Catherine responds
Catherine has responded to my post “Arguing gun rights…a primer for antis”
While the original post was indeed inspired partially by Catherine, it is part of a much larger trend. the same pattern repeats itself over and over again in the blogoshpere. But Catherine was kind enough to reply, so allow me to retort.
You are wrong on many accounts:
1. I was not spouting. I have an opinion and I am entitled to it.
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. The point of my post, as I believe the points of my confederates, was to point out that your opinion was based on ignorance. Your augment is literally of the variety “The sky is green. It’s my opinion and I am entitled to it.” Certainly, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. If you disagree with our facts, then refute them with your own.
2. I have suggested that the approach be far different. If you want a discourse on the topic and really want to educate as you say you do, I think it would be better to do it in a manner that actually indicates that you would like a discourse rather than lecturing and indicating that you think someone who wants gun control is just dumb. That goes nowhere.
I have never called you dumb, Catherine. And I will state again, now, for the record: I do not think you are dumb. I think your arguments are ill-informed and made from ignorance. And I think your case is weak. I have historical precedent, statistics, and yes, a bit of snark to support my case. You have feelings and your opinion. I believe my case is stronger.
3. Statistics can be skewed either way.
Really? The CDC and the FBI skew their own statistics? My numbers come from the source. I don’t filter; I don’t have to. If you disagree with my interpretation, then by all means let’s discuss it.
4. I was not arguing. It was my opinion. The pr-gum(sic) bloggers went on my blog and argued. I only questioned and refuted some of the arguments that did not seem well supported. Others were never backed up with anything.
Horsepucky. You made a political statement in a public forum stating that you believed that MY civil rights should be abrogated. That’s a mighty serious thing. Understand, it is the semantic equivalent to standing on a street corner and saying “I don’t think women should have the right to vote because some of them vote for stupid things.” Then, when you are understandably challenged, you respond with “Well, that’s just my opinion.” It may be your opinion, but it is an ignorant, bigoted opinion, and I am going to call you out on it.
If you feel that any of my assertions, or those of my fellow bloggers are incorrect or poorly supported, I would welcome the opportunity to debate you on the merits of the argument.
5. There is no “appeal to emotion.” It was my opinion and how I feel about the topic. My blog is a forum for expressing my opinions.
From your blog:
When you watch this video think about those who needlessly died yet again because of America’s obsession with guns. Seven people wounded, two dead. The largest mass shooting in the history of Miami. The National Rifle Association (NRA) should be so proud today. More dead and they and their members are to blame.
The bloodbath in Liberty City was the result of an assault rifle-wielding murderer who unleashed a spree of bullets on people playing an exceedingly dangerous game of street dice.
Yep, no appeal to emotion there. Catherine, words and phrases like “bloodbath” and “obsession with guns” tend to…um…appeal to emotion. Q.E.D. (A little lawyer lingo, there.)
And, while we are on the topic, American’s “obsession with guns” didn’t kill anyone. A maniac with a rifle did. Punish him, not me.
6. You are definitely wrong on this one. If you look at the sequence, I never called Rustmeister a name. One day after our conversation was over i received a pingback from his blog. On his blog he said in essence that I was stupid, crazy and delusional. So who called who a name?
After that, I wrote a post calling it the way that i see it. He’s an NRA shill as I see it based on the badges on his blogs. I also personally think he’s a right wingnut since I do not believe that the Second Amendment stands for the proposition that you need guns to overthrow the government, as gun bloggers were saying on my blog.
*Sigh*….where to begin here? First, I have gone through the tracks, and I can’t find any place where Rustmeister called you a name. I disagree with your characterization that he said that you are stupid, crazy, and delusional. I did note that one commenter called you delusional. I certainly have never called you a name. I have characterized your arguments as weak and being made from ignorance.
As far as the “propaganda corps” badges…you can read the origin here. I’ll summarize: We are all the unorganized milita. You are an attorney…look up the original citation. Not in any way related to the NRA. Rust may, in fact, be a shill for the NRA. But the propaganda corps doesn’t prove that. And calling him a wingnut is an ad-hominem.
7. I received threatening emails and some very not nice comments from people. I decided to shut down comments and delete because I felt that it was harassment. That’s my choice. When I am getting threatened, I choose to shut down and not post anymore comments form anyone and to delete comments. I reserve that right. It was also based on advice from the authorities.
You may or may not have received threatening emails, I have no way to know that. You are certainly entitled to shut down comments on your blog. I certainly have never threatened anyone, and that hasn’t been the behavior that I have exhibited from the vast and overwhelming majority of the pro-gun folks that I know.
If you felt the need to contact the authorities, perhaps you wouldn’t mind posting a copy of the complaint?
The bottom line is that i may not agree with your arguments, mostly because they are obviously canned,
See, here we go again with the ad-hominems. In what way are they obviously canned? If you disagree with my facts, then produce some of your own. If you disagree with my reasoning, then attack that.
but you can score a lot of points with people by first asking them why they favor gun control and then not making fun of them because they place human life over an assault weapon.
