Well, the snappy response is “Wait, how exactly did the gay community make it easier for Sandusky to get a penis?” (Now, the big-time college athletics community certainly made it easier for Sandusky to get alone with boys, so that’s a pretty good comparison. )
My thought on a response that might have a tiny tiny chance of having a real dialogue if the other guy is even capable of it is along the lines of “Look, nobody is saying that the gun community WANTS sickos to shoot up schools. But it’s pretty obvious that stricter gun control would prevent a few sickos from being able to shoot up schools, and the gun community opposes stricter gun control. So, in that sense, it kind of seems like they’re making more shootings more likely.”
The gun agenda is not responsible for sickos getting firearms any more than gays are responsible for Sandusky getting little boys. Ownership of a penis and ownership of a firearm both carry great responsibilities.
WTF is the point of Facebook if you don’t care what other people post?
To the OP: Instant blocking. I would not want to be associated with this person in any way. Even the most generous interpretation of that statement indicates a lack of judgment in posting it.
Are you saying that gay lobbyists are involved in crafting legislation that regulates the market for little boys?
I did not know that.
[/Johnny Carson]
It think he was making a point about how “the gun community” aren’t any more responsible for the actions of the nut that shot up the school than “the gay community” is responsible for the Sandusky thing. As in the actions of one shouldn’t condemn the actions of everyone.
This was my answer before I even opened the thread. And that still is the answer. It’s never a good idea to get into this type of discussion on Facebook.
