Cynthia Tucker is another one of these smug, liberal, black columnists whose sophomoric ranting regularly appears in our local Pensacola newspaper. Her columns are usually extremely one-sided and racist, perhaps even more so than the other smug, liberal, black columnists like the aforementioned Dewayne Wickham who think they're better or smarter than me and you. I must point out that Cynthia Tucker has won a Pulitzer Prize. For...are you ready?...Commentary. That’s right, commentary. Which…and I know you’re going to say that I’m the one being horribly racist…but it just goes to show you how smug, liberal, black writers can leverage their blackness into awards if they know how to write well. Society is still so impressed with educated black people that they hand them Pulitzer Prizes just for...you know...commentating. Hey, where's my Pulitzer?!
Recently Cynthia Tucker weighed-in on the issue of guns. She is, naturally enough, against them. She, like many other of her misinformed, misguided ilk, blames the weapon…the “assault rifle”…i.e. the AR-15 on recent killings. She wants it banned. And she wants high-capacity magazines banned as well.
But they won’t be banned, she notes, because politicians are afraid of the NRA (National Rifle Association). She seems to think that when it comes to their position on the issue of guns, politicians listen only to the NRA. This is a huge and irrational oversimplification. I suppose it never occurred to Ms. Tucker that politicians also listen to their constituents?
And this is the trouble with liberal newspaper columnists: They simply cannot conceive of a society that tolerates guns. It is beyond their comprehension that some of us do not see guns as evil…that some of us believe we have enough gun laws right now, thank you very much. No, in Ms. Tucker’s world, everyone acknowledges that guns are bad and would not mind seeing them restricted and/or (in the case of DiFi) eliminated completely. Poor misguided Ms. Tucker!
Ms. Tucker correctly notes that gun restrictions are no cure-all for society’s ills. But then she goes off the rails. “But banning at least some assault-type weapons and the high-capacity magazines that feed them would be a step in the right direction. Why can't we take that step?”
Whoa. What? Who said that it would be a step in the right direction?? Where does she get that from? Hey sweetie, maybe we can’t "take that step” because it doesn’t make sense?
Then Ms. Tucker gets further “out there.” In talking about the last ban on so-called “assault weapons” (i.e. “the Clinton-era ban”), she says, “But many law enforcement officials nevertheless supported it, declaring that it helped. It didn't end gun violence or stop mass murders or prevent suicides (which account for two-thirds of gun deaths in this country). But it prevented some killings. Isn't that worthwhile?”
Hmm, Tucker declares definitively that the Clinton-era ban “…prevented some killings.” Oh yeah? Prove that one to me. Prove it! Prove that some killings did not happen because of “the Clinton-era ban.” Only a true idiot…and I say this with all due respect…but only a true friggin’ IDIOT would make a claim that such-and-such did not happen…and further, that such-and-such did not happen because such-and-such did happen. "Dog didn't bite man today! New law prohibiting dog bites is responsible. No film at eleven."
In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and the National Research Council both ended up concluding that the Clinton-era ban had a negligible or indeterminate effect on killings. So for Ms. Tucker to say such a thing is a downright falsehood if not a bold-faced lie. It is wishful thinking taken to an extreme.
Of the Clinton-era ban Ms. Tucker goes on to state, “The civilized world did not come to an end during those 10 years; the Second Amendment was not besmirched.” Uhh, yes it was. And anyway, if that was the case, if that ban on “assault weapons” was so great, why then was it allowed to expire? Maybe because it was ineffective?
Before closing her column, Ms. Tucker throws one more dig at the NRA and the politicians she thinks are afraid of it. “Yet, the vociferous -- nay, deranged -- leadership of the NRA has persuaded Congress that an assault-weapons ban is akin to totalitarianism.”
Deranged? No, sweetie, the NRA leadership is not deranged. It represents its members…people like me and the millions of others like me who happen to not think like people like you. You, Ms. Tucker, obviously do not like guns. I do. I don’t see anything wrong with people owning guns, and I appreciate our Founding Fathers for putting on paper and into law that we American citizens have a RIGHT to own them…a RIGHT which shall not be infringed.
It boils down to this: Ms. Tucker sees only the rare, random tragedies like Newtown, Connecticut and the Aurora, Colorado movie theatre shooting and thinks guns are awful and ought to be outlawed. The old, “If it prevents just one killing it’ll all be worthwhile!” justification.
Me, I see the bigger picture. I see an armed America as a strong America. I see my ability to defend myself as sacrosanct. I see a government that fears…and should fear…an armed citizenry. Finally – and not for nuthin’ - I see the leaders of other nations (China, hello?) who look at the number of guns in this country and go, “Ehhhhh, let’s not invade the U.S.” (We know that Japan considered invading the U.S. during WWII; they wisely decided against it due in part to the number of guns owned by us.)
It bothers me that uninformed people like Cynthia Tucker are held in some position of honor for their thinking simply because they’ve won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary. She clearly has no objectivity when it comes to guns and failed miserably to do even the slightest bit of research on the subject. Now that is a sad commentary.
You can read Ms. Tucker's latest column HERE.