Why are anti-rights advocates so violent?
You, however, have demonstrated considerable irresponsibility in your arguments and in your personal attacks on this blogger, who also happens to be my wife. Send me your home address and I’ll come to your house and punch your fucking face in. Unless you are a pussy who can’t fight without a gun in his hand.
This particular individual (Rob) was addressing Bob S., who had the unmitigated gall to disagree with this individual’s wife when it comes to law-abiding citizens carrying firearms outside of their homes. Apparently, questioning someone’s position and disagreeing with that position constitutes “personal attacks” to this individual, and supposed “personal attacks” from anonymous persons on the internet should be responded to with foul language, expletives, and blatant threats of physical violence.
Rob went on to clarify:
Ok, a boxing match, then. I’m not immature, I just like hitting conservative assholes.
Protip: claiming that you are “not immature” in the same thread as threatening to “punch your [deleted] face in” over differences of opinion online will not work nearly as well as you might initially think. Doing so in the very same comment as expressing your enjoyment at hitting people is an outright “FAIL”.
Suffice to say, individuals like Rob are the reason certain stereotypes exist, to wit: certain people do not want anyone to own or carry firearms because those people are projecting their own fears and shortcomings on the populace as a whole. Those shortcomings basically boil down to poor impulse control, and the fears involve actually losing control of those impulses while carrying/using a firearm (which, in Rob’s case, could be somewhat disastrous), so I can certainly understand why people like them would distance themselves from firearms whenever possible. Unfortunately, their basic psychological projection is far from understandable – not everyone has the same fears and weaknesses that they do, and not everyone should be bound by their fears and weaknesses. Claiming otherwise is controlling, irrational, illogical, and petty.
Likewise, SouthernFemaleLawyer’s idea of dealing with dissent is to simply destroy the argument and retain her precious echo chamber – after all, if there is no record of someone disagreeing with you, then your position must be correct, right? “Reasoned Discourse“, at its finest. Certainly, deleting comments is a little different from punching people’s faces in, but the root of both is an abusive, demeaning personality that cannot handle people disagreeing with it.
Oh, and as for Rob and SFL being anti-rights advocates, they, of course, have some disagreement with that phrase – you see, they do not really mind guns, and are not bothered by people having them. However, in SouthernFemaleLawyer’s words, she would very much prefer if us “[deleted] idiots” and our firearms would “stay the [deleted] home”. The only reasonable response to such a request is, “No,” but a more-careful examination of it clearly shows its author in opposition to the Second Amendment – after all, it guarantees our pre-existing right to keep and bear firearms, not just to keep them at home as museum pieces. As such, despite their paltry objections, their stance against law-abiding citizens carrying firearms to protect themselves wherever they are legally permitted to do so and want to (thus preserving their right to self-preservation) puts Rob and SouthernFemaleLawyer clearly and obviously in the “anti-rights” camp.
So in the course of two posts and the comment threads upon them, two anti-rights advocates became the posterchildren of the stereotypes that anti-rights advocates routinely engage in “Reasoned Discourse” when the debate starts doing against them, that they frequently project their own fears onto others as a basis for disarming those others, and that, ironically, they have no problems silencing opposition by force. Hell, at this point, people like Rob (people with poor impulse control, poor temper control, an abusive, condescending mentality, and an obvious willingness to engage in unnecessary, pointless, and illegal physical confrontations over the most trivial of things) are an outstanding reason to carry a firearm – you never know what perceived slight will send him off the deep and and into the realm of “punching your [deleted] face in”. Thanks, Rob, for providing such an perfect example of the kind of nutcases that threaten average citizens on a daily basis… It is no wonder that you would rather people left their firearms at home – Lord knows you would not want to be shot simply because you were beating someone’s face in!
10JAN10 Update: Most comments on both posts have supposedly been restored (though I have received reports from individuals that their specific comments are still mysteriously missing), and commenting is supposedly once again open… except on the first post, where Reasoned Discourse has once again broken out.
I would say that anti-gunners as a class of people are made of FAIL. But some might think that a bit harsh.
If she has to delete comments to ‘win’ the debate, God help her clients in the courtroom.
The willful avoidance of fact, coupled with a desire to compel others (and the belief that it’s right to do so) is pretty typical liberal behaviour. Goldberg was right! They are facists.
I absolutely agree that the ‘husband’s’ biggest fear is getting a 38 up the snotlocker from some “conservative asshole” he’s “beating the hell out of”.
He’s probably got a valid point there…
Linoge,
Thanks for the link and the recap- you express what I was working on quite eloquently.
I tried to count up the number of comments I made; I think it was 6 – 1 in response to her original post, 4 in direct response to a comment and 1 in response to her request for citation of the information I gave.
And then on the next post, I made two comments
Sorry fellers. I believe in discourse and started this blog with the intent to allow all comments, but this is just really ridiculous.
Find it interesting that she calls that “carpet bombing”.
She believes in discourse unless you disagree. And I only disagreed with a very small, but vital, part of what she said.
Still considering whether or not to report Rob for his threat of physical violence. It’s not as if I don’t have evidence and he is some anonymous troll. Thoughts?
Yep the anti-rights definition of “Troll” = “Anybody Who Disagrees with Me”
And much like “Hate Speech” = “Words I don’t agree with” Trolling must be curbed.
