Bob's attitude which comes through loud and clear in this unsolicited explanation to Zorro, sounds like the antithesis of mature, reasonable discussion. It sounds laughably petty and continues to fail in the honesty department. Maybe Bob should touch base with Joe Huffman for some help with that old "truth from falsity" thing.Zorro,
MikeB302000's comment is visible on his site since he knew I wouldn't post it here.
I won't post MikeB302000's comments until he talks about his ownership, both legally and illegally, of firearms. I want him to use his right of free speech to answer the questions he's demanded of us over the years.
Mostly it was a claim that the antis don't say Lie #1.
Of course, his words betray him, as they usually do.
Unless a person lives in a particularly bad area, or unless his work makes him a target for violence, he does not need a gun
Doesn't that sound awfully like "crime doesn't happen in good neighborhoods" so you don't need a firearm?
When Bob says, "I want him to use his right of free speech to answer the questions he's demanded of us over the years," he's being a bit misleading. Generally I talk about current events and behaviour. On the few occasions that past gun history has come up, I may have asked but never was there the least bit of coercion to tell all. Especially when it comes to personal details, I respect people's right to keep what they want private.
When Bob quoted me saying, "Unless a person lives in a particularly bad area, or unless his work makes him a target for violence, he does not need a gun," as an indicator that I believe no crime happens in good neighborhoods, he was either missing an obvious difference or flat-out lying. The comment of mine which he refused to post but which I did made a clarification of the fact that I never said no crime ever happens in good neighborhoods. This quote of mine does not betray me at all. When I say living in a good neighborhood means you don't need a gun it's not the same as "crime never happens there," It's the old cost / benefit ratio I'm talking about, and I suspect Bob knows this very well.
In the past, I have likened Bob's need for a gun to protect himself or his family to the possibility of being struck by a meteorite. He didn't like that because, although an obvious exaggeration, it does point to the wrong decision he's made with regards to guns. Out of fear and insecurity, he's actually endangered his family and himself, not made them safer. This is a hard reality to even consider, denial comes up, and vicious attacks go out to whoever dares suggest such a thing.
The reason I care what Bob does, is not because I'm personally interested in his and his family's welfare, that would be a lie, it's because when you multiply Bob's case by a million or by 10 million, we've got some serious problems. If it weren't for these guys, guns flowing into the criminal world would all but dry up. If it weren't for them gun accidents in the home and spur-of-the moment shootings would diminish. If it weren't for these guys, we wouldn't be reading every single day about kids bringing daddy's gun to school.
What they call freedom is the exact opposite. They're slaves to the gun and so are we.
What's your opinion?
Please leave a comment.