infuriating, indeed

I am constantly frustrated by the number and type of individuals who are so ready and willing to dance in the blood of innocents (1755 UPDATE: It would appear as though Buck has taken down this post. Unfortunately, the internet never forgets. Collectively, the blockquotes below make up his entire post, verbatim.). These people (though I almost hate to use that word to describe them) seem willing to take any negligent discharge or firearm-related accident (both happen, though the latter much more infrequently) and use it as a basis for attacking the entire concept of firearm ownership, regardless of the circumstances, events, or victims involved.
In this particular instance, I am referring to Buck, an author over at “Blue Herald” (you know, the weblog run by nice, considerate, tolerant liberals who banned my IP just for having the nerve to disagree with them). Fortunately or unfortunately, my IP is still banned by their server, but I still stop by periodically, by way of a proxy server or two, to see what all they are up to over there. To Buck’s credit, every time I happen to leave a comment, he not only handles them with the standard Reasoned Discourse (TM) protocol (in that they never see the light of day), but he also bans the IP of the proxy server to boot. If only he put forward that much time and effort into generating halfway-decent posts.
So let us start from where all stories should start – the beginning:

I’m sure there will be those that will stop by and defend the rights of this alcoholic to own and clean guns, whether or not the bastard has any more daughters around to bring him more weapons to clean… or more shots of vodka.

First off, what happened in Washington is undeniably tragic and unfortunate; however, the father in question deserves to be prosecuted and punished to the fullest possible extent of the law. I have always been a fan of plans where caught and convicted drunk drivers never, ever get to drive again, and if they happen to injure or kill another person while drunk, all bets are off indeed. This situation is no different – the father had absolutely no business handling any firearms while intoxicated, and that gross negligence resulted in him shooting his very own daughter. By some arguments, that would be punishment enough, and I appreciate the thought, but I would be just as happy if someone that incompetent never had the opportunity to endanger or end another life again.
However, good ol’ Bucky-boy skips all of that, and goes straight for the generalizations, stereotypes, and blood-dancing.
The father must have been an alcoholic, since he was drinking double shots of vodka, right? Not so much. I would be among the first to admit that pounding back double shots of straight vodka might be a little excessive, but alcoholism is defined as “A disease or illness that includes alcohol craving and continued drinking despite repeated alcohol-related problems, such as losing a job or getting into trouble with the law. Symptoms include craving, impaired control, physical dependence, and increased tolerance.” Can Buck, or anyone else not directly involved with this man or case, verifiably indicate that the father in question had a physical dependence, or craving for alcohol? Certainly his control was impaired after consuming the alcohol, but guess what? So is everyone else’s. Wierd, that. And speaking anecdotally, I know with almost no doubt that, should I feel so inclined (and I never would – I hate the taste of straight vodka), I could easily drink two double shots of vodka and not really feel it. Would I be legally drunk? Dunno, never been breathalyzed. Would I be an alcoholic? Uh, no. Have I consumed that much alcohol in a night before? Absolutely. Does that make me an alcoholic? Nope. But, as usual, fear-mongering stereotypers never let annoying things like “facts” and “reality” get in their ways – perception is all that matters.
It would be nice if the stereotyping stopped there, but, sadly, it does not.
Wrapped up in the same sentence, Buckyball tries to make a wonderful, underhanded jab at gun-rights activists, somehow implying that they would come dashing to the father’s rescue and proclaim him to be blameless and free. Or something like that. Funny, but the two gun-rights activists I have seen addressing this incident are calling for the man’s head. In fact, I cannot think of a single person I know or read who is interested in Second Amendment rights who would continue to defend the father’s ownership of firearms – he pretty much gave up that right when he decided to act like a bleeding idiot and shoot his own daughter.
However, some little nagging voice in the back of my head is trying to tell me that Buck is not only interested in taking away the father’s firearms now, but also in ensuring that the father could never have had firearms in the first place. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that, right? Sure, except, based off the information we have, the father has never committed a crime worthy of disarmament (depending on Washington’s laws concerning handling firearms in your own home while intoxicated – I confess I do not know what they are), he has been able to legally purchase whatever firearms he has (given that he passed the NICS check and his 4473 forms have not been called into question), and there would have been absolutely no cause whatsoever to abridge this man’s Constitutionally-protected rights – before this incident. As I have said before, senselessly killing someone somewhat changes the playing field – leave it to a moron to want the playing field beforehand to be equivalent to the one after.

What I don’t understand is, if he does wind up in prison for killing his daughter, will the NRA be there to fight to make sure he’ll be allowed visitation rights of his guns? I mean, it wouldn’t be fair to take his guns away, would it? The NRA fights for the rights of the mentally handicapped to keep their guns. Shouldn’t alcoholics and known killers be extended the same Constitutional protections?

