The U.S. House of Representatives this week passed a new effort at banning so-called assault weapons, the details of which may be read here. In short, it is everything that was bad about the 1994 law and more, and it has little chance of surviving the Senate. Were it to manage that, the Supreme Court would all but certainly strike it down, given Heller’s protection of weapons in common use and NYSRPA v. Bruen’s declaration that gun rights must be treated in a manner similar to all other rights, rather than as if the Second Amendment were the red-headed stepchild of the Constitution. But of interest to me in this essay was a tweet sent by the Twitter account of one of the bill’s sponsors, Representative Jesus “Chuy” García, who is the member from the Fourth District of Illinois. I have added a screenshot as a header image, since the tweet was deleted in a hurry. A spokesperson for the representative posted a claim that the original message was written by a staffer without authorization and will result in disciplinary action, the tweet having been inconsistent with García’s “history, values, and character.”
I should hope so, but the vitriol in the tweet is sadly in keeping with the attitude that gun control advocates often display toward anyone who challenges their agenda. Gun ownership is treated as something that only someone without culture, class, or a working brain would want to be involved with—when they are not insisting that the only reason for owning a gun is as compensation for having a small penis. I am routinely told that I should read a book—I have read many and have even written a few—and I am given the astonishing news that I am a Trump supporter, despite the abundant evidence that I and others supply to the contrary. I am asked why I support guns while opposing abortion—I am pro-choice—or why I want to kill minorities—something I do not wish to do. I get many variations of the Christian god tossed at me on the assumption that if I pray to him—I do not—I should have no need for personal weapons. And, of course, I am accused of being pleased to see the murder of children, as if I am responsible for every criminal act committed by deranged killers.
That is in the first person singular as it relates what I have seen in my interactions with gun control advocates for more than a decade, but with variations, it is the common experience of so many gun owners who dare to stand up for our rights. Those who call for abortion rights to be protected get treated with the same measure of hate—I speak from experience and observation here, too—sometimes, I am sorry to say, by advocates of gun rights. Politics is a passionate business, and when it touches on values that we see as fundamental to who we are, anyone who disagrees is all too often perceived as a threat to one’s existence and well-being.
In discussions about attitudes toward homosexuality, I will often ask people to consider how a gay couple living next door might harm them. Call me an amateur psychologist, but the fear that I pick up on again and again is a belief that neighbors who are living their lives successfully in a way that differs from my own calls my mode of existence into question. How can they be doing well when they do not live as I do? And if they are finding different and working solutions to the problems of life from the ones that I have chosen, can mine be all that good? I suspect that something like this goes on in many encounters between people who not of the same political, ethnic, religious, or other tribal groupings.
As pointed out above, the spokesperson for Representative García said that the offensive tweet was sent by someone not the Member of Congress, leaving me to wonder if he ever speaks for himself. Perhaps this should be a reminder to account holders everywhere that Twitter got started as a site for personal expression, however much it has turned into a vehicle for hawking one’s wares—one here being everything from a politician to a lowly author to an international corporation. I often see statements in the bios of famous persons that if Himself or Herself or the like writes the tweet, it will be accompanied by the person’s initials, but can anyone really enter enough into the head of another to speak with that other’s voice? And if so, how many copies of the same mind do we require? I understand that famous people are busy being famous if nothing else, but forged tweets are all too reminiscent of the old studio system in Hollywood that invented fake personalities, relationships, and attitudes for their stars, tailored to the roles that they were assigned.
I imagine that Representative García feels to some extent violated here, as I am willing to believe that he would not use the language of the tweet in question and does not hold such attitudes. Very well. But the Internet is forever, at least in some approximation of forever, and I ask him to remember his experience of having his voice appropriated and abused when next he has the opportunity to vote on a matter of basic rights. Just as speech is fundamental to living a unique life, so is the ability to protect oneself.
Someone, I am sure, will always be happy to remind him if he becomes forgetful.
Who was he responding to and was the Tweet that got this response also one of those tweets that....perhaps should not have been sent?
Yesterday, I sent a tweet out to someone who posted a link to a WaPo story about climate change. The WaPo linked to an article in The Guardian. I asked what the primary source was for the info, attributed to Dr. Michael Mann at Penn State. Of course what I got was a reply in all caps accusing me of doubting the story, another reply telling me I am smug, etc, ad hominem. Again, like in your case, someone who hasn't the foggiest idea of what I think or why I might want to see the primary sources. Something I learned a long time ago.
Go figure.
Did the follow-up tweet have an apology, or did it just state that the offending tweet was not authorized by the congressman?