were racist, then racists are also evil. And so, lacking the ability to talk about evil (or wrong) in any other way, the necessarily will resort to finding some connection to Hitler and the Nazis. It’s their only way of saying something is objectively wrong, or to underline their hatred of something.

    • Mark Shea

      Spot on. And since normal people can see that neither the NRA nor Obama map to “HITLER!!!!!” all that well, their apologists can then say, “Not Hitler. Therefore, there is no problem here.” We have an astonishingly impoverished level of moral discourse, made stupid, in large degree, by Baby Boomers themselves.

  • IB Bill

    Well, it’s easier than saying, you’re just like Napoleon.

    • Stu

      I always thought the President more like Kip.

  • Janet O’Connor

    Actually it is not just Hitler and the Nazi Party that portray Evil but also the Red Menace of Atheistic Communism that still dominates China, North Korea, And in the former Soviet Union. They have had more people (their opponents) killed then the Nazis could in a decade and a half.The carinal Mindzenty Society sends me their monthly newsletter and last fall they out what they think is the root cause of all the problems in our Nation and Western Society today is Marxist Communism and its little brother Socialism or the Pinkos. They claim the Manifesto put out in 1848 called for everything we are now undergoing in the West as far as Life, Marriage and Family go and it appeared to make sense.They also mention the public school system and the Federal Reserve Board. It may not be that but the tactics used to “force” Coerce” or “mandate comes pretty close to me. It moved from the Soviet Union to the West after the late eighties and early nineties.

  • http://manwithblackhat.blogspot.com/ David L Alexander

    Before the knee-jerk reactions kick in (and we hear them in the distance), it is reasonable to expect that President Obama doesn’t own all the blame for “being Hitler.” We’ve been headed in that direction ever since 9-11. The Patriot Act led the way to a total disregard for the Fourth Amendment, and there is little if any causal relationship between that legislation and feeling any safer today.

    Obama didn’t sit back and allow the death of Terri Schiavo, a total violation of Federal law (Title 28 35.130(e)(2)) prohibiting the refusal of food and water. His brother was not a governor who enabled a violation of Florida law (765.309) prohibiting euthanasia. His father never said that Saddam Hussein was “worse than Hitler” only a few years after giving “Hitler” military aid against Iran, part of the effort by the US to play two countries off against one another for over half a century. Obama won’t be touted at Catholic prayer breakfasts by obsequious “conservatives” for being “pro-life” while support embryonic stem cell research.

    Obama is guilty of being what we want him to be, presiding over a nation no longer under the rule of law, as opposed to the whims of men. It was already thus by the time he walked into the Oval Office. If he’s going to be labeled “Hitler,” let us recall that he became one by the same means as the original.

    He was elected.

  • http://yardsaleofthemind.wordpress.com/ Joseph Moore

    How can we call them the “Greatest Generation” when all they were able to raise were a bunch of hippies? I’d push it back a generation (at least) to people who could raise up sons and daughters willing to die to stop the H-Man.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      My Mom, God rest her soul, was a member of that generation. She blamed Dr. Spock for the spoiled state of the Boomers.

    • Dan C

      My mother and father were part of that generation. Each said that WW2 and the Depression left a very damaged group of adults. My mother had a very difficult time finding a suitable man to marry, noting the veterans returning were hurt and damaged men. She had three brothers, two were severely injured, one with lifetime consequent anxiety problems.

      I lived with her parents growing up. They too were proud of the work of their chrildren and that generation, but reckoned the enormous damage and toll it took on the entire generation. My grandfather, a veteran of WW1 said the same of his generation-impressively wounded metally and spiritually by war.

      My father was grateful he saw little combat in his service in China in the Navy.

      He noted the men behaved in dishonorable fashion on leave with women as a rule and that the life of the service man was not a highly moral one in WW2.

      I think that attempts to lay the blame of an entire genetation on Dr. Spock’s door fails to note the sexual and alxoholic excess of WW2 servicemen, their combat stressors, and consequent mental health problems.

      Blaming a liberal though seems be easy. One liberal, did it all.

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        Well, Dr. Spock was very popular with parents back then so he wasn’t exactly a nobody. He was quite influential on how many generations were raised. My Mom certainly did not make up that charge against Dr. Spock, either. The late Norman Vincent Peale was probably the first to say it; she may have heard it from him.

      • http://yardsaleofthemind.wordpress.com/ Joseph Moore

        “The Best Years of Our Lives” touched on the suffering of WWII vets coming home, and won 7 Oscars in 1947. It’s an often painful movie to watch, I can only imagine what it felt like to people at the time.

