Letter to the editor

What kind of cognitive disconnect does it take for a man to quote my words, expressing my genuine desire (and the only “ulterior motive” of gun safety activists) to write, “No, they don’t want a constructive dialogue?”

Are we not, in fact, dialoguing right now? You have your say, then I have my say, then probably you will reply again solely to have the last word, correct?

Did you hear me when I asked for a change? Did you truly hear me when I asked for a sincere dialogue with those who are capable of letting go of the need to be right? Did you hear me when I made a plea from the gravesites of millions of women to stop the violence, period?

How do we do that? Is it by letting this systemic problem of ubiquitous violence continue unabated? Do you rush in to shut down the conversation on any other issue that most of us agree is a problem that needs a novel solution? No, you do not.

And how about you, the writer on abortion. You never fail to miss an opportunity to make every issue all about your radical abortion and contraception-abolition nonsense. Could you bring yourself even one time to just agree with me that there are other problems that need attention other than the fact women have control over their own bodies?

Are you as moved by violence against women as you clearly are by the free, decision-making power of women about their own bodies? Evidently you are not.

No. In this community, the loudest voices have always been the stubborn older men who just can’t get used to having to dialogue — period — rather than having the final say merely because they have said something.

Well, I’ve got news for you: It isn’t exactly a walk in the park trying to have a sane, coherent conversation with QAnon conspiracy nuts, which most Republicans are nowadays.

Silly me for extending a peace offering.

Theresa Rathwell

Corunna

(1) comment

glenway

What kind of cognitive disconnect does it take for a man to quote my words, expressing my genuine desire (and the only “ulterior motive” of gun safety activists) to write, “No, they don’t want a constructive dialogue?” You’ve missed a significant point in your rhetoric in the quote: the operative word “constructive.” And, as far as your foundational comments relative to guns killing people in a previous writing, it’s impossible to reason from there. If a person were to agree with you, then dialoguing would be possible, but that would be like preaching to the choir.

You simply cannot concede that there could be good reasons for owning firearms, because no firearm is a good firearm.

And, when it comes to how you would implement “constructive” change, I see no solutions in your mind except disarming everyone. How else would your policies work?

And, you finish off your peace offering by calling millions of honest, law-abiding Americans “nuts”.

Some peace offering!

You see, the root of the violence problem is not in guns, or knives (which kill far more people than rifles), or sticks and stones; it’s in the thought process of people who don’t know how to control their angry side.

If fat people blamed spoons for their overweight bodies and tossed out all the spoons, would it help? Or is it the thought process that puts the spoon in their mouths that must be controlled?

Same with guns.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.