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.
Especially when it comes to personal details, I respect people's right to keep what they want private.
ReplyDeleteRiiiiiiiight. That's why Weer'd Beard's name was outed in a cowardly fashion on your blog and it still remains there today.
No reply? I guess you don't have the respect for people's wishes after all.
ReplyDeleteWas there a question? I didn't think your observation needed a response, even if it were in the form of a question.
ReplyDeleteBob S. is crying incessantly about my not talking about what I did or did not do 30 years ago. Jadegold outed Weer'd, is that what you're referring to? I don't even remember it or give a shit. My question to you is what does one have to do with the other.
I said that I respect people's right to keep what they want private. Does my allowing my co-blogger to do what he wants disprove that. I don't think so. We've also had many comments which say things I wouldn't say myself, do I need to clean all them up in order to make that statement about MYSELF. I don't think so.
Besides, we were talking about Bob's justification for not allowing my comments. You support that, no doubt. You think it's normal that he insists that I "exercise my 1st Amendment right" about my personal life of 30 years ago and only then will he post my comments?
Does my allowing my co-blogger to do what he wants disprove that. I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't JadeGold who did the outing. We all know who it was, but I'll just refer to him as anonymous coward. Anyway, this is your blog, not theirs. YOU are the one responsible for personal details posted on this site. You are perfectly able to delete comments and posts that seek to reveal and exploit personal information. Failing to do so supports them by proxy. So therefore you can claim to respect people's right to keep information private, but we all know that that is total bullshit. You don't respect your commentors at all.
Just curious, what would your reaction if Weer'd, Bob S., or someone else posted all of your personal details on one of their blogs? Maybe we should all give you the same respect you've shown us.
Besides, we were talking about Bob's justification for not allowing my comments. You support that, no doubt. You think it's normal that he insists that I "exercise my 1st Amendment right" about my personal life of 30 years ago and only then will he post my comments?
ReplyDeleteThink of it this way MikeB, it is not a "ban" on you posting there. You are perfectly able to do that. You just have to do it in the narrow parameters that someone else has felt is justified. Isn't irony delicious?
Aren't the restrictions on your commenting common sense? Reasonable restriction?
ReplyDeleteMaybe you are one of the 10% of his commenters that shouldn't be commenting.
I have a simple question: why does Mike or Jadegold have an obligation to protect Weer'd's anonymity?
ReplyDeleteJust because he wants them to?
RSS: It's quite simple.
ReplyDeleteIt's ok to expose those who don't hew to the NRA partyline and to post their addresses and such.
OTOH, it's *wrong* to out gunloons.
I have a simple question: why does Mike or Jadegold have an obligation to protect Weer'd's anonymity?
ReplyDeleteSimple answer: he doesn't. But then you can't turn around and claim you do respect their right to keep that info private. It's obvious MikeB doesn't respect that right. So why claim you do? It just makes you look like a lying fool.
Ruffy: I realize it may be tough for you to stop singing the one note in your repertoire but you can't have it both ways.
ReplyDeleteI don't see you at the usual gunloon blogs complaining that it's wrong to out me. To the contrary, you encourage it and try to embellish the many "crimes" you and yours purport I commit.
I can't speak for Mikeb--and it's not my blog--but I've not outted anyone and I see no evidence Mikeb has either. OTOH, we do have a fairly liberal comment moderation policy hereabouts. We publish most any comment, even those that attack us or dissent from our views. No gunloon blog can say this.
That's all fine and dandy JadeGold, but I wasn't the one claiming to respect other people's rights to privacy. MikeB is. It is very clear that by allowing these types of things to be posted by anonymous cowards, that he indeed does NOT respect that right. If he would have came out and said he actually encourages such behavior by allowing it to happen, then you see that would be a truthful statement, and I would have no beef with him.
ReplyDeleteRuffRidr, I honestly don't know what outing you're talking about. I assumed it was something Jadegold did, I apologize to him for that.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I respect people's privacy. That's my opinion of myself. Take it or leave it.