        It just seems this whole “Greatest Generation” thing is meant to cow us and make us feel bad, and not, instead, inspire us to sympathy and generosity toward the subsequent *failures* of that generation. Chief of which is raising up those hippies mentioned above, under whose tender ministrations we got the botched V-II implementation, the ‘Greed is Good’ era, free love & the attendant abortion holocaust and all that other stuff that led up to what our host calls Generation Narcissus. Is all this the fault of the Greatest Generation? Who knows, but if they get the credit for winning the war, it seems only fair they step up for the blame of raising these children. (I’m 54, BTW – older siblings were hippies – largely dodged that bullet)

        My father was an expert welder, and therefore spent the war here, building and patching up stuff, but several uncles saw combat. My father in law, may he rest in peace, was seriously changed by his service – he was involved in liberating some of the death camps. His mother used to say that he left a happy boy, and came back a sad man. He definitely had trouble relating to his wife and children. So, yes, I got to see the damage up close a bit, and yes, I sympathize. And I doubt I could have done better – in fact, I’m pretty sure that combat would have destroyed me, if I managed to live through it.

  • Izzy

    Schieffer needs to retire. That was embarrassing.

    i watched an old documentary on Hitler and it was surprising to see that are similarities in how both practice a cult of personality, aided and abetted by a compliant and uncritical media. We only have to think of all the “halo” pictures of Obama, his absurdly egotistical statements and constant use of the word “I”, to see this. Both were apparently lazy also, incapable of any office work, and instead engaged in constant self-promotion on the road. Both constantly advocated a welfare state and heavy “investment” in infrastructure to keep themselves popular. Obama shows no signs of super race delusions, though he has displayed a shocking disregard for innocent human life at its earlier stages. Both seem to despise the Catholic Church.

    So not the same, but we’d be kidding ourselves not to see areas of similarity.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    Here’s the thing: Obama isn’t suggesting taking away anybody’s guns. How is that getting lose in all the rhetoric?

    He is suggesting banning certain assault rifles. And you know what? I have no problem with that. If my governor comes out tomorrow and says, “We don’t want people driving tanks and Formula 1 race cars on the city streets,” I’m not going to come out and say, “The governor wants to take away our cars!”

    The NRA is nothing like the Nazis. What they do remind me of is the tobacco lobby, in that they have a point that they exaggerate into utter nonsense.

  • Izzy

    I hear you Mark but the issue is the government, HSA, FBI, NSA, everyone else in the government will keep their assault weapons. since the primary purpose of the 2d amendment was/is to defend against government tyranny, one can see how an assault weapon versus a pistol is no contest. whether wielded by a tyrannical government in the future or a drug dealer. at least that is the view of the NRA and 2d amendment group. that is how the troops out west and down south see this. and we do have plenty of examples of republics degenerating into tyrannical regimes once a ruling class gets ensconced in their positions and can’t give them up else their lives lose all meaning.

    • Mark S. (not for Shea)

      That argument might have made sense in the 18th century when the tyrannical government was a 2 month boat ride away. But if the Second Amendment guarantees private citizens the right to bear arms capable of resisting the government, then we all need drones, tanks, and heat seeking missiles. Sorry, but that argument just doesn’t hold water for me.

      I’m all for private gun ownership. But there needs to be a limit on the types of guns people can have in my neighborhood, and it would be great if we had laws ensuring the folks owning guns have all the safety training necessary. We have more laws on owning and operating an automobile than we do an semi-automatic weapons. That’s crazy.

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        Why? The last few enemies that have whupped our butts had none of those things. Assuming our armies would even fire on us, being made up of volunteers and all, there’s nothing from the last 50 years that suggests small arms and improvised weapons are anything but the best way to take out our forces.

      • Izzy

        Well you could take that argument to total absurdity and say we all need atomic bombs too. And barring that, we should completely disarm since we can’t defend against that.

        Turning tanks and drones on the populace is, hopefully, far off in the future. But that’s not an argument for letting the public have little tiny guns, why our government overlords have automatic weapons, tasers, concussion grenades, etc.

        • Mark S. (not for Shea)

          I find the entire argument absurd. It made sense in the 18th century. But not today.

          I’m all for private gun ownership, for protection, hunting, and simply because the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible law-abiding citizens. But suggesting their ought to be sane limits and regulations on gun ownership (doesn’t that crafty old Second Amendment mention “well-regulated”?) isn’t tantamount to flag burning. It’s just common sense.

