And your point in posting this is what, Mike? Are you going to refute him?
Whatever your reason, I'll just point out that this, and the cheers in the background, are mere demonstrations of what we've been warning you about. Your side has been pushing this issue further and further over the years. You've already pushed over Mike V.'s line, and apparently the crowd's, so that they feel justified in ignoring the new laws.
Many people feel that way now, and many more are very close to that point. The more you push laws that you acknowledge are infringements on our rights, the more people you push over that line, and the greater the chance that you light a fuse on a powderkeg none of us want to see touched off.
T., you already know how I feel about the points you raised. The idea that many people are getting to the point of civil disobedience is nonsense. Blowhards like Mike V., who talk a good game and CLAIM to be breaking laws, will always be exceptions to the rule. Most gun owners are law abiding citizens, which by the way is what you often tell me, and they will continue to be so no matter how strict the laws get.
This is rich, Mike. When we point out how generally law abiding most gun owners are, you tell us we are overgeneralizing, you question the statistics, and you try to discredit us by finding examples of gun crime and speculating that the people could be concealed carriers.
But then, when it comes to civil disobedience, suddenly you accept the notion that we're law abiding, and you extrapolate that everyone will abide by any bad law that you pass.
Your constant taunting about how almost nobody will violate these laws as an act of civil disobedience is such a deep level of willful self deception that it borders on stupidity.
You haven't been paying attention, T. "you extrapolate that everyone will abide by any bad law" I certainly wouldn't have said anything like that. Remember my long-standing position first put forth in The Famous 10% and later increased upwards. I've even said a number of times that I think about half of you would be disarmed if we had proper gun laws.
What I said is that most would obey because although you guys like to call us sheeple for not wanting to own guns, that word applies to you as well.
So first you tell me that most gun owners are law abiding, but in the very next post you tell me that at least half would be disarmed for violations of your proposed laws.
As for the charge that we would allow half of our number to be forcibly disarmed, you show a frightening naivete.
But they're not of your number. They're the hidden criminals, the drug addicts, the irresponsible. Taken one at a time, you'd want them disarmed as much as anyone.
The problem, Mikeb, is that you separate out those behaviors and act as though they're discrete categories. They're not. Criminals, drug addicts, and the irresponsible are overlapping groups. You pretend that they aren't and use that notion to suggest that half of us are unfit.
You also have bad notions about what makes a person unfit, but that's another discussion.
I noticed that too. Were you impressed, T.? I was.
By the way, what do you think about people who claim to take the "shall not be infringed" literally? If they're not totally full of shit, shouldn't they already be resorting to 2nd Amendment solutions? Instead, they recommend those criminal actions to others. And in the case of Mike, CLAIM to have done them themselves.
What clowns. Any reasonable gun owner should denounce them as such.
As Tennessean has very ably pointed out, even Second Amendment hardliners (as I suppose some would consider me to be) have no intention of making this a shooting war until every other avenue has failed. As people of honor and morality, we are ethically compelled to exhaust every peaceful remedy before we go to guns.
That time might be uncomfortably close, and America might indeed be near the end of Claire Wolfe's "awkward stage," but as Mr. Vanderbeogh frequently warns, "No Ft. Sumters."
Mike, see Kurt's comment, and my longer comments under your politifact posting regarding why people aren't already resorting to 2nd Amendment solutions.
This is an interesting new turn for you--challenging us and trying to goad people into starting a civil war. It looks like you're upset that you lost on gun control politically, and so you are trying to push people into giving away what gains they have made by starting a civil war that you figure your side can win.
Maybe that's your goal, or maybe you're just shooting your mouth off. Either way, you sound like a fool and do your cause no good.
I'd like to add my 2 cents here and say that we would not be fighting a civil war anymore than the South was in 1861. It was a battle to be left alone. Additionally, if you read the Declaration of Independence, the reason for the split was not one issue, but many issues of the government screwing with the people. It is the same deal today. Government has got its big fat nose in way too many places it doesn't belong and people are getting fed up with it. Oh, and then there are taxes, upon taxes upon taxes.
T., As I said to Greg, I'm not the one who's trying to goad people into violence. You guys are doing that to each other. I'm just pointing out how the ones doing the goading are all hat and no cattle, so to speak.
Orlin, when can we expect the next civil war then?
And I've been pointing out that by their own philosophies, they shouldn't be fighting right now, hence the lack of fighting.
Your pontificating about whether they should be under arms or not just shows either your inability to understand what they've written and said, or your willful ignorance of the same.