Ahh again hatred for the 2nd Amendment reveals hatred of the 1st. And who knows how deep the rabbit hole goes. She’s certainly not afraid of her husband making threats, or babbling about imaginary personal attacks.
Interesting. Seems punchy has aspirations to be a US Congressman?
http://cupofjoepowell.blogspot.com/2008/06/interview-with-congressional-candidate.html
Another Alan Grayson?
“Still considering whether or not to report Rob for his threat of physical violence. It’s not as if I don’t have evidence and he is some anonymous troll. Thoughts?”
Tennessee Assault Laws
The basic offense of assault is defined as:
1.Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to someone;
2.Intentionally or knowingly causing another to reasonably fear imminent injury; or
3.Intentionally or knowingly causing physical contact with someone that they would regard as offensive or provocative.
Does this mean I can be charged with assault even if I don’t touch someone?
Yes. If you cause someone to “reasonably fear” bodily injury, then you can be charged with assault, even if you do not touch them in any manner.
What is the Penalty for Assault under Tennessee Criminal Law? (if found guilty)
Assault is typically charged as a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail and fines reaching $2,500.
Ref: TCA 39-13-101
Mark,
Seeing how he is in Tennessee and I’m in Texas, I would have to stretch on the “imminent” part
On the other hand, this section of the Tennessee Code Annotated seems appropriate
39-17-308(a) Harassment
Any person who commits the offense of harassment is guilty of a crime.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following essential elements:1
[Part A:
(1) that the defendant threatened [by telephone] [in writing] [by electronic communication, including electronic mail or internet service] to take action known to be unlawful against any person;
and
(2) that the defendant by this action knowingly [annoyed] [alarmed] the
recipient of the [telephone call] [writing];
and
(3) that the defendant acted intentionally.]
pulling back the curtain
Earlier today, I highlighted some comments from a certain individual by the name of Rob, who left those particular comments at SouthernFemaleLawyer’s weblog. For the sake of simplicity, the comments are below: Comment 1: You, however, have demonstrated…
Pistolero: Harsh, but true, so it is they who will have to live with the harshness, not us.
. Thanks, though.
Mark@Sea: I, too, was kind of wondering how well this woman fares in the court room, or, more specifically, what manner of law she practices. Granted, the courtroom is one of the last places (aside from the voting booth) where smooth-talking can get you very nearly anything you want, but jumping up and down, stomping your feet, and swearing up a storm is not exactly “smooth”.
Totalitarian fascists with a mental illness, indeed.
Thanks for digging up the information on assaults in Tennessee. Unfortunately, Bob is probably right that the distance reduces the reasonableness of his fear, but he might have a point about harassment…
Bob S.: You keep using that “e” word, but I am not sure you know what it means
Thankfully, it would appear as though your comments were simply moderated, and not outright deleted, and they seem to have been restored – you should probably check to ensure they are all there, though. I, too, am somewhat impressed at her varied and colorful terms used for anyone who dare disagree with what she has to say, even when she simultaneously claims to enjoy and encourage conversations at her webpage. Even though she has restored the comments, that still makes her a hypocrite, of the highest order.
As for criminal charges, personally, I would call up Johnson City’s police department, and see what their position is regarding online harassment and threats. Given the recent spate of them in the news, I do not think it would be that hard to file a report and have it there for future needs, if not get actually charges filed.
Weer’d: As the argument goes, if you cannot respect a part of the Constitution, you cannot respect any of it, and you are likely to expose that lack of respect eventually. Given her initial, though retracted, desires to silence any and all opposition to her, and her husband’s continued desires to physically silence those who disagree with her, it is a wonder both are able to operate in society these days.
Thanks for digging up that information, by the by… quite interesting.
Linoge-
Look at her posts after the one you link to. She essentially becomes “the woman with the ear-rings.” She even has a post lecturing all of us on manners.
If I might be so bold to disagree, I would argue that she has always been a “woman with the earrings” – in almost every comment Bob S. initially made, he brought to bear statistics, facts, and historical incidents. On the other hand, SFL responded with basically nothing more than, “I do not care about those numbers, I just know you are WRONG!” Pretty much a textbook example, that has only worsened over time, it would appear.
She may have restored old comments, but some of mine still didn’t make it through. Big surprise …..
As you say, Mike, it is not like we were not expecting that – she seems quite keen on flagrantly and randomly editing both posts and comments. Let that be a warning to any looking to try and converse with her (fat waste of time it may be).
hung about his neck
In regards to the current Rob Russell debacle, Tom Stelene won today’s quote of the day: Really, it’s plain for all to see that Mr. Russell is another good Democrat who upholds bi-partisanship, reaching out, tolerance, sensitivity, humaneness, compassi…
the internet is forever
Not only is Rob Russell an abusive asshole and a crappy musician, he is also a crappy magician to boot: Seems Rob Russell has another career he hasn’t told anyone about – Magician. Yep.. His post thanking the “trolls” who…
rob russell is a coward
On 08JAN10, Rob Russell threatened Bob S. with grievous bodily harm, and possibly even death, simply because Bob disagreed with Rob’s wife, SouthernFemaleLawyer. His exact words were, and I quote: You, however, have demonstrated considerable irresponsi…