But, like with all leftists/statists/progressives, they don’t want to get their hands bloody. No, no. They want federal government to “literally go to war with its own citizens.” How do I know that? Because they write articles like “So At What Point Do We Actually Stand Up to the Gun Nuts.” In said article they pose questions like: “So what line has to be crossed in the good old U.S. of A. before we start mowing them down to make our point?”
Meet Susie Madrak (I know, I had to google her, too). Near as I can tell, Ms. Madrak is whatever you’d call the journalism equivalent of an ambulance chaser, running from media buzzword to media buzzword (for a real treat, read some of her articles on income inequality. I’d normally link to it here but I don’t want to drive any additional attention her way as it seems to embolden her) trying to capitalize on whatever fervor du jour the 24 hour newsies are whipping up.
What irks me about her recent diatribe against people like me (gun owners) is the confidence in her supposition, based on what happened at the Bundy Ranch is that we (gun owners) are wrong. We’re nothing more than disruptive, “political malcontents” intent on hindering the progress of the federal government. She completely ignores, by the way, the controversy of the federal government’s business in this case. The government was right, Bundy and his supporters were wrong and, for the crime of stopping perceived government injustice via threat of armed conflict, Bundy’s supporters, evidently assumed to be all gun-owners, or “assholes,” as she calls them, should suffer death by drone strike. Or maybe ATF and BLM could break in those cool new “armored tanks” and take out the trash.
To be fair, she does say “gun nuts” but doesn’t define that term: what makes one a gun nut? One gun? Two guns? Ten guns? A subscription to Guns & Ammo? An NRA Life Membership card?
Ms. Madrak closes her article with a thinly veiled plea to the government(?) to give us what we allegedly want, a civil war, you know, to “just get it over with” and “settle the burning question about whose is bigger.”
Sheesh – for someone who assumes gun “nuts” are violent, her commentary certainly comes across a bit aggressive, does it not? Which is really the dirty truth here, isn’t it? The anti-gun contingent tendencies are far more homicidal than any I’m seeing from my fellow gun people. But like I pointed out in my article about Mike Malloy over the weekend, they want the federal government and local law enforcement to do the dirty work.
UPDATE: Somebody, I can only assume it’s Susie herself because, let’s face it, she doesn’t rank an editor or PA, is going through and removing disagreeing comments from the discussion at the bottom. She is unflinching in her cowardice.