Joe Links this Gem I’ll start with the closing remarks:
With heels dug in, we proceed in our hyperbolic conversation about guns and rights in this country. I am quite sure there is common ground somewhere. Can we get there? Can we talk? Can we agree on just a few things? I think we can.
Now first up I’ll point out that this blogger has a very strong habit blocking ANY comments from people who disagree with her. As a matter of fact I’ve looked over months of blog posts and found THIS one was the ONLY one with comments from a pro-rights advocates. Joe brought her blog to my attention in mid-August, you’d think there would be more comments. Hell I dropped a few polite rebuttals there and they were all removed. You’re running against the tide from the get-go, hon. Oh also note that Curt has the lion’s share of rebuttals there and she instead is choosing to change subjects, and move goal posts. This is not the first time we’ve seen behavior like this.
But it gets worse!:
So, here are a few items that were decided in favor of gun violence prevention. First, the Obama administration has wisely decided that importing hundreds of thousands of M-1 military style rifles from South Korea is not a good idea. Let’s see now- the NRA is claiming a gun ban by the Justice Department because the department decided that allowing 850,000 military style weapons into our country for sale may allow some of them to end up in the wrong hands. These are dangerous weapons. Why do people want them? Some will say to collect them because they are, after all, antique firearms. Here are the words of Dennis Henigan, V.P. of the Brady Center: ” “Guns that can take high-capacity magazines are a threat to public safety,” said Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “Even though they are old, these guns could deliver a great amount of firepower. So I think the Obama administration’s concerns are well-taken.”
This is what we’re dealing with. Calling the M1 Garand a “”Guns that can take high-capacity magazine”? Not without heavy modification. The Garand feeds from 8-round en-bloc clips fed into a fixed magazine. Its a military battle rifle, but it was never even considered an “Assault Weapon” or “High Capacity” by any gun-control laws. They are popular hunting and sporting rifles, and amazingly valuable collector’s pieces. (I told my Father-in-law what Garands and M1903 Springfields were selling for these days and he nearly fainted), what common ground can we have to somebody who can’t run a Simple Web Search? Or maybe she did, but decided the facts weren’t relevant. Either way not something to be proud of.
Does anyone care that criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people can get guns in the secondary markets without background checks?
Care enugh to make it a federal crime…why? Seriously, do you know ANYTHING that you’re talking about?
Does anyone care that a sensible law which would stop prohibited people from buying guns in one of the secondary markets has been stopped again and again by the NRA?
Umm, see above, the law would NOT stop prohibited people from buying guns…there are already laws that do that, and they’re as effective as any other law. Let’s face it, this is a woman who has devoted a blog to “Gun Death” and promoting gun control laws as a mean to stop this.
Well of course “Gun Death” is a stupid metric, but things like assault and murder are already illegal, and already hold pretty stiff penalties (if the judges don’t soft-ball the case) and they don’t actually STOP these crimes, so her wishes already don’t mesh with reality. But yeah the law didn’t stop prohibited people from buying guns on the secondary market…it stopped LAWFUL people from buying guns. So yeah, it was GOOD that the bill was stopped.
So yeah, first up, you make it pretty clear that your call to find “Common Ground” is actually just asking those of us who are rational and like our freedom to submit to your oppressive and ineffective whims.
Sorry, no. If a grown-up from the gun-control crowd wants to step forward, I’m perfectly willing to talk with them. I’m also well aware they don’t exist, as all advocates for gun control act equally as childish.
So no, we need to keep repealing gun control laws, and press such bigoted and ignorant mindsets off into the shadows. Not only is there no common ground when it comes to human rights, but even if I were to concede that the right to self-defense was NOT a human right, your proposed legislation is a proven failure, and filled with fallacies, so there is no rational reason to support your views.
Maybe that’s why you don’t actually want to talk with us.
Goddamn captchas. Lost my comment.
The sad/funny thing is that we are already in the middle ground. Given the range of options between “walk into a WalMart and walk out with a fully automatic, suppressed KRISS with no paperwork, and cash payment” and “no guns, nowhere, no how”, this is the “common ground”.
Background checks, no new FAs, absurd taxes on what FAs we can own and suppressors, idiotic limitations on what firearms we can import and how it can be done, crazy-arsed patchwork of carry laws across the country, arbitrary and ludicrous length limitations on longarms, ammunition restrictions, paperwork that already creates a defacto nation-wide registry… this IS the “common ground”.
And I patently refuse to Xeno’s Paradox myself to death, to a point where firearms are not expressly banned, but they might as well be.
More topically, in regards to this particular hoplophobe, that she is unwilling to allow all but a scant few opposing voices to comment on her weblog, and that she is either unwilling to or incapable of doing the necessary research on the topics she is so fervently discussing… well, that speaks volumes as to what she believes to be the “common ground”, and, frankly, I will have none of it. Our rights have already been minimalized, marginalized, and reduced to what little we enjoy now – as recent court cases have already shown, we have the opportunity to start moving on the offensive now, and we might as well take it.
