“Linoge has done it again. We need to match him up with some of these antis in a debate club showdown. (The first rule of debate club...) I hope if I keep reading his stuff, I will become wiser and more eloquent. For now, I will leave it at... ditto!”
by Brick




"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

csgv lies. again. still. constantly.

Helpful hint to Michael K. Beard: giving Ladd Everitt the keys to the Twitter account for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence* might have been the worst idea ever, unless, of course, you want your organization to look increasingly worse every day.

In the very recent past, Ladd has directly attacked a "gun violence" survivor for daring to speak from experience, he has expressed his bigotry for the entire world to see (through your organization’s Twitter account, mind you), he has threatened to break apart a man’s family over a difference of opinions, he has confirmed the weakness of his organization’s positions, he has brought together pro-rights activists, he has militantly misappropriated the English language, he has defended criminals, and he has consistently lied… a somewhat despicable habit he is continuing even to this day.

The following exchange transpired last night:

TrailerDays: @sgfstexas: The @CSGV, @BradyBuzz and @VPCinfo all considered DC/Chicago gun bans to be ‘reasonable limitations’.

CSGV: @TrailerDays @BradyBuzz @VPCinfo As did the residents and elected officials of both cities – Before, during and after. #p2 #dc #chicago

And I could not help but to comment this morning:

Linoge: Apparently @CSGV supports slavery, so long as the residents and elected officials of a city support it too. Good to know #guncontrolisracist

Why would I write such a thing? Simple.

1. Self-defense and freedom from slavery are two basic, individual rights, both stemming from the root right of them all – the right of self-determination.
B. Self-defense and freedom from slavery are two Constitutionally-protected rights, as written in the document itself, and as upheld by numerous Supreme Court rulings.
III. If a person discriminates against one such right, it stands to reason that they would discriminate against all such rights.
4. Finally, the "appeal to popularity" is a logical fallacy and insufficient cause to support "gun control", just like it was insufficient cause to support slavery:

Using polls as leverage to support further gun control just means you think the South should have been permitted to keep their slaves.

After all, most Southerners believed that the slave-holders should have been able to keep their property, and most Northerners did not care (and quietly wanted those darkies to stay down South, so they would not have to deal with them), so if “public opinion” is any metric of the “rightness” of an action, I guess we should go back and undo that whole 13th Amendment thing, eh?

Predictably, however, the CSGV (being represented by Ladd Everitt) completely missed the point:

CSGV: White gun rights activist says overwhelmingly popular, tough gun laws in #DC and #Chicago = "slavery." #p2 #politics http://fb.me/THRoWx2B

csgvliesTo save you all from having to track down that link, I took the liberty of screencapturing it to the right (click to embiggenate).

First, what does it matter if I am white or not? I support all rights, regardless of the color, creed, nationality, ethnicity, gender, age, weight, or other distinguishing feature of the people in question. Can the CSGV claim the same? Why do they make this conversation about race? Also, just for the fun of it, guess what the ethnic makeup of the CSGV staff is… in its entirety?

Second, guns, being inanimate, lifeless pieces of machined metal and formed plastic, do not have rights, and thus I cannot be an activist for those rights. I am a proud activist for basic, individual, human rights, though. Once again, the CSGV attempts to make the conversation entirely about the firearms, rather than the people who wield them, and through this conflation, they hope to splash some of their demonization of firearms onto their owners. Unfortunately for them, we know better.

Third, "popular" does not equate to "right", but apparently Laddie never had that whole rhetorical lemming question posed to him as a child ("If everyone else jumped off a bridge/cliff/etc., would you?"). Slavery was popular in the South. It was still wrong. Segregation was popular throughout America. It was still wrong. Geocentric models of the universe were popular for centuries and were literally religiously enforced. They were still wrong. And no matter how "popular" "gun control" is, it is still wrong to abridge law-abiding citizens’ rights. Period.

And, finally, you just have to love that equals sign. That particular symbology dates back to 1557, and ever since its first recording by Welshman Robert Recorde (heh), it has been taken to mean "exactly the same", as in "1=1", "2+2=4", etc.

I made no such claim to "sameness":

Linoge: @CSGV Actually, no, I did not. Apparently, in addition to not understanding English, you do not gasp the nature of analogies.

Linoge: @CSGV You support the abridgement of 1 basic individ. right based off popularity; it stands to reason you are consistent in that position.

Linoge: @CSGV But thanks for continuing to lie about pro-rights activists, and for what pathetically little traffic you will send my way.

In point of truth, I made an analogy, based on an extrapolation – to wit, given that the CSGV thinks abridging basic human rights is acceptable if the abridgement is "popular", then they would support slavery so long as it was "popular". Unfortunately, Everitt has never been particularly skilled at logic, or even comprehending the English language (He literally wrote, and I quote, ""Future free from," not "world without."" *blinkblink*), so here we are.