I gotta admit--this time you have really confused me. Where the hell is the "hypocrisy" in taking back some of the money the federal government extorted from him over decades of work? It's his money--or was, until the government seized it. What high principle would he be serving by refusing to take back some of what was taken from him?
Yeah, I heard that justification. It sounds like bullshit to me. I would think a man of integrity who claims to be a Libertarian would refuse any government assistance. But that's just me.
How about you? Do you get government money for being disabled? Did you pay into it like Mike V. did and therefore it's really your money?
People who are on disability didn't necessarily pay in. You're assuming that. But the point is, taking government assistance cannot be consistent with what these guys say they stand for.
TS, why don't you tell us what part of libertarianism allows for taking government hand-outs.
The irony is you same guys trying to justify this bullshit criticize the system which pays the unwed ghetto mom for nothing.
"The irony is you same guys..." Mikeb, why do you keep opening your mouth and inserting your foot? Whenever you make a comment like that, you show how blind you are to the diversity of opinion that exists about many subjects among those of us who support gun rights here.
So would you say that a hard core libertarian who believes we should repeal the 16th amendment and disband the IRS is a hypocrite for accepting a tax refund check?
It’s like this- in general, free market libertarians believe in paying for goods and services that they want to use. They don’t like being forced to pay for goods and services that they don’t use, or aren’t even allowed to use. If it is something you would rather not pay for, but are going to take advantage of because you are paying for it anyway, I don’t see a problem with that. I think it would be fair to call Mike Vanderboegh a hypocrite if he never paid into the disability system, yes. If someone is against redistributionist systems, it doesn’t do their cause any good to continue to aide in redistribution even more by refusing the goods and services that they paid for- which is what you are asking them to do.
A "hard core libertarian" doesn't pay taxes in the first place.
"I think it would be fair to call Mike Vanderboegh a hypocrite if he never paid into the disability system, yes."
What about when the pay out surpasses what he paid into the system. Wouldn't he have to stop collecting? Wouldn't he want to, unless he's a blabber-mouth hypocrite, that is.
This probably applies more to Kurt who became disabled fairly young. But he already said he doesn't want to talk about that. I can see why.
Wow! And so Mike tells us that there are no real libertarians anyway, because otherwise we'd all be defying the IRS rather than submitting to it and trying to vote to change the system.
Your pontifications about what others believe show that you don't understand what they believe. For a time, it was possible that you were just ignoring our explanations and ignorant of what we were saying, or that you were just too stupid to understand. However, you've proven that you can and do read an comprehend what we're saying. You just willfully misrepresent us.
If we're typing too quickly and summarize one of your side's arguments too absolutely--e.g. say all instead of almost all, you accuse us of the worst kind of lying and manipulation.
Yet you make HUGE misrepresentations about us and what we think or believe. Look to the plank in your own eye Mike. You accuse us of lying, but your own lies are of a conscious, willful variety, and are in a whole other league.
Mikeb, try to pay attention. A lot of us would prefer to work within the system, rather than declaring open war. We see it as better for all involved. Such a person can believe that things need to be changed, while going along with paying taxes, for example, to remain free to participate. Felons don't get to vote and aren't paid much attention.
You just can't stand it when so many of us are reasonable.
Kurt, your "retort" is more then welcome, but I'm afraid it must be without name calling and excessive nastiness. Check the comments of Greg and Tennessean if you're unsure how that's to be done. There are no more tenacious defenders of your rights on this blog than those two and yet, I never feel the need to delete their comments.
Actually I'd love to hear your twisted justification of taking government assistance and how that's consistent with Libertarian principles.
Actually I'd love to hear your twisted justification of taking government assistance and how that's consistent with Libertarian principles.
I thought I have already told you that my not-the-least-bit-twisted reasoning behind my being intelligent enough to pick up on the fact that there is exactly zero hypocrisy in a libertarian taking back some of the money that the government seized from every paycheck over a period of decades. It's not that complicated.
Another argument that I have not made, but has real merit, is that in a struggle against the leviathan government, why not take advantage of whatever resources can be gotten from said leviathan government?
Why not enjoy both the advantage and the amusing irony of spending part of his money, that he is finally recovering from the government, to buy fuel for his magazine/ammo smuggling operations?
Finally, your bizarre assertion that a hard core Second Amendment advocate who is not already engaged in an active shooting war with the government is ridiculous. Several of us have explained this to you. I'll try once more.
