'Surprise Endorsement'! Politico Warns About 'Vision' Pete Hegseth Would Bring to Defense...
J.K. Rowling Gives Social Media a 'Smile Break' With Her Pet Pictures Request
SCIENCE! Just for Fun Here Are 5 of My Favorite Climate Change Doomsday...
Sheldon Whitehouse DRAGGED for Unhinged, Paranoid AF Thread About 'Far Right' Declaring Wa...
Just WOW: Chris Murphy Justifies Political Violence (Murder?!) and Scott Jennings Ain't Ha...
'MAGA is the Republican Party': Mitt Romney Predicts JD Vance Will Be The...
Monday Morning Meme Madness
Spoil Sport: Campaign Manager Blames Trump Culture for Sporting Shows Dropping Kamala
January 6 Committee Democrat Won’t Refuse Biden Pardon Despite Saying He Broke No...
Definitely Defeated: Kamala Serves Up Repetitive Word Salad at Annual DNC Holiday Dinner
Trophy Treat: Pop-Tarts Unwraps Tasty Toasty College Football Bowl Prize
Host of Cringemas Present: Celebrating Our Final Kamala-Cackling Holiday Season
State of the Chart: Chris Cillizza Blind to Fox News Post-Election Viewership Rise
Poll Position: Pollster Who Had Kamala Winning Iowa is Refuting Election Interference Clai...
Kamala Eyeing Full-Court Shot at Presidency Despite California Governorship Layup

'Oh, good GRIEF'! This WaPo opinion piece on 'gunsplaining' is 'BEYOND embarrassing'

You know, we were just saying to ourselves that what the gun control debate really needs is a defense of total ignorance on the subject matter. Thankfully, the Washington Post has given ex-Gawker employee Adam Weinstein a platform to do just that:

Advertisement

Oh, FFS.

This piece indeed deserves your derision.

Weinstein writes:

The phenomenon isn’t new, but in the weeks since the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., a lot of gun-skeptical liberals are getting a taste of it for the first time: While debating the merits of various gun control proposals, Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology. Perhaps someone tweets about “assault-style” weapons, only to be told that there’s no such thing. Maybe they’re reprimanded that an AR-15 is neither an assault rifle nor “high-powered.” Or they say something about “machine guns” when they really mean semiautomatic rifles. Or they get sucked into an hours-long Facebook exchange over the difference between the terms clip and magazine.

Has this happened to you? If so, you’ve been gunsplained: harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner, admonished that your inferior knowledge of guns and their nomenclature puts an asterisk next to your opinion on gun control.

If only these adversaries were a little more honest, I’ve often thought, and more precise in their language on the subject, we could have a serious debate on the finer points of a gun violence policy, instead of a bad-faith propaganda race.

Gunsplaining, though, is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it — with self-appointed authority, and often the thinnest of connection to any real fact.

Advertisement

Yep. Weinstein’s problem isn’t people talking out of their asses on guns; it’s people who know what they’re talking about making the ass-talkers look bad.

Just pathetic.

https://twitter.com/LDoren/status/971114497728483334

https://twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/971119329621225472

Advertisement

No one remotely interested in serious debate should ever take a page from Weinstein’s book.

Advertisement

You’ll have to be content with just imagining. Because they’d never do it. Not in a million years.

Advertisement

Yep.

Almost like liberalism is driven by misinformation and ignorance. Fortunately, there are solutions to this problem:

https://twitter.com/Oil_Guns_Merica/status/971112770807713792

True story.

Do better, WaPo. We know you can.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement