Quote:
Originally Posted by Levin
If the DC government actually had just reenacted a gun ban, then you're right, the analogy would have been apt, and you wouldn't have heard a peep from me. The DC government didn't do that. But some emotional extremism as it relates to guns caused people here to conjure up comparison to black children being water-hosed and Governor Wallace blocking the doors to black students -- all of which were done in direct defiance of federal law. Here, the DC government isn't defying anything: they're just doing as little as the Supreme Court said they had to. That's why it was offensive: our nation's racial history was opportunistically used to cover up a sloppy and emotional argument about owning guns.
|
I never said the analogy was apt so I can't t be "right" or "wrong" because I'm not making a claim. I asked for an explanation of your opinion, which you have provided. Thank you for that. Unfortunately, you didn't answer the follow-up questions.
Another curious thought I had: You also just said you weren't offended so how can you claim the analogy was offensive? Do you have some insight on what the average black person would think if they heard the analogy? If so, how did you gain such insight?