No decent, wise, moral person wants a war before every avenue of peaceful resolution has been exhausted. That has not yet happened. There is still room for hope that it never will. That hope is considerably stronger if the government knows that the people have both the means and the will to resist.
That explanation is pretty much the same as several others you have already been given, by several of us, so I suppose there is little hope that you are not still having trouble grasping it.
Perhaps it would help if you could tell us which part is beyond your comprehension. Maybe there's a way to simplify it even more.
I tried to submit this comment earlier, but my computer was doing weird things at the time, so I guess it didn't get submitted.
Either that, or you thought this one was excessively harsh for your delicate feelings, too.
In case it's the former, I'll submit it again (if the latter, I guess it will be rejected, as well). Here goes:
Check the comments of Greg and Tennessean if you're unsure how that's to be done.
I think quite highly of both Greg and Tennessean, and agree that they are very staunch defenders of what I am amazed to see you acknowledge are rights (I thought your position was that there is no right to possess firearms, just a very fragile privilege). Still, we are all individuals, and as such, take different approaches to these discussions.
The problem with me trying to be even more polite to you than I have been so far is that I believe that to fail to point out my utter contempt for everything about you would be lying by omission, and I prefer to leave the lying to you and your ideological allies.
Furthermore, since I can have no faith in either your ability to learn quickly, or to long retain a lesson you have learned, I feel compelled to both go into considerable detail of what I find loathsome about you (everything), and to repeat my expressions of unmitigated disgust fairly frequently.
I suppose I can try to take on faith that you are aware, and that you will try to remember, that I will never dishonor myself by granting you the respect one would accord a man as a matter of course.
Question, Mikeb. Why do you keep saying that if we really believe in "shall not be infringed," we should be out fighting a shooting war? Are you trying to get us to do that? Also, does it bug you that we aren't acting the way your side always says we'll act?
Greg, I don't KEEP saying that, in fact I didn't say it at all. I never said you SHOULD be. Your friends Kurt and Mike V. and other like them are the ones talking the tough talk, but as I pointed out, it's all talk.
"If you were the freedom-fighters you keep saying you are, you'd already have been up in arms."
"If they're not totally full of shit, shouldn't they already be resorting to 2nd Amendment solutions?"
Excuse me, but there are your words, and as Greg said, you have been suggesting that we should be shooting now if we believed what we say.
We've pointed out how you are misrepresenting us and what we believe, but that doesn't matter to you. You just dismiss anything we say, build a straw man, and beat it down.
Such a GREAT way to win an argument--except you've only won it with a brainless scarecrow.
"If they're not totally full of shit, shouldn't they already be resorting to 2nd Amendment solutions?" Those are your words. I call that incitement to violence.
When I'm feeling particularly cynical I tend to think some people are trying to goad gun owners into crossing some sort of Rubicon (Eric Berne on a grand scale, anyone?). Most of the time, though, I'm more inclined to see it as what it probably really is, which is otherwise intelligent and honest people resorting to adolescent debating tactics.
I think you're correct when you're cynical. History is full of examples of people goading the other side into shooting first so that they can guarantee that an avoidable war happens and so that they can tell themselves that they didn't start it.
Except that you refuse to admit, or to allow yourself to understand that according to that "tough talk" they should be doing what they're doing now, and no more.
By the way, and again I'll have to ask forgiveness for coming across as boasting, but the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has bestowed upon me the dual honor of associating me with Mike Vanderboegh, and lavishing me with their dislike--"despised by the despicable," indeed.
And your point in posting this is what, Mike? Are you going to refute him?
ReplyDeleteWhatever your reason, I'll just point out that this, and the cheers in the background, are mere demonstrations of what we've been warning you about. Your side has been pushing this issue further and further over the years. You've already pushed over Mike V.'s line, and apparently the crowd's, so that they feel justified in ignoring the new laws.
Many people feel that way now, and many more are very close to that point. The more you push laws that you acknowledge are infringements on our rights, the more people you push over that line, and the greater the chance that you light a fuse on a powderkeg none of us want to see touched off.
T., the cheers in the background sounded like a couple dozen people. When the Brady Campaign has that kind of turnout, you can't mock it fast enough.
DeleteSure, minimize the numbers as a way of dodging dealing with either my points or the ones asserted in the video.
DeleteReally helpful in defusing tensions, that.
T., you already know how I feel about the points you raised. The idea that many people are getting to the point of civil disobedience is nonsense. Blowhards like Mike V., who talk a good game and CLAIM to be breaking laws, will always be exceptions to the rule. Most gun owners are law abiding citizens, which by the way is what you often tell me, and they will continue to be so no matter how strict the laws get.
