What's your opinion? Don't you find it interesting and refreshing to read someone's opinion of these blogs who's new to them, someone who has not yet become inured to the incessant barrage of insults and attacks? I certainly do.
That sounds like Weer'd doesn't it?Weer’d Beard comes by the comment thread on this post just to say I’m full of shit without apparently reading my comment at Pandagon.
Bob S. makes a very good point about deleting comments but cannot resist the urge to infantilize and demean with epithets like “sparky” and “troll” when referring to those he disagrees with. At least Bob makes effort to rebut a claim while he is being insulting.That's Bob S. all right.
Please leave a comment.
Because "gunloon" is such a grown-up word used by educated people in constructing a rational argument. I'd remove the rafter in your own eye before you destroy whatever credibility you have left, Mike.
ReplyDeleteColin: "Gunloon" is the technical term for those who allow themselves to be duped by the NRA or GOA.
ReplyDeleteAnd, truth be told, it is rather a benign term compared to the pejoratives slung our way.
Taht's right Colin. You should see what we delete around here.
ReplyDeleteAs a relative newcomer to this blog, I have no idea "who started it" in regards to the name calling, nor do I much care. My point is that you two both frequently use pejorative language in your attacks on the pro-gun guys, which certainly means you have no moral authority on this issue whatsoever. And while I agree that "gunloon" is rather benign, I'd like to remind you both of your frequent stereotypes of gun owners as overweight, sexually inadequate, socially awkward, violence prone, pill popping, alcohol swilling, common sense lacking proto-criminals, so don't play coy with me. If Weerd or Bob calls one of you names, than direct your insults at them if you feel the need to sink to their level. However, you continue insulting gun owners in general, which those of us looking for a good discussion find offensive (at least I do).
ReplyDeleteRemember, the difference between my side and yours is that we're not trying to tell you how to run your lives. In trying to demonize guns and their owners (like your famous 10%--I know nine other non-criminal gun owners, so does that make me the criminal, Mike?) you imply that you are intellectually and morally superior to those of us who choose to own guns, so you don't even have to use derogatory language to come across as arrogant when making your arguments. That you then choose to use demeaning language just fans the flames.
Here's an idea: don't delete the comments. If they are as bad as you say, leave them up for the world to see. I recall another thread comment involving fellatio and fecal matter that you eventually deleted, and even I was taken aback by it. However, deleting the comments is counterproductive, because anyone trying to follow the argument has no idea if the comments were offensive, or if you couldn't find a counterargument (admittedly, you two seem much less guilty of this than Japete).
And Jade, you can't even go a sentence without insulting us as a group once again. I'm an educated individual capable of examining an argument and reaching my own conclusions, yet I am also a gun owner and NRA member. I doubt I'm the only one in that situation either, so how are we "dupes?"
ReplyDeleteI love a good argument, but this blog sadly seems to spend too much time name-calling and making stuff up (once again, that famous 10% for instance). I can't remember the last time either one of you presented a fact-based argument that didn't involve an anecdote from the news, and attempts to humiliate a poster for their personal pursuits don't count (ie, your comments about Breda, Weerd and Sean).
Colin: You get as you give.
ReplyDeleteSo, you tell me you're educated, a gunowners and an NRA member. Right?
When NRA board members and others in leadership (note: I'm not even talking about the rank and file) engage in racist, misogynistic, and extremist rhetoric, we shouldn't take that as an indictment of its membership?
When the NRA and its leadership says we need assault weapons to overthrow the Government, what should we surmise?
First off, I've done my level best to not resort to the mud-slinging attacks of you, Mike or several of the "gunnies," so how do I deserve to be called any of those things simply for owning a gun? That being said, I will call a spade a spade, so sometimes my language can be blunt.
ReplyDeleteAnd if I was a gunowner, but not a GOA or NRA member I wouldn't be a gunloon? Besides, I'm not sure what rhetoric you're talking about. I know that some of their views can be construed as extremist by some, but I'm unfamiliar with any comments made by NRA leadership that were racist or misogynistic. If I'm wrong, please provide examples, but it appears that once again you make claims devoid of evidence.
Finally, I know for a fact that the NRA has never espoused fully automatic weapons for insurrection; once again you use confusion and misdirection to attempt to make a point. They have advocated for the right of the people to own semi-auto variants of modern (and historical) military weapons, in part because such weapons impart power to the people against oppressive governments. The NRA's whole point, much like that of the Founding Fathers, is that an armed populace cannot be subjected to tyranny, not saying that we are currently being oppressed. BTW, I whole-heartedly agree with this particular position of the NRA, so you can "indict" me on that charge all you want. Show me definitive factual proof that the NRA has called for armed rebellion against our lawfully elected leaders, otherwise you fail at constructing a factual argument yet again.
Also, you haven't defended your use of any of the derogatory stereotypes in my first comment. Am I correct in assuming that you acknowledge you're proverbially just as black as the kettle?
ReplyDeleteMikeB: “Taht's right Colin. You should see what we delete around here.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s your justification? Because these insults are not as insulting as comments that only you get to see? Honestly, I like your policy. You should continue to see to it that the only insulting posts come from your side, and the only posts for the pro-rights side are polite and logical. I like the message this sends to impartial readers who may stumble upon this blog.