I actually think we’re well beyond middle ground.
Still even then, with such stupid and childish assholes asking for “Compromise” even if they concede middle ground, I will still push until we drive them into the sea like Darius at Marathon.
BTW isn’t it Ironic that in a post about a closed-minded blogger who commits “reasoned discourse” and refuses to discuss the issues, my Captcha and my spam trap keep a buddy of mine’s comment in moderation for several hours!
Sorry about that!
Yeah, well, that is the difference, though – they moderate out of malicious willfulness, we (generally) moderate out of accidental automation.
Hell, that alone rather exposes the elemental differences of our positions…
You should read this.
Too bad that isn’t as effective on most of the committed antis.
http://www.weerdworld.com/2010/quote-of-the-day-6/
She’s actually engaged me. Check the comments to the post you linked.
I think all the points I’ve raised that she can’t rebut are starting to hurt her head.
She’s also apparently attracted another commenter who says they’re familiar with my positions, but they’re using a name I don’t recognize.
I’d be willing to bet it’s one of the regulars (jadegold, Kelli, LacytheDog, etc) and just doesn’t want me to know who it is.
Anyway, if you decide to comment, please be nice. I’ve been trying very hard to keep it civil.
I have a couple of responses that I recently put up still in moderation, but so far she’s posted every comment I’ve made. As I said though, she seems to be getting a bit frustrated with her inability to counter my points in any meaningful way.
“The factses….they burnses us”
You’re definition of “Engaging” is much more lax than mine. More like goal-post moving topic dodging.
Still I’ve posted several polite comments on her blog, all have never seen light of day.
More of the same, I’m just curious why she posted your posts, lord knows how many other comments have been shitcanned with mine.
More like goal-post moving topic dodging.
To an anti, who’s entire world view is based on false premises, that’s pretty much the closest thing to “engagement” we can expect. At least she posted my comments and replied to them…even if her replies take the form of avoiding rather than addressing points raised. I can be quite surly in response when someone is uncivil to me, but my default mode is polite and as long as she keeps it that way, so will I.
She said she was interested in thoughtful discussion so I am attempting to give her the opportunity to engage in just that.
Her last comment, however, and the new post on “ad hominem abuse” gives me the impression that she is quickly losing patience with me and my pesky facts and logic.
I’ve responded to every point she’s brought up (if I missed any, it was an oversight that I’d be happy to remedy, not an intentional avoidance)…a courtesy she’s failed to return.
The other commenter raised no points at all, just told japete to dismiss my arguments for no reason other than that they come from me. That’s a pretty clear cut case of “argumentum ad hominem” if you ask me.
The mystery commenter then proceeded to misrepresent (and manufacture out of wholecloth) positions they insist that I hold without the courtesy of any sort of support or verification…just unsourced accusations.
I accurately described this single comment as “unsupported ad hominems”, which prompted them both to instantly assume aggrieved victim mode and claim that I’ve dismissed ALL the points raised as “unsupported ad hominems”…patently untrue.
It’s actually kind of funny that in japete’s last comment on the thread (the one left September 4th at 12:16pm in case she does post my replies and adds more to the thread) struck me as very relieved that “shooter” (whom I don’t recall ever engaging in conversation or debate before, even though they claim they are knowledgeable about by positions and debate style) gave her an excuse to dismiss the uncomfortable points I’ve been raising without actually having to address any of them.
At any rate, It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the entire comment thread goes down the memory hole and japete begins claiming that I was abusive or threatening and that’s why she ended the discussion. We’ll know in a day or two whether she’s willing to continue the discussion. I will be pleasantly surprised if she does. I will remain civil, even though I’m becoming increasingly convinced that she isn’t really interested in “thoughtful discussion”…unless the discussion does nothing more than reinforce her preconceived biases and the conclusions she’s already reached. She appears to be very uncomfortable with having her worldview challenged. She seems to be perfectly happy thinking whatever the Brady campaign tells her to think and isn’t really interested in delving into the issues any deeper than that.
If I were a betting Man, I’d bet “Shooter” is a sock-puppet. And actually it is the Occam Razor solution as well…
Curt, bless you for trying, but there’s no conversing with these people. We’ve seen this pattern hundreds of times.
Her last comment, however, and the new post on “ad hominem abuse” gives me the impression that she is quickly losing patience with me and my pesky facts and logic.
Hell Curt she lost patience with me after 6 comments, none of which saw the light of day.
It’s sad really, that the idea of her ideology being threatened is that damaging to her personally.
Curt never HAD her Patience, she’s a Brady Camp shill. Even if he DID convince her that she’s full of shit, that would mean the checks stop rolling in.
The odd thing is why Curt’s comments got approved in the first place. I know I had posted at least 3 comments myself that never saw the light of day, and her blog had less than 10 comments on it, despite being linked to by Joe.
Pingback: Weer'd World » A Repsonse