Here's my comment:
Weer'd, Your pride-swelling is nice, but where were you when your country needed servicemen in uniform? You would have been about the right age for one of the Iraq wars. Where were you?
Bob, Your silly remark, "You want to let the criminals have a monopoly on force against the law abiding — be glad we don’t see you as an enemy." just shows how out of touch you are with reality. How many DGUs have you executed personally? Have you had occasion to brandish your weapon a time or two to frighten all these criminals away who have the monopoly?
No, you haven't. You're just a paranoid frightened man, like many gun owners, who feels more secure with a gun. Then you go through all this blustering nonsense to justify it.
I was kidding the other day about your shooting yourself in the foot. I hope you never have an accident with your beloved toys. I hope no one ever steals one of them from you and uses it to kill someone. I hope you or one of your family members never get so depressed that you or they turn to the gun for a solution to that. But all these things are more likely to happen than that you'll ever have to use the gun to save the day. Your fantasy is very dangerous for yourself and others.
Don't you get sick and tired of flag-waving guys like Weer'd who never did military service themselves? I think they should just keep quiet about it. What do you think?
And, what about Bob, continually beating that drum about being prepared for the criminals. Where does he live, in the ghetto?
Please leave a comment.
Cool blog, I hadn't noticed leftwingsoverthesouth.wordpress.com before during my searches!
ReplyDeleteCarry on the good work!
Folks like Weerd see war like fans at a football game; they like to cheer and wear the team colors and yell about being number one and such. They don't actually want to participate, though. And they certainly don't want to make the sacrifices an actual war may entail.
ReplyDeleteAnd Weerd isn't alone. There are many who associate what they deem "patriotism" with bigotry and warmongering. Note how many tout the values of this country while opposing the Islamic center near Ground Zero. Or the ones, like the gunloon, Breda, who support burning the Koran. This is what passes for patriotism in this country.
Jakegold- excellent comment and I couldn't have said it better!
ReplyDeleteAmbrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary:
ReplyDeletePATRIOT, n.
One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.
PATRIOTISM, n.
Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.
In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
I toss in using Christianity and the Constitution as well as Patriotism.
Laci
"Don't you get sick and tired of flag-waving guys like Weer'd who never did military service themselves?"
ReplyDeleteNo. I get sick and tired of flag-waving hippies who want to ban guns.
Note Weerd claims to have signed up for USN and USCG but was turned away because of asthma.
ReplyDeleteThis is actually a pretty common chickenhawk excuse--not that everyone is physically qualified for military service. But the fact is there are a lot of other things one can do if they're not physically qualified. VA hospitals always need people, for example. There are a bunch of military service organizations that need help.
Of course, doing so might put a crimp in his gunloonery and his threats against Americans.
Don't you get sick and tired of flag-waving guys like Weer'd who never did military service themselves? I think they should just keep quiet about it. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteWhat do I think? I think that for a self-described peace-lover, your definition of patriotism is awfully martial. Is it not possible to love one's country, without killing Iraqi and Afghani boys for it?
Is there no other way to contribute to one's society, and show one's love for it, than to kill for it?
I've served, and I'm glad for Weer'd that he hasn't had to see some of the things I've had to see, done some of the things I've had to do, or dreamt some of the nightmares I've dreamt.
Perhaps I'm a phony patriot, as well.
By the way--I should not have said " . . . things I've had to do." I was following lawful orders, as my oath demanded, but joining the Army was my choice, and thus my responsibility. Likewise, following those orders, rather than refusing them and facing the consequences, was also my choice, and thus my responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI'll probably carry some regrets to my grave, but that's my problem. Don't worry--I'm not asking for anyone's sympathy, and there's no absolution I can get here that would do me any good.
Anyway, my apologies for the sloppy wording in my first comment.
Perhaps, Z.
ReplyDeleteJadegold:
ReplyDeletePerhaps, Z.
Why, thank you, Jade--any indication on your part of potential agreement with the idea that my patriotism might be phony can only be a resounding affirmation of the authenticity of that patriotism.
As much as we despise each other, that's a remarkably generous gesture on your part.