Jade, I have a term for those duped by you; “nonexistent”. No one believes your rants that the NRA wants to overthrow the current government.
Actually Jade, "Gunloon" is my trademark and I own the domain http://gunloon.com. Please cease using my domain name in your sage comments.
ReplyDeleteColin, You're right. But, lighten up a bit, will ya?
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I like the way you described it and I'll take your comments on this thread as a fair reminder to keep my part clean.
But, posting "anecdotes" from the news is what I do. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's the way I make my points rather than straight essays. The points are what they are and I often include qualifiers indicating that I realize most of you are among the 90%.
MikeB: “The points are what they are and I often include qualifiers indicating that I realize most of you are among the 90%.”
ReplyDelete…the 90% who occasionally drink beer and should not be allowed to own a gun.
Mike, you’ve always claimed to only be after those “bad apple 10%”, and legitimate, responsible gun owners (like me) have no reason to worry about your sensible measures, and by fighting these measures we are contributing to the problem of criminals getting guns. But listening to you talk, yields a different conclusion. These are some reasons it would seem you would have me completely disarmed:
ReplyDelete1) I don’t own a safe. I live in an urban apartment environment with simply no place to put a safe, let alone bolt it to a concrete slab. It would seem this disqualifies me from ownership in your mind, and worst case if I had a gun stolen would land me in prison. Additionally for most of my gun owning years I only owned one gun at a fraction of the worth of a bolt down safe.
2) I enjoy fine wine and beer in moderation. Though I have never handled a gun with any amount of alcohol my body, you still seem to take major exception to this.
3) I intend to grow old.
4) I have had an accidental discharge, which you may or may not consider a “one-strike-you’re-out”. Though since I obeyed all safety rules, the bullet ended up in the backstop of a gun range along with the rest of my bullets.
5) Though not completely disarmed, you would have no problem with me not being allowed to own handguns because I live in a high crime urban environment (see Chicago, DC).
6) Though not completely disarmed, you have no problem with me being disarmed when I step outside the home because my police chief decided he “may not” issue.
So am I one of your 10% or 90% or whatever percent you want to see disarmed?
Thank you for the kind words and linkage, Mike.
ReplyDeleteAnd for the record permit me to agree with Colin on two points: insulting and belittling discussants does no one any good, and only makes people stop listening to your arguments. And if your discussants insist on calling names, leave the comments up for all to see.
Under certain circumstances I can imagine editing comments, but I have never deleted a comment nor banned a commenter at FBL and I hope I never have to do so.
TS said, "…the 90% who occasionally drink beer and should not be allowed to own a gun."
ReplyDeleteWhat I said is the ones who drink beer cannot claim to be as responsible as those who don't. Getting high on drugs or alcohol, however moderately, does not increase your ability to do the right thing with your guns.
R. Stanton Scott, Thanks for sharing your comment-deleting ideas. All I can say is you've never met kaveman. He'll make you rethink your commenting policy.
And for the record permit me to agree with Colin on two points: insulting and belittling discussants does no one any good, and only makes people stop listening to your arguments. And if your discussants insist on calling names, leave the comments up for all to see.
ReplyDeleteWell said.
Thanks, RuffRidr.
ReplyDeleteObviously, my comment policy allows for deletion in some circumstances. But I think exposure is the best way to combat vitriolic rhetoric.
So, where can I find this "kaveman?"
That's fine, Mike. If you want to discuss issues pertaining to the success or failure of certain gun control laws (or lack thereof) in regards to a certain case, I'm all for it. Just be aware that an anecdote does not equal a statistic. I could post up a couple of instances where people have fallen from extreme heights without a parachute and lived, but that wouldn't prove that it's safe to go skydiving without a 'chute :)
ReplyDeleteAs for cleaning up your language that's all well and good, but remember that if I can be held responsible for the behavior of the NRA, you can most certainly be held accountable for the statements of your co-blogger (who generally posts much more offensive stuff than you).
"So, where can I find this "kaveman?""
ReplyDeleteKeep coming around, kaveman will find you. His blog is called "Days of Our Trailers."
Colin, Under the umbrella of my own shared responsibility theory, I accept partial responsibility for anything that you see on this blog. Fair enough.
Colin, Under the umbrella of my own shared responsibility theory, I accept partial responsibility for anything that you see on this blog. Fair enough.
ReplyDeleteReally? This is the first I have ever heard that. I guess the proof is in the pudding as they say.
RuffRidr, what "proof" could you possible be talking about?
ReplyDeleteMikeB, it's an expression for "we'll see". It's one thing to say you take responsibility for everything posted on this blog. It's another thing to actually do it. To date, you have not been very good about it. A great example is your head in the sand approach to the posting of personal details about Weer'd Beard and Linoge.
ReplyDeleteRuffRidr, I'm afraid you're a little mixed up there.
ReplyDelete"It's one thing to say you take responsibility for everything posted on this blog. It's another thing to actually do it."
JadeGold is an equal co-blogger on this site. You're confusing my taking responsibility for what happens on this blog with my editing my co-blogger. That's not gonna happen.
If you don't like something that's written here and you want to blame me, fine. I agreed to that.