The next time some Harvard-addled chanting-point-bot wants to declaim about the need for a “conversation about guns” – which, as we all know, means “a monologue about guns, with we 2nd Amendment types shutting up and speaking when spoken to” – I’m tempted to take the “conversation” more in this sort of direction.
“Here’s why I own guns: because people like this were disarmed:
“These people – well, former people – too:”
How about here?:
Or these people:
More people without guns:
“I could go on, but you get the idea.”
“That’s why I own guns. I don’t give a rat’s ass about hunting. ”
“So if your idea is to disarm me, the law-abiding citizen, because of the misdeeds of someone I’d have happily shot with one or another legally-permitted firearm, here’s the “conversation about guns” we’re going to have…”
“YOU: ”Shut up and let’s “converse” about the need to disarm you, Mr. Berg”
“ME: Go f**k yourself”
“YOU: ”With what appendage, sir?”
“How are you liking the “conversation” so far?”
No, I’m not going to do it. But I thought I’d share it, just between us. It’s fun to think about.