DeleteThis is rich, Mike. When we point out how generally law abiding most gun owners are, you tell us we are overgeneralizing, you question the statistics, and you try to discredit us by finding examples of gun crime and speculating that the people could be concealed carriers.
DeleteBut then, when it comes to civil disobedience, suddenly you accept the notion that we're law abiding, and you extrapolate that everyone will abide by any bad law that you pass.
Your constant taunting about how almost nobody will violate these laws as an act of civil disobedience is such a deep level of willful self deception that it borders on stupidity.
You haven't been paying attention, T. "you extrapolate that everyone will abide by any bad law" I certainly wouldn't have said anything like that. Remember my long-standing position first put forth in The Famous 10% and later increased upwards. I've even said a number of times that I think about half of you would be disarmed if we had proper gun laws.
DeleteWhat I said is that most would obey because although you guys like to call us sheeple for not wanting to own guns, that word applies to you as well.
So first you tell me that most gun owners are law abiding, but in the very next post you tell me that at least half would be disarmed for violations of your proposed laws.
DeleteAs for the charge that we would allow half of our number to be forcibly disarmed, you show a frightening naivete.
But they're not of your number. They're the hidden criminals, the drug addicts, the irresponsible. Taken one at a time, you'd want them disarmed as much as anyone.
DeleteThe problem, Mikeb, is that you separate out those behaviors and act as though they're discrete categories. They're not. Criminals, drug addicts, and the irresponsible are overlapping groups. You pretend that they aren't and use that notion to suggest that half of us are unfit.
DeleteYou also have bad notions about what makes a person unfit, but that's another discussion.
Mike Vanderboegh is an American hero, and it feels almost uncomfortably like boasting for me to call him a friend.
ReplyDeleteBut I'll endure the discomfort.
I noticed the shout out to ya.
DeleteI noticed that too. Were you impressed, T.? I was.
DeleteBy the way, what do you think about people who claim to take the "shall not be infringed" literally? If they're not totally full of shit, shouldn't they already be resorting to 2nd Amendment solutions? Instead, they recommend those criminal actions to others. And in the case of Mike, CLAIM to have done them themselves.
What clowns. Any reasonable gun owner should denounce them as such.
Thanks, Tennessean--I am indeed honored.
DeleteAs Tennessean has very ably pointed out, even Second Amendment hardliners (as I suppose some would consider me to be) have no intention of making this a shooting war until every other avenue has failed. As people of honor and morality, we are ethically compelled to exhaust every peaceful remedy before we go to guns.
That time might be uncomfortably close, and America might indeed be near the end of Claire Wolfe's "awkward stage," but as Mr. Vanderbeogh frequently warns, "No Ft. Sumters."
Mike, see Kurt's comment, and my longer comments under your politifact posting regarding why people aren't already resorting to 2nd Amendment solutions.
DeleteThis is an interesting new turn for you--challenging us and trying to goad people into starting a civil war. It looks like you're upset that you lost on gun control politically, and so you are trying to push people into giving away what gains they have made by starting a civil war that you figure your side can win.
Maybe that's your goal, or maybe you're just shooting your mouth off. Either way, you sound like a fool and do your cause no good.
I'd like to add my 2 cents here and say that we would not be fighting a civil war anymore than the South was in 1861. It was a battle to be left alone.
DeleteAdditionally, if you read the Declaration of Independence, the reason for the split was not one issue, but many issues of the government screwing with the people. It is the same deal today. Government has got its big fat nose in way too many places it doesn't belong and people are getting fed up with it. Oh, and then there are taxes, upon taxes upon taxes.
orlin sellers
T., As I said to Greg, I'm not the one who's trying to goad people into violence. You guys are doing that to each other. I'm just pointing out how the ones doing the goading are all hat and no cattle, so to speak.
DeleteOrlin, when can we expect the next civil war then?
I think you mean Revolutionary war, right?
Deleteorlin sellers
And I've been pointing out that by their own philosophies, they shouldn't be fighting right now, hence the lack of fighting.
DeleteYour pontificating about whether they should be under arms or not just shows either your inability to understand what they've written and said, or your willful ignorance of the same.
Nothing to say about the hypocrisy of his taking a government disability check? I'll bet I know why.
ReplyDeleteI gotta admit--this time you have really confused me. Where the hell is the "hypocrisy" in taking back some of the money the federal government extorted from him over decades of work? It's his money--or was, until the government seized it. What high principle would he be serving by refusing to take back some of what was taken from him?
