Wait, you mean attacking legal gun owners and accusing them of having blood on their hands after a shooting they had nothing to do with doesn’t work to further discussion on gun safety?

Crazy talk.

David Brooks (we know, we’re shocked) gets this, and he wrote about it in his column:

From The New York Times:

So if you want to stop school shootings it’s not enough just to vent and march. It’s necessary to let people from Red America lead the way, and to show respect to gun owners at all points. There has to be trust and respect first. Then we can strike a compromise on guns as guns, and not some sacred cross in the culture war.


And true.

If you are a gun control advocate and your immediate reaction to a tragedy is to attack legal gun owners who had NOTHING to do with the shooting you’re only going to further drive the two sides apart. When one side says, ‘GIVE US YOUR GUNS,’ the other sides, ‘KISS OUR ARSE, NOT FROM OUR DEAD, COLD HANDS,’ there is no real discussion and nothing gets down.

But somehow being honest about the need for dialogue upset ThinkProgress editor, Judd Legum:

Man, Judd seems upset.

Brooks didn’t say that people have to be polite, he just said stop screeching at people who had nothing to do with the tragedy and accusing them of being responsible. This is not difficult, Judd.


That’s been so successful thus far, right?

And it makes for more clicks and taps, sure.

That’s what ThinkProgress does best.

Which is understandable when something as horrible as Parkland High School takes place. But when your emotional reaction keeps anything from being done to prevent such tragedies in the future, you’re doing it wrong.


We’ll be KEEPING our guns, THANKS: Gun-grabbers ‘tag’ Kentucky billboard with ‘Kill the NRA’

‘1 less? Nah, I just bought 2 more.’ #2A advocates hilariously SHRED ABC’s video of man destroying AR-15

‘No one is SCARED of YOU.’ Dan Bongino makes an ASS of Joe Scarborough with his own SCARY words