“Look, you got a little stabbed the other day. That's bound to make anyone a mite ornery.”
by Captain Malcolm Reynolds




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

why are they so eager to expose their bigotry?

Thank you, dear Twitter gods, for giving the willfully ignorant, narrow-minded, and bigoted a place to demonstrate their shortcomings freely and without limitations to the rest of the world.


Someone who enjoys blogfodder.

Now that we have taken care of giving thanks, let us turn to the matter at hands. This morning, I had the… privilege… of engaging in the following conversation with an anti-rights cultist who, as her words will eventually prove, is wholly deserving of that title:

missmarciacguncontrolMissMarciaC – #GunControl, por favor! Or just ban guns completely! What’s wrong with the world? #whereisthelove?

linoge_wotc – @MissMarciaC Respect my rights, por favor! Or just stop being intolerant. What’s wrong with the world? #GunControl

MissMarciaC – @linoge_wotc Why should I respect ignorance and violence? I could never do that. #peaceonearth

linoge_wotc – @MissMarciaC So "self-defense" constitutes ignorance? And doing violence to those who would harm me and mine is wrong? #fool

As many of my readers are probably aware, the turns and convolutions that short Twitter conversation took are already indicative of a markedly lacking thought process on the part of MissMarciaC, but for the rest of my audience, we will get to the specifics here momentarily.

Moving on, after this short Twitter exchange, MissMarciaC took the conversation, such as it is, to her personal webpage, though I will note that she did not notify me, the other half of that conversation, of the change in location – I was only alerted to it by the ever-observant ThirdPower. There she wrote:

missmarciaccommentmoderationWhy Can’t We Just Ban Guns?!

Ha Ha! A twitter user replied to one of my tweets about banning guns, telling me to “respect” their rights and to “stop being intolerant”. Hm…let’s see. I’m the one who is all for ending violence and having some peace on this troubled earth. Guns do not equal either. Why should I respect and tolerate violence (and ignorance)?

I will always stand behind the idea that the use of guns should be exceptionally controlled and closely watched. Or better yet, banned. This is not a perfect world, but we can work together to make it better.


And I responded:

So "self-defense" is ignorance?

Accepting and acknowledging the fact that there exist evil people in this world, and taking steps to protect me and mine from them is "ignorance"?

Executing violence against those people who would harm me and mine is wrong?

In truth, you, like most people who want to arbitrarily infringe on individual rights, are intolerant – you are attempting to force your own narrow view of the world on others and keep them from expressing their own views. That is the very definition of intolerance. Thankfully, here in America at least, our individual rights are Constitutionally protected, and your authoritarian pipe dreams are likely never to come to pass.

And the better for it.

Guns are an equalizer between the weak and the strong, between those who would force their will on others and those who would leave in peace, between those who will take something from others and those who want to keep what is theirs. And so long as people like me continue to draw breath – and, trust me, we will – firearms will remain a tool available to us.

MissMarciaC has since responded to that comment, but I will refrain from copy-pasting it entirely here, because I am going to get around to fisking it in the below comment:

First off, let me apologize – I was in a hurry writing my first comment here, and I realize now that I did an inadequate job of addressing your base assumptions – when people’s most basic of concepts differ on some level, there is nothing else they can discuss except those base concepts, so let us start from the beginning.

From your first tweet, I am forced to conclude that you believe that banning – or at least "controlling" firearms – will somehow increase the "love" and "peace" on this planet. While some part of me hates being the one to shatter your naiveté, the larger portion of me hates that you are willing to limit other people’s lives based on your own ignorance, and as such, I must present you with the facts – not only does banning guns not increase peace, it is demonstrably tied to countries with decreased individual and economic freedoms and increased governmental corruption. If you want a more specific example of this phenomena, I am not attempting to draw a causal relationship, but I think you will agree that once-Great Britain "enjoys" some of the most draconian "gun control" in the world… and yet they also "enjoy" a violent crime rate that is four times America’s.

Four times. Is that your idea of "peace" and "love"?

The root problem with your entire premise, as I see it, is that you are so narrow-mindedly focused on the object that you are completely incapable of recognizing the simple fact that the object does not matter when it comes to the actions of people. The people matter. Even if you could somehow magically ban all firearms and confiscate them from everyone (and people like me simply will not allow that to happen, but we are speaking hypothetically), you will not get the utopia you desire, because you have not addressed the actual cause of hatred and violence in our world – the people who are the ones doing the hating and violence. Sure, you have taken away a tool from them… but it will not matter – those people will still hate, they will still commit violence, and you still will not get what you want.