Wow. Where to start? I mean, seriously… this paragraph alone indicates some serious unhingement and a completely disjoint-from-reality thought process.
Just to arbitrarily pick something out of the mess, what the hell is up with “visitation rights of his guns”? What about being in prison is so hard for Buck to understand? Furthermore, should the father be convicted of the first degree manslaughter charge the state is pursuing, that would make him (drumroll please) a felon, and thus incapable of lawfully possessing a firearm.
Oddly enough, last time I checked, the NRA has absolutely no problems with keeping firearms out of the hands of violent felons. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, feel free to let me know, but somehow I doubt it is out there. So much for that specious strawman, eh, Bucko?
As for the rest of the paragraph… holy crap on a crutch. Buck actually tries to draw a logical parallel between people with mental handicaps, and murderers, as if he was trying to make the two equivalent in the eyes of the law and the world. So, I guess, from his perspective, mentally handicapped individuals lose all rights to self defense, as well as whatever other Constitutionally-protected rights Buck considers inappropriate for them, just because they are handicapped. Oh. My. God. That just screams “DISCRIMINATION“, in 20-foot tall, glowing letters with Twi’lek dancing girls dressed in targ-skin bikinis performing on top of them. By Buck’s great and almighty decree, those people who were unfortunate enough to be born with mild cases of cerebral palsy have given up their Constitutionally-protected rights just by dint of being born a certain way… just like people who choose to unlawfully end the life of another person. Yeah, that makes sense.
Actually, no, not really, but it does remind me of something else.
So far as I know, the NRA is not, nor ever has been, working towards reinstating Second Amendment rights for convicted murderers. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. However, I do find it interesting that Buck used the word “killers” – does he possibly feel that people who use their legally-owned firearm in a lawful self-defense situation should be therefore disarmed in the course of their investigation and eventual trial? Somehow, it would not really surprise me. And I certainly hope the NRA is looking to protect the rights of those mentally handicapped individuals who are otherwise capable of and willing to own and responsibly, safely, legally, and competently operate a firearm – after all, that is pretty much the job description of the NRA. And, unlike Buck, the NRA does not discriminate against certain law-abiding citizens when it comes to defending and protecting their rights.

When you start putting limitations on who can own a gun, then your putting limitations on freedoms. If there had been a limitation of known alcoholics owning firearms, then that 6-yr-old girl wouldn’t have had the freedom to die. Our Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves.

Apart from the homonymical error in the first sentence, I completely agree – after all, it is more or less axiomatic. And then Buck goes and … Bucks it all up.
If there was a limitation of anyone owning firearms, then no one would have “the freedom to die”… right?
If there was a limitation of any house with a child in it having any toxic chemicals (you know, like the kinds you clean your bathrooms with), or live electrical outlets, or tubs, or cars, or alcohol, or refrigerators, or knives, or dryers, or anything like that, then no child would have “the freedom to die”… right?
I could go on, but suffice to say, that entire chain of reasoning is completely and undeniably asinine. As previously mentioned, we have no proof or indication that the father in question was an alcoholic. Further, barring any local laws concerning handling a firearm while intoxicated and in your own house, the father had not broken any serious-enough laws to be restricted from lawful ownership of a firearm – right up until he shot his own daughter.
Moving on, there is no quantifiable, speific, and exacting defintion of alcoholism, at least not that I could find online. It seems to fall under that nebulous, “I will know it when I see it,” definition, and if you are applying that kind of logic to one right in particular, you had better stand by for having them all on the chopping block.
Almost-finally, people are going to be negligent. People are going to be stupid. People are going to act like raving idiots (take Buck, for example). And guess what? There is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent that. Sure, we can edcuate them. Sure, we can try (and fail) to legislate them in line. But none of that will be anywhere near effective unless the people in question decide to take an active role in their own safety, and actually think before they act. And, so far as I can tell, our legal system still operates on the premise of “guilty until proven innocent”, and considering that the father in the story did not commit any illegal actions before shooting his daughter, on what basis would anyone decide to arbitrarily and whimsically abridge his God-granted and Constitutionally-protected rights? Oh, right, none of that matters when it is “for your own good”, or “for the good of the children”, or “for the good of society”, or other fun nonsense like that. Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.
And now, at last, as for our esteemed Founding Fathers, the Buckster is probably right, though not for the reasons he thinks. If there is one thing I have learned about our country’s constructors, it is that they valued two things above all: personal responsibility and personal liberty, and they valiantly tried (and arguably failed) to create a government that would protect and defend both. Those who argue the point are correct, though – personal liberty does need limits, and it has two: first, your liberties stop when they infringe on another person’s; and second, you are at liberty to only do and say things you are willing to take responsibility for. The father in this news article feely chose to drink, and then handle loaded firearms. Those choices lead to a horribly tragic incident, and now it is time for him to take responsibility for that action, and face losing his own personal liberties for the rest of his life. And that, ladies and gentlefolk, is how the system is supposed to work – preemptive restrictions and rights and liberties takes us past the point of no return on the path to “thoughtcrime”, and I doubt even Buck wants that kind of future. At least, I hope not.
Whew. This post got a little larger than I was initially planning. In closing, Buck displayed remarkable ignorance, bigotry, discrimination, stereotyping, and generalization, with a healthy helping of childish projection, malicious totalitarianism, and general-purpose pants-shitting hysterics. After a fashion, it is kind of amazing that he was able to accomplish all of that in a scant seven sentences… I am not sure whether to be impressed or weep for our species.
Oh, and Buck, you are not banned here, and you probably never will be. Unlike you, I am willing to give just about anyone a free forum here, to express whatever their little hearts desire (of course, I also reserve the right to respond accordingly, but that almost goes without saying). And, still unlike you, I am man enough to allow for disagreement, dissent, and discourse to be expressed on my weblog – who knows what I might learn from it? Here I thought it was you liberals who were supposed to be the tolerant, accepting, freedom-loving folks?
Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Random Yak, Right Truth, Shadowscope, DragonLady’s World, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, , Political Byline, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Wake Up America, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Rosemary’s News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D’ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.