Weaponizing Tragedy

Every time a violent deviant takes innocent lives with a firearm, the first reaction of the friends and family of the victims is to punish those of us who didn’t do it. We’ve seen it time and time again, from the late Sarah Brady, to Gabrielle Giffords and her hypocrite husband‘s efforts to disarm those who have committed no crime, to the latest frothing troll in the gun grabber movement Andy Parker – the father of Alison Parker, who was murdered by a disgruntled, deranged cretin last year – these people are using their own tragedies as weapons against law-abiding citizens.

I’ll be honest, it is difficult to feel sorry for people like Mark Kelly, who is using his wife’s shooting to pad his career ladder. It becomes even more difficult to feel sorry for this jerk Parker, who actually threatened a state senator for refusing to be clubbed over the head with Parker’s tragedy, and who is using his daughter’s death to screw Virginians out of their rights.

It strikes me as opportunistic, given the fact that there’s not a single law that would have stopped his daughter’s murder. Vester Lee Flanagan did not have a criminal record of any kind. He had no history of mental illness. He was black and gay – certainly not disqualifying factors when purchasing a firearm. And he was an entitled social justice warrior douche nugget, who was in the habit of filing grievances against his employers. Should he somehow been prevented from buying guns, because he was a jerk?

Any sane person would answer “no.”

Well, Parker won’t take “no” for an answer, so he has once again decided to use his tragedy to beat the rest of us over the head – to guilt us into bowing to his political agenda.


Well, that act is getting stale.

Oh, hell, what am I saying? That act IS stale, and has been stale for decades! And yet, here’s Parker, first threatening those who disagree with his political agenda, and then trying to passively aggressively shame them with a newspaper editorial.

It is a parent’s worst nightmare to get that call that your child has been killed. Barbara and I, our son Drew, and Alison’s boyfriend Chris Hurst are members of a club no one ever wants to join. You never imagine something like this could happen to you, or to someone you love – but it can and it did. Not a single day goes by that we don’t feel the devastation and void in our souls. Our lives will never be the same.

Translation: I experienced a tragedy. I experienced pain. Therefore you must bow to my demands and give up your rights.

It happened not quite five months ago. First we were numb. Then we grieved. And as we grieved, we got angry. While my emotions were still raw, I vowed on national television to do “whatever it takes” to end gun violence. Little did I know when I uttered those words it would become a national rallying cry.

Don’t kid yourself, Parker. You’re just a Johnny Come Lately to a long and undistinguished (bowel) movement of opportunistic swine who dance in the blood of their loved ones to push their political agenda. You’re a slightly less crazy Cindy Sheehan, although given your physical threat to a state legislator, you just may be in the team photo of Sheehan’s nuttery. Maybe you’re the one who should be prevented from purchasing a firearm…

So what does it mean? It means speaking out for sensible gun laws. It also means standing up for political leaders willing to do the right thing, like our governor Terry McAuliffe, and calling out the ones that don’t. Americans are standing up and demanding that their leaders take action to reduce gun violence. We are going to continue speaking out across the country and we’re not going away.

Actually, Americans (save for the fruitcakes in California) do not support new gun control laws, and they certainly don’t trust the federal government to fairly enforce them! And no amount of screeching you do is going to change that.

This issue is finally a part of the national conversation, and change is happening. Barbara and I were honored this week to be at the White House with other survivors and victims to hear the president announce his executive actions to reduce gun violence. And it was exciting to be in the audience for CNN’s exclusive town hall meeting with President Obama, the first time a sitting president has engaged on the issue of gun violence in this way. You know that real change is happening when even Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly calls out the NRA.

Actually O’Reilly has been a statist creep for years when it comes to guns. That’s nothing new and different about that. And the fact that you were invited to the White House along with other survivors and loved ones simply means that you are being used as propaganda tools for the White House’s political agenda. The White House is using you, just like you’re using your dead daughter.

The NRA, however, continues their message that gun sense advocates want to assault the Second Amendment. How many times does it take to say, “no one is coming to take your guns away, and if you can pass a background check, you can buy a firearm”?

How many times? Until you realize that repeating a lie will not make it true, especially when the list of statist swamp donkeys who do advocate taking away our guns is long and growing.

We already have background checks. The derelict shitbag who killed your daughter passed one. How did that work out?

I think Mark Kelly, astronaut and husband of former Representative Gabby Giffords, who was shot five years ago at her town hall meeting in Tucson, Arizona, hit the nail on the head with his question of all at the town hall. He asked the president, how, with the 350 million guns in circulation at more than 65 million locations from Alaska to Hawaii, could the government possibly take all of these guns away? A rhetorical question of course, but it underscores the absurdity of the gun lobby’s argument.

It’s not the “ability” of the government to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. It’s the civil war this act would undoubtedly cause. It’s the rights it would violate by attempting to do so. It’s the immediate transformation of law-abiding citizens into criminals merely by owning a firearm and the felony record if caught trying to sell their own property to another human being. It’s the prosecution of peaceable citizens for accidentally exercising their rights at the wrong time and place.