Oh, sure, you will have arbitrarily and whimsically destroyed deodands to slake your own totemistic beliefs, but if you genuinely believe that objects have power over people… well, I think it is better if I just do not go there.

So, really, until such time as you are willing to discuss something that will actually address the core sources of things that disrupt peace and diminish love, you are doing the metaphorical equivalent of so much pissing in the wind… and getting it all over folks who simply want to live in peace with their rights unabridged and intact.

Now that I have addressed your root disconnect, I am going to do a point-by-point of the things you have said in our conversation thus far, if you do not mind (and if you do mind, I am recording this back-and-forth for posterity over my way – "gun control" worshipers like you have an annoying tendency of flushing things down Memory Holes when they start losing, and I have learned from those actions).

When I asked you to respect my rights, why did you immediately equate "rights" to "ignorance and violence"? I said neither of those words, neither did I even allude to them, and yet they were the first things that apparently leaped to your mind when I said "rights". Why is that?

Moving on, what is wrong with violence, in and of itself? Unquestionably, unprovoked or predatory violence is something that should be discouraged and minimized by all measures available, but defensive or protective violence is one of the best ways to do that "discouragement" or "minimization". After all, why do you think police officers not only carry batons and tasers, but also firearms? More specifically, why do you think almost every single spree shooter in the history of spree shootings has been stopped by either his intended victims or the police directing violence at him?

Might there be a pattern there? One that we could perhaps learn from? Why would you deny people one of the most effective, if not the most effective, means of defending themselves?

Why do you want to force other people to be victims, against their wills?

I’m the one who is all for ending violence and having some peace on this troubled earth. Guns do not equal either.

Talk about a mother of a non-sequitur… Guns have absolutely no bear in peace or violence in either direction. They are inanimate, non-sentient, and incapable of doing a damned thing by themselves except rusting. It is the people using the firearms who decide whether to be non-aggressively-violent and peaceful or not. If a person wants to be predatory and aggressive, they are going to do that regardless of whether a firearm is available to them or not. See England.

I will always stand behind the idea that the use of guns should be exceptionally controlled and closely watched. Or better yet, banned.

Congratulations – then you have voluntarily and of your own free will adopted not only the title of "petty authoritarian" by attempting to use the government to impose your own narrow, intolerant view on the rest of the world, but also the title of "bigot" for being unwilling or incapable of identifying information that exposes your beliefs as the farcical jokes they are.

Was that really what you intended?

Let me tell you what, buddy: this “self-defense” theory has gotten old.

No, it really has not. Law-abiding citizens employ firearms to protect themselves and their families on a daily basis. That is not "old" – that is about as current as you can get.

How many kids will have to accidentally kill themselves with their parents’ “self-defense” guns before people like you can realize the problem that guns represent in our society?

Again, you fail. The problem you are illustrating with that misguided question is not "firearms" but "irresponsible parents". Did you know that three times as many children between 0 and 12 drown than are killed with firearms? How long before people like you can realize the problem that swimming pools represent in our society? (Note: I am not advocating for the banning of swimming pools, just pointing out the common cause for all of this – irresponsibility of parents.)

You shouldn’t either!

Excuse me, but who the hell are you to dictate my actions? I am a free, law-abiding, adult, mature human being who has never been convicted of a crime, has had numerous background checks executed on him and come back clean (every time I purchase a firearm or get a new carry license, in fact), and who has never detrimentally harmed another human being.

So who the hell are you to tell me what to do?

This is a perfect example of your rampant intolerance – not only can you not stand another point of view being expressed or acted upon, you would go so far as to demand that another person behave exactly the way you want them to. On the other hand, I firmly believe in the freedom of choice, and the freedom to live life however you like so long as you do not directly harm anyone else.

This is not the Middle East, where guns are like toys and everyone and their moms end up shooting each other in conflicts. But I guess that’s what you’re aiming for.

Nice strawman, but a fallacious one.

The simple truth of the matter is that I want a society where I can live in peace and freedom. Period. However, people like criminals will want to take things from me by physical force, and I am neither large, nor strong, nor fast, nor particularly skilled, so I have availed myself of a tool that has proven time and time again to level playing fields between unequal opponents. Additionally, people like you want to dictate my life to me, dictate my actions to me, and strip me of numerous freedoms on the basis of your own phobias, shortcomings, and authoritarian pipe dreams, and those same tools have proven to discourage your ilk time and time again in the past as well.

