Quote of the Day: Before and After Edition

“It still had people who were nice to each other, working together and no one was talking about guns. Then (the attack) happened and it became either you have guns or you don’t have guns.” – Newtown resident Carla Barzetti, A Year After Newtown, Rift Over Guns Deepens [at abcnews.go.com]

comments

  1. avatar gs650g says:

    Alinsky had a rule or two about this.

    1. avatar OldBenTurninginGrave says:

      Yes, if the rift deepens it is by design.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Divide and conquer. By professional agitators and their media stooges.

  2. avatar peirsonb says:

    Maybe I’m reading it wrong, or maybe I’m just too biased. I’m having a hard time finding any actual substance anywhere in that article…..does the author actually make a point anywhere after the headline?

    1. avatar Ross says:

      I don’t think you are reading it wrong, I’m having the same issues.

    2. avatar ChuckN says:

      Substance?! Where have you been? The various factions
      of the MSM haven’t had any actual substance in years.
      They sure aren’t going to start now.

    3. avatar BillF says:

      Thanks guys. I was feeling a little apathetic after quitting halfway through. I’m all better now 🙂

    4. avatar Matt in FL says:

      The point of the article is that the author feels (and interviews people on both sides who feel) that the situation changed after Newtown. That people (on both sides) are less willing to let the matter drop than they were before. That unlike past incidents, where emotions flared (on both sides) but then died off and people went back to being neighbors, in this case, the emotions are still running high, and it’s changed how people interact with each other on a daily basis.

      The theme of the article was kinda hard to miss, since it was stated in the title: “A Year After Newtown, Rift Over Guns Deepens, and then in the third paragraph, only the sixth sentence into the entire article: “But the unity born of tragedy has given way to ambivalence and deepened division.” And then again, four sentences later: “In our towns, in our neighborhoods, the discord is striking.”. And then again, three sentences after that: “People are digging in.”

      That was the theme. Everything after that was examples to back up that assertion.

      It seems to me that if you couldn’t find the point, you weren’t looking.

      1. avatar BillF says:

        You prompted me to read the whole thing. Sure, there’s a point. But despite the impressive word count, I just didn’t find any revelations there. To me, the rift and the digging in is painfully obvious and has been for a while. To be fair, the article would be more enlightening to the few who are on neither side of the argument. To those who are, the depth and severity of division has been clear.

        1. avatar ropingdown says:

          Journalists get paid by the column-inch multiplied by a “boss’ approval” factor. They want to emphasize an “us versus them” thesis, attempting to build more anti enthusiasm. Making a public issue emotional and tribal sells viewership/papers.

          I don’t see the tactic as anything but transparent to most people. During those occasions in which the issue even arises in smalltalk, my liberal acquaintances seem to share this view: If you are considering in-patient psychotherapy for your child and the kid has repeatedly proved extremely maladjusted, you should probably make very sure he/she has no access to guns, and encourage him to play the piano.

          It really isn’t complicated. I consider Nancy Lanza to have been hideously irresponsible. I consider the bloody shirt waivers professional asses.

        2. avatar BillF says:

          “It really isn’t complicated. I consider Nancy Lanza to have been hideously irresponsible. I consider the bloody shirt waivers professional asses.”

          I concur.

      2. avatar peirsonb says:

        I read it through at least 4 times before posting, and another 3 after. And just now after reading your comment, Matt, and I think I found where my disconnect happened…I think I went into it jaded. Coming out of AP I expected it to be rabidly anti, and it’s not. It’s actually a fairly neutral statement of fact and first hand accounts. Maybe I’ve spent too long reading die hard anti rhetoric……

        I stand corrected.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Well, in your defense, you had to wade through four or five sentences of “heart-tugging” before you got to what my English teacher would have called the “thesis statement.” Those sentences set you up pretty well for an “Oh no not this again” reaction.

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        What unity? Unity of grief, I guess?

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Sure. Unity of grief to “turn that shared grief into a collective search for answers.” Right after it happened, everyone was talking about ways to make it not happen again. But then, their side completely discounted our answers, and our side was vehemently opposed, on a visceral level, to their answers.