But I wouldn’t expect someone who has so little respect for his murdered child, that he would use her blood and his own suffering to deprive others of their fundamental rights to even understand what he is advocating.

We also continue to hear, “nothing could have saved your daughter.” Perhaps that’s true. But is that a reason to do nothing to prevent the next child from being killed? We don’t think so, and that’s why we will continue to fight to save lives.

Name one law that would have prevented Newtown. Name one law that could have prevented San Bernardino. Name one law that prevents criminals from committing crimes! You can’t, because by the very nature of a criminal, there’s no law they will obey. Even if you impose the strictest background checks on every gun purchase possible, how are you going to prevent the criminals from getting their guns from black market dealers, or friends, or family, or simply stealing them?


BJSSo whom do you hope to prevent from purchasing firearms, Parker?

How are you planning to close nonexistent “loopholes” that do not prevent any criminals from getting their hands on firearms? Oh, by pressuring legislators? Or by threatening yet another politician with violence?

Now we turn to all of our political leaders – particularly those in our state legislatures – to take action to close the loopholes that make it easy for dangerous people to get guns. It’s time for them to step up to the plate to help save lives.

In other words, Parker will shove his suffering into people’s faces. Parker will demand ineffective legislation that will do nothing to save lives, but will make it more costly and cumbersome for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights.

And he will do all this by shamelessly dancing in his daughter’s blood. He will scream about his tragedy. He will cry and threaten. He will make demands as if he’s the only one who has suffered from senseless violence. He will club us across our faces with his anguish, as if it is we – the law abiding, peaceable citizens – who are responsible for the death of his daughter, because we treasure and want to preserve our fundamental rights. He will lash out at us with his misery and demand that we surrender our rights and our personal safety to his tragedy as sacrifices – as payment to him for his loss. As if we’re responsible for his pain.

Wrong. Answer.

I refuse to be held accountable for the actions of relatively few derelicts.

I refuse to be relieved of my rights, because a criminal abused his.

And I refuse to bow down to opportunistic swine who expect me to genuflect before their anguish.

Their pain is not a claim check to my rights.


16 responses

  1. Nicki, you know my personal feelings on this firearm thing, so I don’t think I need to reiterate it here now.

    My response here is for a narrow difference of opinion here, mostly because of empathy.

    Unlike you, I don’t look at the victims or victim families as anything more than people who have suffered a horrific event, and if they want to become nuttier than a three-time divorcée in a Kentucky clerk’s office — then they’ve earned it.

    Here’s the thing: I don’t have to listen to them. Or I can listen and understand that THEIR life story is a whole lot different than mine, and accept the fact that they have a few things they still need to work through.

    But I am certainly never going to put them down for how they got there.

    All that said, this is NOT the first time that there have been people — many people — complain about guns. It is almost as American as having guns. As long as I have been alive, I can recall people whining about firearms.

    It’s never going to go away.

    Should you stand up to every proposal to eliminate guns? CERTAINLY. All the GOOD things we have are a result of this thing called “push-back”. If there isn’t someone or something to defend an idea or some thing, then it is liable to quietly go away. The same goes with the firearm issue.

    As long as people like you stand up, you will prevail without ever really having to do anything. It just needs to to stand once in a while, that’s all.

    If I sound like I am rambling a bit right now, it is because of this shit I am taking for my bronchitis…



    1. Deej, I totally understand what you’re saying. Here’s the problem. These grieving people have created an entire cottage industry around relieving us of our rights! And politicians tend to listen to them because THEY’VE SUFFERED TRAGEDY! As if somehow that makes them more qualified to speak on policy than the rest of us. I mean… look at Sarah Brady! There’s an entire background checks system named for Brady!

      For me, the sympathy runs out when they start using their tragedy as a policy tool and government force as a result. Their attitude is that they are somehow entitled to special dispensation to assault my rights. There’s a point where grief transitions into opportunism.

      So while I feel nothing but pain for families who have suffered tragedy and loss, I feel nothing but contempt when they use it against people like me.

      Hope that makes sense.


      1. Nicki, this “cottage industry” has always been here, long before you, long before even me. Invariably, they end up against a steel-reinforced cement wall that they cannot pass through or get around.

        I’m looking at this from both sides right now, and the problem is that EVERYONE is focusing on “the gun”. The side that wants to impose tighter controls expresses what it wants, and the gun supporters counter by saying “NO.”

        The subject needs to be REFRAMED. If one side wants “gun control” because of a perceived rash of mass shootings, then point out the fact that not one of the recent “mass shootings” would have been prevented by any further “gun control”, therefore the problem isn’t actually the “gun” but the BEHAVIOR of the person holding it.

        Reframe the argument as being a failure of the criminal justice system or the mental health system, and seek the solutions to preventing future acts by focusing on THOSE areas.

        I’m a “one-striker”. Commit a crime with a weapon — say goodbye forever. Whether you live the rest of your life in a cell or get put down like an animal would depend on if you had injured or killed someone in the course of your crime…

        Here are the two ways you can look at it from each perspective:

        GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES: My proposal would be “gun control” in the sense that if you can’t control your gun, then you can’t be out here.