Funny how that works.

A young friend of the family used to carry a gun for “protection” and guess what? One day playing around, one of his friends asked to see it and accidentally shot him dead. His gun was supposed to protect him, but it killed him. That’s one reason that people like you make me angry.

Ah, and now we get to your psychological projection and stereotyping. Why do "people like" me make you mad? The massively overwhelming majority of firearm owners are law-abiding. The massively overwhelming majority of firearm owners do not have accidents. And, by and large, people who lawfully carry firearms are more law-abiding than "average" citizens.

So why are you speciously conflating "people like" me with the anecdotal accident you shared? You might as well hate all blacks on the premise that higher-than-average numbers of them are convicted of crimes.

And might your emotional reaction to this conversation indicate that you are not considering it with a rational and clear mind? And why should my actions be hampered because you cannot control your emotions?

And “Our individual rights are constitutionally protected”— is that your best line?

Ah, no, my best line is "molon labe", but something tells me you will not grasp the finer nuances of that particular statement.

The Constitution is really just a bunch of words and it can be amended. Guns are not the answer and I hope the government does something about it soon.

*sigh* You do a wonderful job of acting like you know what you are talking about, but the sad reality is that you simply have no clue.

Not only is the Constitution not just "a bunch of words" (though I simply do not have the patience to go into that particularly noxious point of civic ignorance on your part), it also creates no rights, and thus it does not matter what the government does or does not do. You see, the Second Amendment, and the Bill of Rights as a whole, solely protects pre-existing rights that would continue to exist with or without the Second Amendment, and regardless of what it or any other Amendment was amended to say.

I have an individual right to self-defense, self-preservation, self-determination, ownership of private property, freedom of association, and so forth, simply because I exist, and the Bill of Rights was intended to keep the government from infringing upon those rights.

Unfortunately, bigoted authoritarians like you have found any and all ways to circumvent those Amendments at all available opportunities, but that is another conversation for another time. My real point is that it would not matter if the government outlawed all private ownership of all firearms tomorrow – I might be legally a criminal for not turning mine in, but I would still be morally correct for keeping them. Rights exist independently of governments, independently of laws, and independently of self-absorbed folks like you who think your beliefs are good enough for everyone.

I’m sorry, but I think we know who the “narrow-minded” is here.

You are right – we both know you are the narrow-minded one here. I am not the one trying to impose my personal beliefs on other people. I am not the one thinking that my personal beliefs are good enough for all people. I am not the one who cannot grasp the concept that other people might want to do something other than what I want them to do. I am not the one trying to limit other people’s freedom. I am not the one trying to take away people’s choices. I am not the one forcing others to be victims. I am not the one who believes that wishing for peace will make it magically appear. I am not the one adopting a one-size-fits-all solution for a tremendously complex problem.

You, Miss Marcia, are the one doing all those things… and what is worse is that you are proud of it. *shudder*

And so do gangsters, drug dealers and the likes, in order to protect their drugs (and their pride).

No, no they do not, and I would kindly ask you not to conflate law-abiding citizens with criminals – it cheapens your argument, exposes your ignorance, and is gratuitously insulting to boot. More to the point, people give up their own rights when they start infringing upon other people’s – when someone murders someone else, their own right to self-preservation is surrendered, and thus society can decide to imprison them for life, or simply end their life if they are incapable of being a functioning member of that society. As for drugs… well, you probably do not want to hear my opinions on that, given how violently you react to the notion of firearms…

If you really wanted to protect yourself, find another campaign, one that promotes peace instead.

Tell me, please, what a "campaign… that promotes peace" will do for me when a mugger is attempting to relieve me of my wallet… or my life… or when a rapist is attempting to relieve my wife of her dignity… or when a spree shooter is attempting to rack up his kill count in a public mall… or when a group of larger-and-stronger thugs are breaking into my home? What will all the good feelings and well wishes in the world do then?

Bringing more guns into this already screwed-up world is not going to make it any better!

That must be why police officers who are responding to the report of crimes always seem to show up with firearms on their hips…

Oh… Wait…

More seriously, defending me and mine will make this world better, and if doing so necessitates the use of deadly force, then so be it. I would rather a scumbag criminal die than me, and that is not going to change.