Zorro, What war did you do those terrible things in, if I may ask? That's sort of like asking how old you are, but with the hope that you'll elaborate with a war story or two.
ReplyDeleteI can certainly accept and even respect a refusal to answer. As you know I refuse to talk about certain parts of my past.
I have great respect for you, Zorro, and for the moral dilemma you took on when you decided to fight for our country. Many thanks. You sound like you have some regrets and your comments reminded me of a story I read in a book called "What Really Matters: living a moral life amidst uncertainty and danger". Chapter two is a story about a WW II veteran who had trouble reconciling what he was trained to do and did with his sense of right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I appreciate you having exposed yourself to this kind of dilemma and hope that you will find some peace.
Alan, thank you, sincerely, for the kind words of support. The worst (by far) of it is behind me by several years, thanks to the support I have received from friends and family. The regrets, as I said, I expect to be unable to part with (and frankly, I don't think I should part with them), but the nightmares come more rarely all the time.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, I'll say this much. I'm not talking about war crimes--I never participated in (or had direct knowledge of) the murder of non-combatants, the execution (or other abuse) of surrendered fighters, etc.
It's just that for every hardcore actual terrorist--the kind who would be almost as happy to kill his own countryman (for being Shi'a) as to kill us--there were a dozen or more, well . . . patriots, who simply wanted to drive the hated foreign invaders from their soil.
How can I blame them for that? I would have been fighting us, too.
Here's an interesting side issue, though. Imagine having nightmares, night after night, so intense that you spend the next few consecutive days and nights refusing to go to bed, because you don't believe you can face another nightmare.
Now, imagine not trusting the VA with the knowledge that you're having emotional problems, due to concern that you will be found "unfit" to own firearms, and will be forcibly disarmed. This was a bit before the NICS "Improvement" Act, by the way, but I still knew better than to say anything to the VA. Now we see this kind of atrocity.
(To Be Continued)
This is the message we're sending troubled veterans: "If you don't want to be disarmed, keep your emotional pain to yourself--don't ever say anything about it to anyone in the medical profession, particularly if that person has some connection to the government.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant, eh? People who genuinely need some help (and who, remember, have guns, military training, and combat experience) are forgoing that treatment, in order to preserve their rights.
Still think disarming people for seeking help makes society safer?
Sorry, Zorro, you could not be more wrong. Your basic argument is that if someone honorably serves his country and, in doing so, incurs some psychological (and/or physical) damage--we shouldn't deprive this individual of unfettered access to guns.
ReplyDeleteIt's a profoundly stupid--and dangerous--argument.
Obviously, even the very gun-friendly Supreme Court would disagree with you.
Sorry, Zorro, you could not be more wrong.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jadegold. I hadn't doubted my position before, but if I had, being told by you that I "could not be more wrong" would be exactly the reassurance I'd need that I was right on the money.
Besides, I'm not even arguing about the immorality of disarming veterans--anyone so lost to honor as to be unable to see that on his own is likely to be too far gone to be worth trying to convince. I only meant to show that as a practical matter, such laws mean that many who will not disarm are avoiding treatment.
Again I ask, does this make society safer?
You are wrong on so many fronts, Zorro. Let's look at a few.
ReplyDeleteFirst, as I sagely noted, not even Fat Tony Scalia will back you up on the issue of allowing the mentally ill to have guns. Your argument is emotional; you say that because one incurs mental illness as part of military service--we should overlook this and permit unfettered access to guns. This logic doesn't hold any water; nobody (except for Linoge and Mikey W.) sets out to become mentally ill--it's something you're born with or suffer as a result of injury.
Second, what keeps mentally ill servicemen from obtaining treatment isn't their love for guns--it's almost always these two factors: first, they don't think there's anything wrong or they're more more concerned about the stigma associated with mental illness.
If anyone is an expert on mental illness it'd be Jadegold.
ReplyDeleteIf insanity is defined as repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result, then gun control by definition is insane and those that believe in it are mentally deranged.
ReplyDeleteZorro, Thanks for sharing your personal business with us, if that's what it was, but I know it'll come as no surprise, I agree with Jadegold's point.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'll make it out in another way. You said, "Still think disarming people for seeking help makes society safer?"
