The massacre of the innocents
For those untouched by death this Christmas, someone else’s bewildering, shattering turn of fate ought to occasion a little modesty and circumspection. Instead, even by its usual execrable standards, the public discourse post-Newtown has been stupid and contemptible. The Left now seizes on every atrocity as a cudgel to beat whatever happens to be the Right’s current hottest brand: Tucson, Ariz., was something to do with Sarah Palin’s use of metaphor and other common literary devices — or “toxic rhetoric,” as Paul Krugman put it; Aurora, Colo., was something to do with the Tea Party, according to Brian Ross of ABC News. Since the humiliations of November, the Right no longer has any hot brands, so this time round the biens pensants have fallen back on “gun culture.” Dimwit hacks bandy terms like “assault weapon,” “assault rifle,” “semiautomatic,” and “automatic weapon” in endlessly interchangeable but ever more terrifying accumulations of high-tech state-of-the-art killing power. As the comedian Andy Borowitz tweeted, “When the 2nd Amendment was written the most lethal gun available was the musket.” …
Nor am I persuaded by the Right’s emphasis on preemptive mental-health care. It’s true that, if your first reaction on hearing breaking news of this kind is to assume the perpetrator is a male dweeb in his early twenties with poor socialization skills, you’re unlikely to be wrong. But, in a society with ever fewer behavioral norms, who’s to say what’s odd? On 9/11, the agent at the check-in desk reckoned Mohamed Atta and his chums were a bit strange but banished the thought as shameful and discriminatory. In a politically correct world, vigilance is a fool’s errand. The US Airways cabin crew who got the “flying imams” bounced from a Minneapolis plane for flamboyantly, intimidatingly wacky behavior (praying loudly, fanning out to occupy all the exit rows, asking for seatbelt extenders they didn’t need) wound up in sensitivity-training hell. If a lesbian thinks dragging your wife around in a head-to-toe body bag is kinda weird, she’s being “Islamophobic.” If a Muslim thinks taking breast hormones and amputating your penis is a little off, he’s “transphobic.” These very terms make the point that, in our society, finding somebody else odd is itself a form of mental illness. In an unmoored age, what’s not odd? Once upon a time, TV viewers from distant states descending on a Connecticut town to attend multiple funerals of children they don’t know might have struck some of us as, at best, unseemly and, at worst, deeply creepy — a Feast of the Holy Innocents, so to speak.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
As the musket was the most powerful firearm at the time….
The Second Amendment isn’t about “what kind of firearm” you can have.
It is about the citizens being armed, period. For a variety of reasons, if one wants to bother reading the Federalist Papers.
If a person is serious about “the massacres of innocents” then all they have to do is look at that data.
Clearly, armed citizens in the right place seem to keep the “massacre” down to one or two.
It is when citizens, including teachers, are disarmed by law, that we see massacres happen.
http://cdn.motinetwork.net/demotivationalposters.net/image/demotivational-poster/0906/godzilla-facepalm-godzilla-facepalm-face-palm-epic-fail-demotivational-poster-1245384435.jpg
ProfShadow on December 22, 2012 at 8:31 PM
The Vulture in Chief feeds on carrion.
Perfect depiction of the Narcissist of the World
Schadenfreude on December 22, 2012 at 8:40 PM
Clearly the First Amendment was about using quill and parchment for speech. Unless you’re in the press, then you’re restricted to a wooden printing press. This whole intertubes thing is clearly unconstitutional and far beyond the boundaries of what the founding fathers intended.
Wonderful piece by Steyn. It always amazes me how he seems to hit the right chord for whatever is going on.
ButterflyDragon on December 22, 2012 at 8:41 PM
Obviously, the founders wanted the average citizen to have the same state-of-the-art weapons the military had.
CurtZHP on December 22, 2012 at 10:47 PM