Believe it or not, Catherine, I place much, much more value on human life than an assault weapon. If we could save a single human life by banning all guns, I would be the first one in line to turn them in. But the sad reality (not opinion, fact) is that is has never happened in the history of the world. Ever. This is the spirit embodied in Joe Huffman’s Just One Question. If you (or anyone, for that matter) can answer it, then I will be convinced.
I never want all guns banned. My father and brother own / have owned guns. I would never want them taken away from them or anyone else, but I do not see the point of having assault weapons.
So you don’t want theirs taken away, but you want mine taken away? Am I missing something?
Catherine, you have sated many times that you have an opinion, and are entitled to it. And I agree, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But, when you present an opinion based on emotion rather than reason, delete comments of people who disagree with you, and ignore facts that don’t fit your world view, you make your opinions look silly and bigoted.
The times, they are a changin’
Armed Schoolteacher reports a neutral, even fair report on a pro-CCW poll in Illinois, of all places.
Concealed carry permits in NC are at an all time high. You simply can’t get on the range without a wait, sometimes up to an hour.
The dynamic duo report fantastic success getting NRA sign-ups in PA, over 600.
And Ride Fast reports signing up 442 new NRA members, almost double the usual average, in..wait for it…California. San Francisco, for goodness sake.
The worm is turning, folks. The battle isn’t won, yet, but we are getting close to a tipping point.
Operation Mag Drop
Tom Gresham, of Guntalk fame has announced Operation Magazine Drop. The premise is simple…take your old gun magazines, and leave them in places where there are piles of magazines waiting to be read. Doctor’s offices, hair dressers, and barber shops come to mind.
Remember…the goal is to make gun ownership unremarkable. That is to say, owning a gun should be no more odd then owning a pair of sneakers. Exposing more people to the gun culture is part of that effort.
Gun Rights Examiner comes to Charlotte
Grass Roots North Carolina’s president Paul Valone has joined the ranks of those writing for the Examiner on gun rights. His column is available here. It’s great to see a local voice for gun rights.
Oh, and you can join GRNC here.
NRA contest results
Bitter has posted the final tally at the 2nd amendment blog bash site. I came in second, but was totally spanked by Dustin of Dustin’s Gun Blog, who brought in an incredible 44 members. Well done, sir!
I also got a nice note from Rachel Parsons at NRA-ILA, thanking me for my particiapation.
The fight is not over, people. Feel free to click the link on the right to join the NRA today.
Nobody gets thrown off of the bus
Sebastian takes to task a collaborator who doesn’t see the point of black rifles. Sebastian makes a great point:
When these people come for your sport, if they already have my AR-15, I’m out of the fight. I do not hunt — I’m a competitive target shooter, and I carry a pistol for self-defense. My interest in preserving hunting is in preserving an important part of the shooting sports. If you, and those who think like you, cause me losing my sport, what interest do I have to fight for yours? When you understand that you are under just as much threat as we are, you’ll give your arrogance and understand we’re on this boat together, so you better pick up a bucket and start bailing, or we’re going to sink.
Sebastian is very active in the RKBA movement. He is, in my opinion, helping to lead the “new media” fight, and showing others (including yours truly) how it is done. He’s right. We are all in this together. No one gets thrown off the bus.
Final tally
I’m back from my conference. It was a great few days. Final tally:
2 new NRA members
1 renewal. A colleague that I have talked guns with a few times. I said “I need you to do me a favor. I need you to join the NRA.” He said, “I did, a few years ago. But they sent me too much mail.” Me: “You can ask them to stop that. And you need to renew.” Sparked a good conversation about the fight to come. He is a smart guy, and fired up.
1 on the fence
2 newbies asking me to take them shooting
All in all, a successful trip.
Oh, yeah, and I got some work done, too.
Geeks with guns
Tech conference final tally:
1 new NRA member
1 on the fence (I’m working on him)
1 newbie ask me to take him shooting.
I was amazed at how many people were openly talking about buying firearms, between the new adminstration and the economic situation…and this was a room full of computer geeks. I told them “get ‘em while you can…and make sure you get some training.”
At a tech conference
I’m heading down to the opening reception. I’ve got at least two colleages I’ve talked guns with in the past. I’m going to make them join the NRA.
Wish me luck.
1+2=3
I got to listen to the first hour of the Guntalk podcast. Tom talked about the idea of the 1+2=3 plan for increasing NRA’s membership numbers. The idea is simple. If every NRA member recruits 2 more members, we will have tripled the membership. So far, I have recruited my two new members. (Thanks, Larry and Will!)
But I’ve decided to up the ante a bit. I took advantage of the discount, and signed up three family members as well. Merry Christmas, folks. You are part of the cause of freedom!
Do your part!
-
-