DeleteSmoking the good stuff, aren't you?
Yeah, I heard that justification. It sounds like bullshit to me. I would think a man of integrity who claims to be a Libertarian would refuse any government assistance. But that's just me.
DeleteHow about you? Do you get government money for being disabled? Did you pay into it like Mike V. did and therefore it's really your money?
Refuse to take back money that you paid in? How does that make any sense?
DeleteBoy, you really don't get the point of libertarianism do you?
DeletePeople who are on disability didn't necessarily pay in. You're assuming that. But the point is, taking government assistance cannot be consistent with what these guys say they stand for.
DeleteTS, why don't you tell us what part of libertarianism allows for taking government hand-outs.
The irony is you same guys trying to justify this bullshit criticize the system which pays the unwed ghetto mom for nothing.
"The irony is you same guys..." Mikeb, why do you keep opening your mouth and inserting your foot? Whenever you make a comment like that, you show how blind you are to the diversity of opinion that exists about many subjects among those of us who support gun rights here.
DeleteTry, for once, to overcome your prejudice.
So would you say that a hard core libertarian who believes we should repeal the 16th amendment and disband the IRS is a hypocrite for accepting a tax refund check?
DeleteIt’s like this- in general, free market libertarians believe in paying for goods and services that they want to use. They don’t like being forced to pay for goods and services that they don’t use, or aren’t even allowed to use. If it is something you would rather not pay for, but are going to take advantage of because you are paying for it anyway, I don’t see a problem with that. I think it would be fair to call Mike Vanderboegh a hypocrite if he never paid into the disability system, yes. If someone is against redistributionist systems, it doesn’t do their cause any good to continue to aide in redistribution even more by refusing the goods and services that they paid for- which is what you are asking them to do.
A "hard core libertarian" doesn't pay taxes in the first place.
Delete"I think it would be fair to call Mike Vanderboegh a hypocrite if he never paid into the disability system, yes."
What about when the pay out surpasses what he paid into the system. Wouldn't he have to stop collecting? Wouldn't he want to, unless he's a blabber-mouth hypocrite, that is.
This probably applies more to Kurt who became disabled fairly young. But he already said he doesn't want to talk about that. I can see why.
MikeB: “A "hard core libertarian" doesn't pay taxes in the first place.”
DeleteCan you explain how that works?
MikeB: “What about when the pay out surpasses what he paid into the system.”
Is that the case?
Wow! And so Mike tells us that there are no real libertarians anyway, because otherwise we'd all be defying the IRS rather than submitting to it and trying to vote to change the system.
DeleteYour pontifications about what others believe show that you don't understand what they believe. For a time, it was possible that you were just ignoring our explanations and ignorant of what we were saying, or that you were just too stupid to understand. However, you've proven that you can and do read an comprehend what we're saying. You just willfully misrepresent us.
If we're typing too quickly and summarize one of your side's arguments too absolutely--e.g. say all instead of almost all, you accuse us of the worst kind of lying and manipulation.
Yet you make HUGE misrepresentations about us and what we think or believe. Look to the plank in your own eye Mike. You accuse us of lying, but your own lies are of a conscious, willful variety, and are in a whole other league.
Mikeb said, "I think it would be fair to call Mike Vanderboegh a hypocrite if he never paid into the disability system, yes."
DeleteAre libertarians supposed to be martyrs? Taking some of governments ill-gotten gains seems to me to be heroic.
orlin sellers
Mikeb, try to pay attention. A lot of us would prefer to work within the system, rather than declaring open war. We see it as better for all involved. Such a person can believe that things need to be changed, while going along with paying taxes, for example, to remain free to participate. Felons don't get to vote and aren't paid much attention.
DeleteYou just can't stand it when so many of us are reasonable.
Kurt, your "retort" is more then welcome, but I'm afraid it must be without name calling and excessive nastiness. Check the comments of Greg and Tennessean if you're unsure how that's to be done. There are no more tenacious defenders of your rights on this blog than those two and yet, I never feel the need to delete their comments.
DeleteActually I'd love to hear your twisted justification of taking government assistance and how that's consistent with Libertarian principles.
Now that we have that out of the way . . .
DeleteActually I'd love to hear your twisted justification of taking government assistance and how that's consistent with Libertarian principles.
I thought I have already told you that my not-the-least-bit-twisted reasoning behind my being intelligent enough to pick up on the fact that there is exactly zero hypocrisy in a libertarian taking back some of the money that the government seized from every paycheck over a period of decades. It's not that complicated.
Another argument that I have not made, but has real merit, is that in a struggle against the leviathan government, why not take advantage of whatever resources can be gotten from said leviathan government?
Why not enjoy both the advantage and the amusing irony of spending part of his money, that he is finally recovering from the government, to buy fuel for his magazine/ammo smuggling operations?
Finally, your bizarre assertion that a hard core Second Amendment advocate who is not already engaged in an active shooting war with the government is ridiculous. Several of us have explained this to you. I'll try once more.
DeleteNo decent, wise, moral person wants a war before every avenue of peaceful resolution has been exhausted. That has not yet happened. There is still room for hope that it never will. That hope is considerably stronger if the government knows that the people have both the means and the will to resist.
That explanation is pretty much the same as several others you have already been given, by several of us, so I suppose there is little hope that you are not still having trouble grasping it.
Perhaps it would help if you could tell us which part is beyond your comprehension. Maybe there's a way to simplify it even more.
I tried to submit this comment earlier, but my computer was doing weird things at the time, so I guess it didn't get submitted.
DeleteEither that, or you thought this one was excessively harsh for your delicate feelings, too.
In case it's the former, I'll submit it again (if the latter, I guess it will be rejected, as well). Here goes:
Check the comments of Greg and Tennessean if you're unsure how that's to be done.
I think quite highly of both Greg and Tennessean, and agree that they are very staunch defenders of what I am amazed to see you acknowledge are rights (I thought your position was that there is no right to possess firearms, just a very fragile privilege). Still, we are all individuals, and as such, take different approaches to these discussions.
The problem with me trying to be even more polite to you than I have been so far is that I believe that to fail to point out my utter contempt for everything about you would be lying by omission, and I prefer to leave the lying to you and your ideological allies.
Furthermore, since I can have no faith in either your ability to learn quickly, or to long retain a lesson you have learned, I feel compelled to both go into considerable detail of what I find loathsome about you (everything), and to repeat my expressions of unmitigated disgust fairly frequently.
I suppose I can try to take on faith that you are aware, and that you will try to remember, that I will never dishonor myself by granting you the respect one would accord a man as a matter of course.
Question, Mikeb. Why do you keep saying that if we really believe in "shall not be infringed," we should be out fighting a shooting war? Are you trying to get us to do that? Also, does it bug you that we aren't acting the way your side always says we'll act?
ReplyDeleteGreg, I don't KEEP saying that, in fact I didn't say it at all. I never said you SHOULD be. Your friends Kurt and Mike V. and other like them are the ones talking the tough talk, but as I pointed out, it's all talk.
Delete"If you were the freedom-fighters you keep saying you are, you'd already have been up in arms."
Delete"If they're not totally full of shit, shouldn't they already be resorting to 2nd Amendment solutions?"
Excuse me, but there are your words, and as Greg said, you have been suggesting that we should be shooting now if we believed what we say.
We've pointed out how you are misrepresenting us and what we believe, but that doesn't matter to you. You just dismiss anything we say, build a straw man, and beat it down.
Such a GREAT way to win an argument--except you've only won it with a brainless scarecrow.
"If they're not totally full of shit, shouldn't they already be resorting to 2nd Amendment solutions?" Those are your words. I call that incitement to violence.
DeleteWhen I'm feeling particularly cynical I tend to think some people are trying to goad gun owners into crossing some sort of Rubicon (Eric Berne on a grand scale, anyone?). Most of the time, though, I'm more inclined to see it as what it probably really is, which is otherwise intelligent and honest people resorting to adolescent debating tactics.
DeleteI think you're correct when you're cynical. History is full of examples of people goading the other side into shooting first so that they can guarantee that an avoidable war happens and so that they can tell themselves that they didn't start it.
DeleteApologies. My emphasis was on the "if" clause, which SHOULD have been followed with "would" not "should."
DeleteObviously I'm not trying to goad anybody into doing anything. I'm simply pointing out the bullshit in the tough talk of guys like Mike V. and Kurt.
Except that you refuse to admit, or to allow yourself to understand that according to that "tough talk" they should be doing what they're doing now, and no more.
DeleteBy the way, and again I'll have to ask forgiveness for coming across as boasting, but the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has bestowed upon me the dual honor of associating me with Mike Vanderboegh, and lavishing me with their dislike--"despised by the despicable," indeed.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, they're also helping me sell more patches.
Gotta like that.