That's where you went a bit over the line into bullshit. No one says "asking for help" should disqualify someone. If you're unfit because of your combat experience, or if the boss yelled at you too harshly and didn't give you that promotion, you should be disqualified. If you're unfit, you're unfit.
Jadegold, I can't imagine why the fact that the current Supreme Court, although slightly less hostile to private gun ownership than other recent Supreme Courts, would agree with you that it's legitimate to forcibly disarm people who have done nothing wrong "wins" the argument for you.
ReplyDeleteBesides, I'm not arguing that disarming veterans is evil because they're veterans--it's evil because they're human.
Finally, I know some troubled veterans have kept quiet about their PTSD out of concern about how it would affect our ability to legally buy and keep firearms. I'm one of them, and I have talked to others in my own veteran's group (in a not particularly large city). In my group, I'm kinda the "designated gun guy," and I've advised gun owning veterans of the dire risk they'll put themselves in if they seek treatment for PTSD.
Mikeb
ReplyDeleteNo one says "asking for help" should disqualify someone.
But when the consequence of asking for help is a judgment of "unfit to possess firearms," the message sent is, "Don't ask for help, unless you want to spend the rest of your life in disarmed serfdom."
or if the boss yelled at you too harshly and didn't give you that promotion, you should be disqualified.
ReplyDeleteThe window for who should be able to own firearms in your eyes closes a little bit more each day. As you have said on here many times, you do not advocate for a total ban. You just advocate for laws so stringent that it might as well be a total ban. Statements like the one you made above are beyond ridiculous. Who hasn't been yelled at by a boss one time or another?
I guess I sorta dragged this off-topic. Sorry about that--wasn't my intention (hadn't meant to make this about me).
ReplyDeleteI only brought up my background because I thought it would be instructive in explaining my perspective with regard to Mikeb's apparent belief that patriotism should be the exclusive province of current and former members of the armed forces.
That is an offensive, intellectually bankrupt, and morally repugnant position--particularly in one who claims to oppose war. It doesn't surprise me when Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Coulter, etc., claim that only they and other supporters of an imperialistic foreign policy can lay a legitimate claim to "patriotism," but you, Mikeb, seem determined to undermine the anti-war position (that "We're patriots, too!")--from the inside.
Finally, I know some troubled veterans have kept quiet about their PTSD out of concern about how it would affect our ability to legally buy and keep firearms.
ReplyDeleteBaloney.
If (and that's sometimes a big if) someone understands they're afflicted--they understand their immediate problem(s) involves family, friends, job, substance abuse. They are not thinking "Gosh, I feel pretty out out of it--hope this doesn't affect me buying 8 gazillion guns."
This entire issue is an NRA creation. It's not going anywhere because people--even rabid rightwingers and self-styled "patriots" don't want people incapable of knowing reality from fantasy running around with guns.
Jadegold the Pathological (and Extremely Ineffective) Liar:
ReplyDeleteBaloney.
Ooh--did I just get accused of lying, by JadeEveryKillerIsAnNRAMemberGold, of all people? Now that's funny!
You're the gift that keeps on giving, Jade--the laughs just don't stop.
What does Patriotism have to do with gun ownership?
ReplyDeleteOr the Second Amendment?
First off, if you have guns to fight the government, then you are committing the only crime written into the Constitution in Article III, Section iii- Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Likewise the militia’s purpose is to suppress insurrections, not foment them in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.
–Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)
Anyway, since you advocate the abolition of all gun laws, that means you would allow terrorists access to firearms.
So, screw the Patriotism BS, dude.
If you believe the Second Amendment gives you the right to wage war on the US Government, Guess again.
The founding fathers would have disarmed you faster than any of today's politicians. Check out this from the The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents--December 12, 1787:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
Laci
BTW, here is the Heller-McDonald language, Zorro:
ReplyDeleteLike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5
JadeGold's correct--Fat Tony's gonna take away your guns!
Laci (or whatever we're to call you), it would seem that you're the first person in this thread to bring up the Second Amendment, and the first to talk about "wag[ing] war on the U.S. government," so I figure the most appropriate response (if dignifying your comments with a response can be considered appropriate in the first place) is, "WhatTheFuckEver."