        GUN ENTHUSIASTS: If you can’t control your behavior, then we will lock your silly ass up. If you kill some one because you can’t control your behavior, we will put you down.

        How’s that?


        1. You and I have definitely discussed the one-strike thing to death. I do agree that if you commit a violent crime with a firearm – or without – you shouldn’t be allowed back out into society. But there are also shades of grey there, which we have also discussed to death.

          As for the “cottage industry,” prior to Brady, it was barely that. That bitch transformed it into a very well paid career. Before that we had the NFA34 prompted by the Valentine’s Day Massacre, and the GCA68 prompted by the assassination of JFK. But those weren’t dressed up and paraded around by the likes of Brady. They were Congressional reactions to very specific events. I think Brady made it into a true industry.


    2. ‘Industry’ is the keyword here. Whether duped pawns or willing accomplices, these families of tragedy who seek to further infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens….are part and parcel of a well funded, influential industry….every bit as politically motivated and attuned as the NRA, SAF and others on the side of liberty.

      The rank and file gin grabbers, who vote and rally for ideas that they can’t explain are no better, for they willingly shield themselves from knowledge and reason, and allow these groups to lie in their name. Shame on them.


  2. Check out the angry, insane, spittle-flecked leftist comments on the article, too. As usual, the facts aren’t on their side, so the name-calling comes out.


    1. I’m not reading it and you can’t make me 🙂 I’ve had a good day and want to stay in a good mood.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. There IS an appropriate response I can make to a person who has been deprived of a loved one because of violence. It is to offer whatever comfort they are able to accept. That’s real, and needed. When someone close to you dies before their time, you weep.
    HOWEVER! Emotional arguments carry no weight with me when matters of public policy are being considered. We don’t ask the families of soldiers killed in combat (my son was only wounded, and I am so grateful) to set policy, PRECISELY because their decision-making ability is overshadowed by their emotions in those awful moments.
    And then, unfortunately, it can get mercenary. A former student of mine committed suicide at school, after first pointing the pistol at a classmate and pulling the trigger (the safety was on). It was a tragedy, and we all felt that way, and had concern for the bereaved parents. For a while, the parents made attempts to raise public awareness; but somehow, it turned into a sick promotion of a product they sponsored. I absolutely believe that they were devastated by the loss of their son. But when I heard about their attempt to capitalize on his death, I found it repugnant.
    Lynch mobs are not an appropriate mechanism for trial and execution of accused criminals, because they are inherently unreliable as a source of justice. And emotional and anecdotal appeals do not lay an appropriate foundation for changing or implementing laws about firearms.


  4. All Mr. Parker is showing me is that it is possible to be a grieving parent AND an attention whore. He has my deepest sympathy for the former, and nothing but my deepest contempt for the latter.


  5. It is scary the will and strength these folks have to dance in the blood of their slain family to advance their agenda. Cindy Sheehan cared not that she was dishonoring her son’s memory and service. This is what worries me about the left; that they will do and say anything to advance statism.


  6. “Name one law that could have prevented San Bernardino.”

    Honestly, probably better vetting of people coming into the country. Themes I’ve noticed that lead to extremism tend to be a shift of moderate muslims towards fundamentalism: (a) alteration of appearance (b) increase in questionable behaviors (often noticed by friends, family, colleagues), and (c)trips to the middle east. Could this one have been prevented? Maybe. I don’t know. A different topic, but our screening process for people coming in (especially from certain areas) as well as observation of them, needs to be much, much more stringent.


    1. I meant GUN law, since he wants “commonsense reforms” to keep guns out of the wrong hands or something.


  7. A question I almost never see asked or answered:

    “How many murderers were already known to the police, i.e. they had criminal records BEFORE they (usually illegally) obtained a gun and killed somebody with it?”

    I believe that we are letting violent thugs back out into society far too often, and it’s usually just a matter of time before one of them commits (or, at least, gets indicted) for murder. Keeping villains locked up, NOT disarming law-abiding citizens, is where we should be focusing our efforts.


    1. I sat on a jury for a week for a murder trial. The guy was guilty as sin and it took us literally 5 minutes to deliberate and decide his guilt once the trial was over. What really got me was that this guy had so many priors; grand theft auto three times, assault and battery twice, attempted murder, illegal possession of a firearm.

      And he was still out on the streets.

      While he was being tried for the murder I sat through he was awaiting trial for a second murder. And while he was in jail waiting for the two murder trials he brutally raped and beat a female corrections officer. My only regret was that the death penalty wasn’t one of our options.

      He got the guns illegally – by stealing them. One through a burglary and one by buying it from another thug who likely stole it too.


    2. What I forgot to mention was that we were not privy to any information about his prior arrests and convictions. When someone has such an extensive criminal record and a jury has no knowledge of it, I’m not surprised that some get sent back out into the street or they get a lesser charge and light time.


  8. The second amendment is etched in stone as far as I am concerned. Simply enforce the laws on the books already. Do the same for immigration.


%d bloggers like this: