Tag Archives: Tommy Christopher

Tone and Timing are Important in gun discussion following horrific tragedy

The acts were unthinkable, the tragedy incomprehensible and the evil unconscionable. If you were frightened and confused after Aurora, you were devastated and depressed after a monster opened fire in a kindergarten class.

Many lamented it was hard to even believe the crimes committed in Newton on Friday were perpetrated by anyone even close to human.

After texting and calling as many of my friends as I could to tell them how much I cared about them, I sat at my kitchen table, my head in my hands and cried.

I hadn’t lost any loved ones. I only know a handful of people who even live in Connecticut, but as a human being I was shaken to my very core. I was physically in pain over this.

So when person after person in my social media timelines took to snarky, “I told you so” gun law rants, I was blind with rage that they would be so insensitive.

We were just a few hours after an unspeakable tragedy and already this had become a political argument, and more than that it was a condescending, sarcastic conversation.

As Tommy Christopher points out (and if you read this blog you know Mr. Christopher and I rarely agree) you are allowed to react however you want to this tragedy and if you want to talk about gun control that’s fine.

Just a few hours later, Christopher, after watching S.E. Cupp break down on MSNBC trying to tell this story, used a more measured tone to admit that not only is it important that we talk about the issues at hand here, but how we do it.

It’s understandable for someone to jump from “What a horrible tragedy this is,” to “This could have been a lot less horrific if the shooter hadn’t been allowed to have an assault rifle.”

But saying something like, “Is this a good time to talk about gun control?” is condescending and perverse. This sort of self-adulation has no place in the moments immediately following a tragedy. Why would anyone want to play the “I told you so” game when 20 kindergartners are dead?

Furthermore, there were people screaming all over Twitter and Facebook, “Gun control.” Ok. What does that mean? What do you want to see changed? And to those wondering about the timing of the discussion, we’ve been talking about gun control for 100 years. As long as there have been guns, there have been discussions about gun control.

If you weren’t involved in the discussion, that’s on you, but no one was preventing you from being involved. There are myriad anti-gun groups you could have joined, dozens of elected representatives you could call and e-mail. Don’t blame the world because you weren’t involved and even worse, don’t be a sarcastic prick when dozens of families were devastated by a mentally unstable vehicle of pure evil.

I was glad to see so many people were ready to blame our gutless politicians for failing to stand up to the NRA on things like extended clips and assault rifles. Check out what a .223 caliber rifle looks like and tell me if you think a 20-year-old (or any civilian) should own one.

But can we wait an hour or two after we know the facts to start having that discussion? It’s incoherent to me how anyone’s first reaction was “POLITICS” when my first reaction was searing pain and despair for the families, and I’m as political a person as you’ll meet.

What I was disappointed, but not surprised to see, was how easily those who yelled about gun control were to shirk responsibility for their own actions. President Obama has been rated by gun control advocates as worse than President George W. Bush who was a gun-owner himself.

Since 2007, six of the 12 worst shootings in U.S. history have occurred. In other words, almost half of the deadliest days in U.S. history took place under the watch of Barack Obama.

Where has his leadership been on this issue? If you want to talk politics, where is the Nobel Peace Prize winner when his own city of Chicago is more dangerous than the streets of Kabul right now?

The National Journal insisted that the discussion about gun laws had to start at the top. We’ll see if this is a seminal moment in the gun law discussion. I hope, for everyone’s sake that it is.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was critical of the president for not speaking out more forcefully against guns.

As much as I hope some good can come from this tragedy, I would never say that I hoped this would create ‘political capital’ like Alex Wagner did on MSNBC.

To the left, everything can be used for political gain, as Chris Matthews reminded us when he said he was glad for Hurricane Sandy because it helped President Obama win re-election.

I don’t want to make this about left and right, Democrat and Republican because I would hope on a day like today we could all recognize the urgent need to do something about the violence in this country.

Gun laws are not the only piece to the puzzle, it’s irrefutable that there is a cultural issue at play here. Poor parenting and a culture of entitlement have lead us down this path. People believe the world owes them and when the world doesn’t deliver, they freak out.

The entitlement culture has to end and that is part political, part societal and each perpetuates the other.

Gun control is one step. Taking away all guns isn’t an answer, but we can’t be so afraid to infringe on the Second Amendment – extended clip restrictions and semi-automatic assault rifle bans for civilians wouldn’t do that – that we take no action at all.

We cannot be paralyzed by this tragedy, we must be galvanized by it. Furthermore, we cannot let it divide us along partisan lines because everyone’s goal is the same: peace. We have to find ways to achieve that as a collective, or we will surely fall further and further into the dystopian hell we are building.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

The left’s canard about Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan

Liberals struggle with facts and numbers so the fact that they can’t get their heads around the numbers in Mitt Romney’s tax plan shouldn’t be surprising.

Let’s be very clear about what Mitt Romney has actually said regarding his plan:

  • 20% across the board cuts in tax rates
  • Close deductions and loopholes to offset cuts
  • Will not have a tax plan that raises the deficit
  • Will not raise taxes on the middle class

Nowhere in there do I see the number $5 trillion and it should be noted what that number actually refers to: the decrease in revenue the government would get from the proposed cut.

That’s the only thing that number can refer to because without the revenue those $5 trillion don’t exist.

But the fact of the matter is, with Mitt Romney’s tax plan, the off-setting revenue comes from job creation. If you plan to cut taxes and offset the lost revenue then what you have truly isn’t, in any practical sense, a $5 trillion cut, at least not the way President Obama means it.

President Obama wants you to believe Mitt Romney is handing more money to the rich and he’s said as much. While it’s true a 20% bite off the wealthiest Americans represents a larger chunk by tax rate percent, the practicality of what the president is saying has no basis in reality.

Think about it like you’re at the mall and you have a 20% off coupon at a department store. If you buy something that is $100 you save $20, but if you buy something that is $200, you save $40. That’s the way a rate works.

“The rich” are already paying higher rates than everyone else, so by having a 20% rate decrease for everyone, the rich will get a bigger piece of that pie to be sure. But the rate everyone is losing is equal: 20%.

A number of credible news organizations, including the Washington Post, have concluded that Mitt Romney’s explanation for why he doesn’t have a $5 trillion tax cut is accurate.

What liberals like Tommy Christopher don’t get is, you can’t put words in someone’s mouth and then when he says he never said that, call him a liar.

Mitt Romney is cutting rates and he’s raising revenues by cutting other government spending and encouraging growth.

Any study that says he needs to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it is ridiculous, considering he already said he’s lowering everyone’s rates. Why would anyone say “Well, we’re going to lower everyone’s rates, but in order to pay for the richest people to get their breaks, we actually need to now raise middle class taxes”?

You wouldn’t. Not even liberals are dumb enough to do something like that (Ok, maybe that’s a stretch).

Furthermore, a Princeton economist recently concluded that in order for Romney to add enough jobs to pay for these cuts, the economy would only have to grow at about 2.29% on average over 10 years, certainly not anything outrageous. While GDP is only growing at around 1.3% currently, it was at about 3% when 2012 began.

Maintaining that kind of growth is certainly a credible solution, particularly when you consider the regulations and anti-growth legislation enacted by Barack Obama over the last four years could be rolled back under a Romney presidency.

With news like we got today, that we only added 114,000 jobs when you need about 150,000 to keep up with population growth, that is certainly not moving this country forward.

We need a president who knows how take facts and numbers and use them to create credible solutions in the real world. You can’t do that with an ultra-liberal in the White House.

Tagged , , , , , ,