          If you need more than six bullets to defend your home or kill a deer, you don’t need a 50-round clip. You need target practice. ;)

          • Izzy

            I can’t agree with that at all. There was just a case 2 days of ago of a woman who fired 6 shots at an intruder, hit him 5 times, and he still managed to move around and escape. When an invasion happens, you are shaking. Your accuracy will be impaired. To say “5″ bullets only is exactly the kind of nonsense we get when gun grabbers go to Washington and try to foist their creeping confiscation agenda on the country. Mark, also, what if 3 criminals invaded your home, and you had 5 rounds???? Are you joking? Are you going to throw the gun at one of them when you run out?

            • Mark S. (not for Shea)

              If 3 crooks invade my home and I have 5 bullets, then I’ll have 2 bullets left over. After that, there’s always the Louisville slugger or the ball peen hammer.

              As for the woman, if you’re referring to this case: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/georgia-mom-shoots-home-intruder-face-article-1.1234400, then he fled, leaving the woman and her children unharmed Mission accomplished. 12 more bullets wouldn’t have made him run any faster.

              Honestly though, if a person has the proper training, safeguards, and insurance, I don’t have a huge problem with the 12 round clips. It’s the reality that any yahoo with a yankering for a gun can pick one up with very little inconvenience.

              I don’t mind private citizens flying airplanes — as long as they have been thoroughly trained and licensed. Same principle applies.

              • Stu

                If under duress, you take out three invaders with three shots, then you are a superstar of the highest level. The police aren’t even near that accurate in a shoot out.

                • Kenneth

                  They only people at serious risk of having three or more invaders are people who play games with other people’s drugs or money.

                  • Izzy

                    Kenneth you need to read the newspaper more. Ever hear of the Cheshire home invasion? Two ex convicts raped and murdered a wife and her two daughters (3 people), and the father. That’s 2 invaders and 3 people killed. Were the girls and mother “playing games with drugs or other peoples’ money’? Tell that to the father and you will need a handgun to protect yourself.

                    • Kenneth

                      As horrific as that is, it doesn’t contradict my point. I’ll never be in danger of winning the Fields Medal, but I know enough math to say 2 is not 3.

                  • Stu

                    More likely than being in a massacre, yet you want all manner of new legislation passed for the latter.

                    • Kenneth

                      I want just enough legislation that I don’t feel like I’m making it pathetically easy for criminals and psychotics to arm themselves. I want to feel like we’re at least trying to thwart them, not permissively or actively subsidizing their evil. I have no illusions that we can stop all of them, but when one gets through, I want to have gotten through because they were extraordinarily resourceful and determined or because we got extraordinarily unlucky that day.

                      I’m tired of seeing people, mostly kids, die by the tens of thousands each year out of our collective stupidity and negligence. I’m mostly tired of a political culture which works to define this slaughter as normal and inevitable in order to preserve some illusion of military parity with our own government and to out-shoot a criminal class who we helped arm in the first place.

                      I don’t want all manner of legislation. I want intelligent legislation, and more than that, I want a political climate in which we can have serious debates on the 99% of ground that lies between the NRA and the hardcore gun control lobby.

                    • Stu

                      Kenneth,

                      As I have said with a few posters on this, I really can’t help your feelings and nor will I try.

                      I’m actually interested in focused measures that target real and measurable objectives with a focus on those who engage in illegal activity; something which has been lacking both in past measures, current measures and most discourse. That’s the sort of reasonable approach that most people want, not the layers of new regulations, increased government intrusion into the lives of law-abiding citizens and banning willy-nilly of firearms with no defendable rationale.

              • Beccolina

                I can’t believe I’m going to jump into this again.
                I would rather see something like a firearms license required for purchasing a gun, or required to be shown if one is in public with a gun, than the slow limitation on what is an appropriately safe gun. Right now, gun ownership is a right, but too many people on the gun rights side don’t sit down to think through gun responsibilities. In my area, where most guns are for hunting and everyone who gets a hunting license has had hunters’ safety courses (which is mostly a gun safety course), there is the assumption that all gun owners have that knowledge, experience and training. They don’t. Owning a gun means that everyone in that household who is old enough needs to know how to handle that gun safely: how to clean it, how to fire it, how to load and unload it, how to put the safety on and off, etc. It means that, if anyone in the household is, for some reason, not ready to be responsible with a gun, because of their age, mental state, maturity, etc., the guns need to be secure. Small children, elderly parents with dementia, people with severe, uncontrolled mental illness, don’t need access to guns. It is the responsibility of the gun owner to make sure that he and his household are both knowledgeable about the guns and the guns are secure.

