H/T Bearing Arms.
David Camera Hogg takes a break from his booming pillow empire. Snark
It seems David Hogg is taking a break from pillows to go back to his first love, arguing about guns. See, he’s got a plan on how to address firearms in this country and really change things.
From one of his tweets:
So, with this in mind, I figured it’s time to have a little talk with David.
I saw your tweet on the 24th about needing gun owners to help you pass “stronger gun laws” in this country and “end” gun violence. Now, I find that interesting since no country has actually ended any such thing. At best, it’s been reduced, but be that as it may, that’s not what I hoped to speak with you about.
No, I wanted to focus on your comment about needing gun owners.
As a writer for Bearing Arms, I know I can speak for my readers and tell you that we’re not interested. However, we’re not the totality of gun owners, to be sure. I wanted to take a moment and ask you some questions on behalf of those who might be interested but also have concerns.
You see, you’re calling for stronger gun laws, but these gun owners are likely concerned about just where is the line in the sand. At what point will gun control go too far for you?
Without that, I suspect a lot of gun owners would be hesitant to support your efforts. After all, how in the hell would they know when to expect you to turn around and stab them in the back?
Right now, it’s about “assault weapons” and background checks and “ghost guns,” but it won’t stay there. We all know it won’t stay there. Eventually, it’ll be something else. It’ll be those gun owners’ handguns. It’ll be “sniper rifles.” It’ll be any number of things as gun control never actually stops.
So I want to know, on behalf of all those other gun owners, when is it enough for you and your buddies? You all say you have no interest in a total gun ban, so where is the line?
As things stand, we have no reason to believe there’s any such line. We don’t because we’ve seen it before. The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Bill, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, all came and went with more gun control coming down the pipe after them.
In many states, gun control groups have achieved incredibly significant victories, yet they continue to push and push, which suggests we’re not even close to their line in the sand.
Frankly, I don’t believe any such line exists.
So again, why should gun owners side with you when you can’t even offer them assurances that it won’t get to the same point as, say, the UK or even Australia? Why should they risk their rights and their property to side with you when you’re not going to side with them when the time comes?
Until you can tell us what takes gun control just a hair too far, you can’t be surprised that no one on this side is going to be interested in helping.