. . . that CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) published a photo of Donald Trump with a scattering of bullets next to his head. How about a Black Lives Matter tweet with photos of police and bullets? Heads would explode. Pundits would rant. Investigations would be launched. Conservatives would be outraged.
But this? It’s apparently acceptable for a leading conservative cause to use this image:
Apparently it’s OK to shoot your sibling or get plastered and shoot your hunting buddy, but not to have a curious and experimental mind. (I did enjoy the “category” assigned the first article by the Miami New Times.)
Am I the last one to notice that Woolrich doesn’t just sell plaid shirts and chinos, but clothing specially designed for concealed carry?* I get that the world needs hunting clothes: if you’re going to stalk Bambi through the north woods, you probably ought to layer up. But concealed carry is about being prepared to take down your fellow human, stealthily. That is, there is nothing remotely inoffensive about this. The website is not subtle:
I’m thinking the “discreet carry options” make the “reinforced crotch” an important feature, lest the amateur concealed carrier shoot his or her balls off. And when you’re through sowing deadly mayhem, you can just toss them in the washer!
I’m making stupid jokes about this, but it’s really not funny. We’ve reached the point in our armed society where a major clothing retailer markets “tactical” attire for sneaking firearms into ordinary public settings. The suburban dad in chinos at the movie theater or shopping mall may be concealing a Glock. Also, the mass killer in chinos, indistinguishable from the suburban dad.
* A bit of post-blog research reveals that the New York Times wrote about this back in April. It only came to my attention because we get their catalog** and I was just about to order a couple of pairs of $6 fuzzy socks when I noticed the concealed carry category.
Buzz: Sheriff, this is no time to panic! Woody: This is the perfect time to panic!
Every time another gun massacre happens, the commissars of weapon-correctness announce that we should not politicize the tragedy. They say this loud enough and often enough to shout us past the tragedy and into the next campaign where “taking away gun rights” equates to socialism, communism, and the coming of a one-world government that will force you to teach your disabled kids science,* and every politician of every party runs fast in the opposite direction.
We need to politicize this most recent gun massacre because, in this country, “politicize” means “figure out wtf to do about.” The opposite of “politicize” is not “debate respectfully” or “decide unanimously.” It’s “sit around with our collective thumbs in our collective asses** and do nothing.” So let’s politicize. Let’s talk. Argue even – it’s how things get decided in a democracy.
And when we talk, let’s talk about the fact that – as a friend pointed out on Facebook – you have to provide more information to buy Sudafed than to buy a gun.
* Or something like that. I get my right wing conspiracies confused sometimes. For example, do the same paranoid wingers who defeated the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on the grounds that the one-world government would force them to kill their disabled kids oppose gun control on the theory that the future one-world government might prevent someone from killing their disabled kids? It’s so confusing!