No, "gun control" is not equal to slavery, but I never even obliquely hinted that it was. Discriminating against firearm owners is demonstrably equivalent to discriminating against people of a certain skin tone, if only because of the inherent rights – Constitutionally-protected, individual, and human – being infringed upon by those actions. I certainly do not expect someone as bigoted as Ladd Everitt to understand the distinction, but I would sincerely appreciate it if he were to stop perversely lying about what pro-rights activists have and have not said… and I have to imagine that those giving money to the CSGV would prefer it if that organization was not dragged through the slime by a halfwitted, bullying, ignorant thug masquerading under the CSGV’s moniker as well…

(Oh, and in regards to the racist roots of "gun control" that Ladd Everitt is so desperately attempting to distance himself and his organization from, if you were to type in the link he commented to his own post, you would see that his entire thesis is torn asunder and to shreds in the comments following it, but if you do not want to go that route, allow me to simplify things for you: gun control started out racist:

Racist arms laws predate the establishment of the United States. Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat "any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane." If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to "shoot to kill." Slave possession of firearms was a necessity at times in a frontier society, yet laws continued to be passed in an attempt to prohibit slaves or free blacks from possessing firearms, except under very restrictively controlled conditions. Similarly, in the sixteenth century the colony of New Spain, terrified of black slave revolts, prohibited all blacks, free and slave, from carrying arms.

gun control continued to be racist throughout the past century:

Judge admits gun law passed to disarm black laborers. In concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control law passed in 1893, Justice Buford stated the 1893 law "was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State….The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers….The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied…". Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (1941) (GMU CR LJ, p. 69)

…and gun control is still racist to this day:

More important though is this. Intelligence tests have a long and storied history in the quest of the State to keep the black man firmly in his place. If people really wonder if a victim of draconian statist violence masquerading as law and order is "smart" or not – and think that issue matters one iota – then the descendants of the racist bastards who initially conspired to strip black folk of the ability to defend themselves can proclaim "Mission Accomplished" and put another shrimp on the barbeque.

The fact of the matter is this: Dating back to the Antebellum South and beyond, the State has enacted laws specifically designed to keep black folk unarmed. This is not debatable, nor a matter of perspective. It is a matter of fact. The jailing of Plaxico Burress should not be viewed as an isolated event, simply the fallout of a careless high-profile citizen. It is the fruit of a racist tree planted in 18th century America, a tree that continues to bear fruit even in 2009.

This last one was written by a black person, since the color of a person’s skin seems to matter to the CSGV.

I can understand why the CSGV is desperately attempting to separate itself from the blatantly racist roots of gun control, but history is history, and bigots like Ladd Everitt are never going to escape it, no matter how much they frantically try to deny it.)

(Also, is anyone surprised that I cannot comment on the Facebook Photo calling me out?  Reasoned Discourse indeed.) 

(* – This post is, as before, written with the assumption that Ladd Everitt actually has the sole keys to the CSGV Twitter account. It is entirely possible that I am mistaken, despite Ladd’s title of "Director of Communications", in which case I will amend this post… and, in which case, the bigoted, intolerant, hateful rot at the CSGV is even deeper than is already obvious.)

6 comments to csgv lies. again. still. constantly.

  • Gareth A

    And you’re surprised?

    CSGV has been lying non-stop since this Twitter war started, do you honestly think they’re not above twisting analogies when it’s convenient?

    Bunch of twats, the lot of them.

  • Additionally, how does he know you are white? Have you told him so? Also, Ladd is white himself, does that invalidate his opinions as well?

  • @ Gareth A: Surprised? No. Willing to ensure idiocy like this follows them for the rest of their organization’s natural life, which, God willing, will be brief? Absofragginglutely.

    @ alcade: To be fair, there are pictures of me circulating out there, specifically over at PotG and such.

    But, yeah, Laddie is as white as the driven snow, which kind of makes him lecturing me on race issues all manner of high-larious…

  • Desperate Measures | Where Angels Fear To Tread

    […] […]

  • AM

    Gun Control IS equal to slavery. When you force someone to rely on the whim of some “superior” to provide “protection” under force of violence, how is that ANY different?

    Taking someones ability to defend their life and livelihood is the the very basis for slavery. Whether that force of violence is from the Master’s Whip or the Gun of the Government Thug matters not. The denial of an inalienable right is a matter of grave concern.

    It isn’t about guns, it is about control.

  • Slavery requires the forced labor of one person for another person without recompense. So far as I know (and I could be wrong on this), no anti-rights organization is arguing for such a concept.

    Granted, the forcible confiscation of private property is unquestionably partial slavery (in that they are taking something you worked to purchase), but the general concept of “gun control” as a whole is not.