            • Kenneth

              Since Hitler is already fair game, let’s consider what he fielded as a threat to our way of life. His war machine was built with the most advanced industrial base and technology on the planet, backed by a professional and highly disciplined military tradition and fueled by an ideology of relentless aggression, racial and ethnic hatred, utter amorality, heavy amphetamine abuse and the anger of an entire generation who had lost hope for the future.

              These dudes ate countries for breakfast. They inflicted a 9/11 on London every two or three weeks during the Blitz. They came at us with the world’s first ballistic missiles and jet fighters. They murdered people on such an industrial scale and efficiency that we to this day cannot really get our minds around it.

              We beat them with guns that held 8 rounds.

              If we can’t manage the occasional, mostly unarmed knuckle-dragging parolee burglar with 10 rounds, the Greatest Generation shouldn’t have wasted their time and blood on us.

            • Kenneth

              Those five shots did the job. He broke off the invasion and ran in blind terror of his life. That’s a win if your aim is really self defense. It’s only a failure if your aim is summary execution.

              • Stu

                Kenneth,

                You really are an extremist.

          • Stu

            We are at sane limits. Most americans own semi-automatic rifles and handguns. These have been existence for over 100 years. They are reliable and allow for ease of use for even the most sleight of individuals which makes them ideal for women in defending themselves. The desire to limit the size of magazines (not clips) is an understandable attempt to immediately do something, but it really doesn’t do that much given a gun can be reloaded within seconds.

            As a hedge against the remote possibility of some form of domestic tyranny, which unless you believe in “American Exceptionalism” could happen, semi-automatic arms in the hand of citizens provide a good balance. Sure, one can point to drones and such equipment of the military, but a citizen army would not engage a tyrannical government head-to-head nor would it have to defeat a standing army to necessarily “win.”

            Reasonable measures in response to Sandy Hook would focus preventing another such incident and target potential culprits and not the average citizen who works hard to simply do what is right. Typical of the Federal government, we have to attempt to meet any problem, real or perceived, with some grandiose cure-all that seem to have legacy building as a goal and not the original problem.

            • Izzy

              Stu can you clarify the difference between clips and magazines? A clip is for a rifle?

              • Stu

                They both are used for rifles. Magazines are also used for semi-automatic handguns as well.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoSNHe413rY

              • Andy, Bad Person

                Clips are what most people call them. Magazines are what recent pedants on the internet have been calling them as a red herring to “prove that their opponents don’t know what they’re talking about.”

                • Stu

                  Andy,

                  Way to embrace the ignorance. One can only wonder why people also want to ban a rifle simply because it is scary looking.

              • ivan_the_mad

                Magazines have a spring that helps feed the next round into the chamber. Clips don’t.

            • Will

              “Most americans own semi-automatic rifles and handguns.”

              Should that perhaps be read as “most americans who own guns”?

              http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

              • Stu

                Yes, that is what I meant.

            • Beccolina

              I think an armed police officer on each campus and basic security systems for school windows and doors would be a good start. Both districts I work in when I taught had a police officer on every campus. He was part of the staff (had to sit through our staff meetings, the poor man!), and was in the classroom to teach the DARE program. The officers in the elementary schools also taught the stranger-danger classes and worked with the local fire dept. to teach fire safety. The officers were in uniform and visible around the school throughout the day. Both the ones I worked with developed a strong rapport with the students, and they would handle certain problems that seem more appropriate to be addressed on a legal level than a school disciplinary level (drug issues, repeated theft, gang problems). Obviously, you want an officer who looks forward to working with kids, not one who dreads it.
              As for security, if a school is broken into, there should be an alarm. It is sensible that all doors other than the main door should be secured during the school day. Teachers using other entrances than the main should have keys and the door should be set to lock automatically. Some schools are built in sections with automatically locking doors between the sections. Someone can leave that section, but cannot enter it without a key. The doors are triggered to close in case of fire and could be set to close in case of a break-in, or a confirmed break-in. A lot of schools (including the 2nd one I taught in) already have this system.

  • Tom

    Forgive me for finding this the least bit amusing coming from someone known for his always even-handed and never-exaggerated repsonses to those with whom he disagrees.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      No, you use tu quoque!

      • Tom

        I didn’t say he didn’t have a point. I merely said it was amusing to see him be the one to make it.