ReplyDeleteAs for the Honorable Justice Scalia (or any of the other justices on this, slightly-less-virulently-hostile-to-private-gun-ownership-than-other-recent-Supreme-Courts, for that matter) "taking my guns," he's welcome to try.
Bet he can't move very fast in body armor heavy enough to stop a .338 Lapua, though.
“From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
ReplyDelete…this precedent has been set for several hundred years. What exactly does this have to do with Heller/McDonald?
Zorro made reference to "Mikeb's apparent belief that patriotism should be the exclusive province of current and former members of the armed forces."
ReplyDeleteIs that how you heard me? "exclusive province?"
The whole thing started with Weer'd and his flag-waving tough-talking bullshit. Doesn't it piss you off? How about when a politician like President Bush, or any number of others, do it? They're draft-dodging ass-holes who try to piggy-back on the sacrifice made by others.
McCain is the opposite. His service record made him worthy of respect, no?
On the other issue, if you want to advise men who need treatment not to get it for fear they might lose their gun rights, I say you've got your priorities screwed up. That's your business though. But don't go whining and blaming the system and the gun control folks. You choose, and your friends who look up to you for advice choose what's more important.
In your zeal to protect your god-given rights, you must miss the obvious fact that people don't lose their rights for seeking help unless the disorder is serious.
And if it's serious, giving up the right to own guns is best.
Jade: “If (and that's sometimes a big if) someone understands they're afflicted--they understand their immediate problem(s) involves family, friends, job, substance abuse. They are not thinking "Gosh, I feel pretty out out of it--hope this doesn't affect me buying 8 gazillion guns."
ReplyDeleteJade, you’ve repeatedly made mention on this blog to people whom you refer to as “gunloons”. You say they are socially maladjusted and psychologically dependent on firearms to make up for inadequacies in their professional and personal lives. But here you imply most don't care about their guns. Is it just that the gunloon is so rare? Is anyone here a gunloon?
Mike and Jade, what exactly are your positions on PTSD? Automatic disqualification? I believe there is a lesser diagnosis- maybe called “syndrome” instead of “disorder”. Them too? Do you think Zorro should not be allowed to own guns because of nightmares? (Zorro, thank you for your service. I hope each passing day lessens the pain)
Mikeb:
ReplyDeleteThe whole thing started with Weer'd and his flag-waving tough-talking bullshit.
Are we looking at the same comment of Weer'd's? What "tough-talking bullshit"? This is the comment I saw:
Great Observance! I must say my chest swelled after September 11th when everybody was flying flags as often and as numerous as they could. It was very sad months later when the practice of patriotism evidently lost its trendiness.
Loving your country shouldn’t be trendy.
What's so bellicose, so characterized by false bravado, about that?
Mikeb:
. . . if you want to advise men who need treatment not to get it for fear they might lose their gun rights . . .
That's not what I advise them. I simply warn them that seeking treatment for PTSD will likely result in their losing their ability to legally possess firearms--probably for life. I leave it to them to decide whether or not that's enough to stop them from doing so. Oh, and lately, I illustrate my point, with the story of the Iraq vet forcibly disarmed because he needs help with the budget.
That sure gets their attention.
Deeply appreciated, TS--things are vastly better now, thanks to the overwhelming support of a loving family and some incredible friends.
ReplyDelete"The whole thing started with Weer'd and his flag-waving tough-talking bullshit. Doesn't it piss you off? How about when a politician like President Bush, or any number of others, do it? They're draft-dodging ass-holes who try to piggy-back on the sacrifice made by others."
ReplyDeleteBush served during the Viet Nam War, and just like you Mike, he was stationed in a non-forward position.
So according to your metric (that I disagree with) you should shut up.
Weer'd, What the hell are you talking about. What exactly should I have to shut up about, all that exaggerated flag-waving and pseudo-patriotic bullshit I've been spouting?
ReplyDeleteYou must be crazy if you think Bush performed his military duty like anyone else. He did his like the spoiled brat he was, playiing hookey from the National Guard.
Shut up, Mike!
ReplyDelete