Whenever someone writes about a controversial issue they always run the risk of being misunderstood. Sometimes the misunderstanding is legitimate. Other times not so much.
I’m not going to try to figure out whether the Collinses’ misunderstanding about my article on guns was real or imagined. I’m simply going to address their glaring inability to understand my “premises.”
Their somehow innate ability to read my mind failed this time. For instance, I was not advocating for politicians to carry guns, nor would anyone in their right mind advocate for children carrying guns.
Nowhere am I (or the NRA) advocating the warlike notion that everyone should be armed.
The silly caricature the Collinses used in describing my “premises” is itself silly. My real premise was speculation on how to save lives by being prepared for anything, because as we’ve seen in so many of these sad cases, anything can happen at any time.
I was also trying to make people aware of the good that can result if there is an armed citizen around when you need one. There has been so much negativity and misinformation about guns in the liberal-leaning press, I wanted to show there are definite positives when a person defends himself/herself against predators. If that’s not “rational discussion” that the Collinses claim they want, then I don’t know what is.