  • Leslie

    This is pretty interesting, at least to me, anyway. It is a database of all Executive Orders signed by presidents since John Quincy Adams. The early presidents signed maybe one or two tops during their term(s). However, when you get to Abraham Lincoln, the list is quite long, including one for suspension of Habeus Corpus. Reagan has a long list, and of course, Bush and Obama have signed many. So it appears things have been going down the tubes for quite a while, even before Bush and Obama. The last two have done quite a job grinding the county into the ground, though. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=2012&Submit=DISPLAY

  • Leslie

    Actually, there are three for suspension of Habeus Corpus.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    “As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”

    However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions (i.e., police officers, military use), handguns should be eliminated from our society. “Furthermore, the widespread use of handguns and automatic weapons in connection with drug commerce reinforces our repeated ‘call for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.’” U.S. Catholic Bishops, New Slavery, New Freedom: A Pastoral Message on Substance Abuse (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1990),

    From: http://old.usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.shtml#policy

  • Izzy

    Well I’m not surprised the bishops would prefer to see weapons vanish from the face of the earth. Their tying of drug dealers and law abiding citizen owners, however, was unfortunate and is another example of national conferences of bishops not sharing in the charism of infallibility as when they are teaching in communion with Rome on a matter of faith and morals, only.

    • Mark S. (not for Shea)

      So when the bishops weigh in on abortion and gay marriage, it’s time to get behind them and vote for the lesser of two evils, but when they weigh in some sense on gun control, we’re free to ignore them?

      Stop trying to wiggle around the charism of infallibility and just pay attention to the wisdom of the words.

      • Izzy

        Mark S., that was my point: their point made no sense, at least when they started equating drug dealers with law abiding gun owners. The American bishops do not teach infallibly when they start opining on public policy issues like gun ownership or automobiles for that matter. Their opinion is one among many and, by the way, would they now in hindsight say that the father of the Cheshire victims would have been wrong to shot the two thugs who raped his wife and daughters? Let them do that and then lose whatever remaining credibility that they have. The national conferences are the ones trying to “wiggle around” the charism of infallibility, not me. it is a very limited charism. This is why then Cardinal Ratzinger stated that “there is no theological foundation” for national bishops conferences. none.

        • Sus

          Izzy, did you know that the father of the Cheshire victims was sound asleep on his couch when the thugs broke in and bashed his head with a baseball bat and then dragged him to the basement and tied him up?

          Surely you aren’t implying that because this father didn’t have gun, his family is dead.

          Unless this dad kept the gun with him in case he fell asleep on the house, how would a gun have helped?

          And, Mark, not Shea, I completely agree.

          • Kenneth

            Cases like these drive home the point that a gun is not a security plan. It can be one of many layers of security practices, none of which is sufficient in and of themselves. Security is a state of mind and a set of habits that discourage criminals from targeting your residence, discourage them further upon approach, and then make forced entry very very difficult to accomplish. Except in those cases where a criminal is targeting you for being you, burglaries don’t just happen randomly. They target people and homes who have obvious weaknesses in security. If you find yourself fumbling for a gun at 3 a.m., it’s because you failed to create and follow good security practices. It’s great to have that option as a last barrier, but it’s not a cure-all for poor decisions leading up to that entry.

            • Izzy

              lol. do you have a moat and a multi-tiered defense system Kenneth? please do share your security methodology with us all.

              your claim that crime is never random is laughable. ever hear of the Manson family? read a book.

          • Izzy

            That is precisely the point: if he had a gun, he would have been well within his rights to shoot both of them to death. That was my point. And the bishops would not have said boo about it. The tragedy is that it unfolded as you said, and no set of laws or regulations will prevent criminals from committing crimes. this is not utopia. it is the real fallen world.

        • Kenneth

          Actually, under American Rules Theology, the bishops lose their charism and in fact fall into unrepentant heresy whenever they contradict the doctrine of the GOP or any of its authorized subsidiaries in the neo-conservative movement.

          • Jmac

            Kenneth, as often as I’ve disagreed with you about other issues here, you do a damn fine job of holding up a mirror around here. I hope you stick around.

        • Mark S. (not for Shea)

          “…at least when they started equating drug dealers with law abiding gun owners.”

          They did not such thing. Go read it again.

          “The American bishops do not teach infallibly when they start opining on public policy issues like gun ownership or automobiles for that matter. Their opinion is one among many…”

          All due respect, Izzy, that sounds just like the kinds of things pro-choice Catholics spout.

          Gun-related deaths are 20 times higher in the U.S. than in other developed countries (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/). Children are being murdered. If that isn’t a moral issue, then I just don’t know what is.