  3. avatar 505markf says:

    I think the basic theme is “Damn those evil, disgusting gun owners! They just keep fighting us when we try to protect the children. Why, WHY do they keep jerking out heads out of the sand!!!!”

    The great lamentation of Progressives when they don’t get their way.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      That has nothing whatsoever to do with the point of the article.

      1. avatar Aaron Bailey says:

        Matt, never let facts or reality get in the way of a good tribal rant. 😉

      2. avatar Lucas D. says:

        Forget it, man; he’s rollin’.

  4. avatar Tominator says:

    Any time you hear the term ‘Gun Violence’ the obvious anti gun rant is to follow.

    Violence is violence! People kill people.

    My daughter was taken by someone with a knife. The method is not important. There is no recovery from a parent losing a child. I’m disgusted at such tragedy being blamed on guns!

    1. avatar dale says:

      I’m disgusted with that tragedy being blamed on -MY- guns (and by association ME).

  5. avatar scooter says:

    How about Mom’s Demand Teacher Training for Active Shooter Scenarios? Just sayin…

  6. avatar DrVino says:

    “the attack”????????

    wtf?

    Oh… wait… I get it now.

    Saying “the attack” gives form to some nefarious force in the shadows, lurking and waiting to to strike at anyone, all of us, at any moment….

  7. avatar Anonymous says:

    My heart is broken too… what about my heart?

    When these “attacks” occur we always have these protesters and politicians waving the bloody shirt and basically… guilt tripping you into relinquishing your rights. My heart is broken about this – where is my sympathy and attention?

    I’m going to a gun show right now after reading this.

    http://grandamericanarmsshows.com/

  8. avatar B says:

    I’m through. I have zero empathy for Newtown or its people. They are the poster boys insanity and for not protecting your children.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      Don’t let the media’s selective reporting jade your view on all of Newtown’s citizens or even the relatives of the victims. This is what the bloody shirt waivers want. They want to paint us as unsympathetic and on the verge of “just snapping”. It goes hand-in-hand with the narravite they push. Don’t fall into their trap. See Anonymous’ and dale’s posts above for how I feel about this horrific event.

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        Actually, B’s comment is a perfect example of the theme of the article that’s quoted above. People (on both sides) are digging in and people (on both sides) are less tolerant of others’ opinions now.

        1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          I agree Matt. But who, at least in part, pushes both sides farther away from civil discourse? I see the media as many things. Sure most are anti-gun propaganda machines, but first and foremost they are controversy generators. If they can drum up more controversy, they sell more papers, more clicks, more air time and most importantly, more ads. Whether we want to watch/read the news from CNN, Fox, or The NYT, all operate under the same basic guiding principle of income through generating controversy. Some of the controversy is absolutely warranted. But they can’t pay the bills on warranted controversy alone and uphold their personal biases.

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    Then (the attack) happened and it became either you have guns or you don’t have guns.

    Bullsh1t. It became either you wanted to take guns away from people or you didn’t want people to take away your guns. And WE didn’t start that.

    1. avatar KCK says:

      Excelent point.
      To have guns or not is a free choice.
      To have them taken away is NOT!

  10. avatar DB says:

    Once again the anti gun crowd is showing their reliance on emotion to support their arguments of facts. An ex-con illegally buys a gun and shoots some firefighters so the libs demand even stricter gun ownership laws. Libs have a hard time dealing with the concept that criminals don’t obey the law and will always get or make guns.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      They know what they’re doing, at a national level, at least. They’re not trying to win you over; they’re going for the fence-sitters, the weak and emotionally vulnerable. Appealing to emotion is a winning strategy, and they realize it. Facts and rationality don’t work on the people they’re targeting.

      It’s a mistake to sell these people short.

  11. avatar Jus Bill says:

    I’m with the others above. I’m completely fed up with the heinous, unfeeling ghouls and jackals in politics and the media exploiting grief for their own personal gain. I’ve taken to watching Asian news programs because I get clearer reports of what is happening in the US from them. MSM news? More like MTV News…

  12. avatar William Burke says:

    There’s something unspeakably WEIRD about Newtown. It seems like some kind of spooky Stepford Town. People move there from around the country just so their kids can go to school there.

    Newtown creeps me out.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email