          • Izzy

            You are seriously equating abortion on demand with gun ownership? are you kidding?

            look i don’t want to burst your liberal bubble but abortion on demand is an INTRINSIC evil. owning a gun is not. guns also save many lives, including those of children. please also educate yourself on what the Magisterium is and what it is not.

            • Mark S. (not for Shea)

              No. I’m criticizing the idea that you can toss the wisdom of the bishops out the window when they disagree with your opinion. Pro-choicers do it. Those who want unregulated gun ownership do it. You’re in the same boat on this one.

              • Izzy

                You should just offer to resign at this point. Guns are already heavily regulated. You cannot own an automatic weapon. You cannot buy a pistol in many states without a permit. Just resign.

  • Mike

    “What a great country. Where else can you go to see allegedly mature adults respond to the slaughter of a classroom full of six year olds by uniting to compare one another to Hitler.”

    Where, indeed, might one find this kind of over-the-top comparisons?
    http://www.patheos.com/search?q=brownshirts

  • Stu

    One wonders if many, many years from now people will be comparing others to Hitler and won’t even realize who Hitler was.

    I think the Schieffer thing is a bit more troubling. The comparisons of the President Hilter mostly come from extreme elements that can be dismissed. Schieffer is supposedly a respected journalist.

    • Kenneth

      It’s clear that nobody who uses the Hitler reference as a surrogate for unpopular public policy now knows who Hitler was.

    • Mark Shea

      Like the respected journalists at FOX?

      • Stu

        Perhaps. I don’t have a TV, so I don’t know.

  • Tamara Horsburgh

    All of this discussion just makes me soooooo happy I am living in bonny old Scotland, where even the most conservative folks simply “cant” (really cant) understand the American obsession with guns – I am an American, and sometimes will try and explain our history, but at the end of the day people always come back with “how can you tolerate the mass shootings over and over and over again?” I know this country has many problems, but I must say, I am really glad to be raising my children in a country where even the notion of a teacher having a gun is considered absurd by some, and downright evil by others.

    • Stu

      Yeah, because the Scots don’t have a history of rebellion and fighting. Where do you think the United States got all of it’s best warriors from?

  • http://theontologicallapsometer.blogspot.com/ jmalcolm

    First, I’ll just say that Bob Peterson’s comment above is the smartest thing to be posted on all the ENTIRE world wide web for all of yesterday. Your obeservation that this affords the reply: “not Hitler, so no problem here” really is accurate.
    I do have to ask how that squares with your “gay brownshirts on the march” headings you used to use. I know you and Leah had some discussion about whether it was a.) accurate and b.) productive. Whatever became of that? It seems you decided to back off because of the emotional reactions it caused. Probably a good idea out of courtesy. But do you still think those comparisons were accurate? How then to effectively sound the alarm to real tyranny or at least point out Statist heavy handedness or even problematic disproportionate shifts in political power? I can go back and look at those posts between you and Leah and probably will. In the mean time, I suppose the trick in avoiding the “it’s Hitler” pitfall will lie in figuring out a way of making teleological distinctions. Maybe that sounds to complex so put another way “folks, something’s not right, cause that ain’t natural” seems to resonate.

  • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

    Could you please provide an acceptable characterization of getting the medical/disease people involved with guns without touching on soviet psychiatry? Really, I’m coming up empty. Who else can you use to show how utterly dangerous that policy mix is?

    • Kenneth

      You answered your own question. Attack the policy and lead with your case for how you think it’s badly misguided, misinformed, likely to have unintended consequences etc., rather than trying to ascribe ultimate evil to the drafters or supporters of that policy.

      Not only is that more charitable, but it’s quite likely to be more effective. No one hears the meat of your argument when you’re screaming at them or calling them Hitler. No one on the gun control side hears any of the good ideas gun owners might have because they’re calling the NRA Nazis because they called them Hitler, because…..it’s a perfect feedback loop of faux National Socialism. The only winner in that yelling match is Hitler, who comes out sounding no worse than a typical American lobbyist.

      • http://theontologicallapsometer.blogspot.com/ jmalcolm

        “only winner is Hitler…sounding no worse…” Great point!
        I think some of the temptation to yell “Hitler/Stalin” is due to the fact that we know that most people have a pretty short attention span and we want a fast reaction. As soon as you start to go into specifics and particulars on policy and get all wonky there is a feeling that you probably have about 9 seconds before folks eyes are already glazed over.
        When everything is urgent, nothing is. When everything is Hitler, no one is.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X