Speaking to your actual statement, are you aware that, historically speaking, there cannot be a causal relationship between "number of firearms" and "number of firearm-related deaths"? There is a weak, negative correlation between the raw numbers of guns and fatalities, and there is a strong, negative correlation between the rates of firearm ownership and fatalities. This precludes your entire concept before it even got started.

And, by the way, if banning guns would never “come to pass,” it’d be only because — just like abortion, religion, and politics — the subject is too contentious.

Ah, no, that would be because the preservation of individual rights and liberties is always the right course of action. Period. And there are those of us who are willing to help society keep on the appropriate path to doing exactly that… and, in case, you have not noticed, we are winning – there is only one state in the union that does not allow some form of concealed carry, open carry is becoming more accepted in more state, permitless carry is starting to take off, the AWB not only failed but has failed every other time it has ever been brought up, we now have not one but two separate Supreme Court cases establishing judicial precedent that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing individual right… the list just goes on an on.

You – and anyone else who would limit individual liberties and freedoms – are on the wrong side of history.

In the end, I do not care if you own guns, do not own guns, do not want to own guns, or whatever. I do not care if you want to leave yourself defenseless to the world, and I do not care if you genuinely believe that good wishes and hopes for peace are enough to keep you safe. You can do as you bloody well please. However, I do not ask, I demand that you respect and tolerate the same freedom of choice for all other people (so long as they do not directly harm someone else against their will), and you have come nowhere near to that concept anywhere in this conversation.

In closing, I will leave you with this quote from someone far wiser and blunter than me:

Where the hell do you get off thinking you can tell me I can’t own a gun? I don’t care if every other gun owner on the planet went out and murdered somebody last night. I didn’t. So piss off.

Exactly so. I have committed no crime. I have harmed no one. You simply do not have the right – and should not have the ability – to dictate my or anyone else’s actions. Period.

Good day to you.

Feel free to weigh in on your own comments either here or there – Miss Marcia seems to be permitting comments to go through, at least for the time being, but I would advise that you keep copies of them just in case (or paste them here). [Update] It would appear as though Miss Marcia has taken the coward’s escape and shut down comments on her site rather than attempt to defend her position. I am sorry that her beliefs are so weak that they cannot withstand others’ beliefs being expressed. Comments here will remain open, and she is more than welcome to address the points people are bringing up in them, but something tells me she will not, which is both disappointing and not surprising. [/Update]

I never cease to be amazed at how petty authoritarians feel so self-righteous over forcibly directing other people’s lives against their wills, and how they are able to convince themselves they are Doing The Right Thing™.

31 comments to why are they so eager to expose their bigotry?

  • That’s almost a Baker sized post-well done!

  • And the Reasoned Discourse has begun. Your second comment is no longer up to be seen. Must be a last word freak.

  • @ LC Scotty: Well, to be fair, I stole the entire predatory vs. protective violence thing from him… 😉

    @ Barron Barnett: And, likewise, to be fair, she seems to moderate all comments, like so many other anti-rights cultists. We will see in a few hours.

  • Gaston

    “…The fault dear Brutus lies not in the stars but in ourselves…” Why can anti-gun nut-jobs ONLY talk about doing things to other people (such as the self-defense gun owner)? The notion of peace and love is wonderful, but to paraphrase Heinlein makes pacifists “dinner”. I tune anti-gun nut-jobs out until they can articulate an thought that does not involve coercing other people. Maybe something along the lines of an anti-gun person carrying around their own body armor. I might think a person is a bit odd walking around in full body armor but I would respect them for having the courage of their conviction. I would further commend them for not inconveniencing me in the least.

    The fundamental flaw in every anti-gun nut-job’s discussion can be distilled into a control issue. Anti-gun nut-jobs need to grow up and realize that they are not in control. If they really do think that they are in control then maybe they could spend some of their brain cycles controlling hurricane Irene.

  • Now, THAT is an example of a good, ol’ fashioned fisking. Well done, sir, well done.

    Reading her initial statements (and subsequent commentary) made my brain hurt. I’d ask how she managed to live as long as she has with that lack of intellectual, moral, or ethical integrity, but I worth with .gov types everyday. I see it every time I turn around.

  • There you go again. Getting all “logical” on us.

    I hope it is catching.

  • Braden Lynch

    With all the “PEACE!” and “LOVE” and campaigns for understanding I feel like I’m at Woodstock. Seriously, if these anti-freedom proponents would take a minute and pull their heads out of the gummy-bear lined rear-ends of their rainbow-farting unicorns and look around at the real world they might note…

    …Oh my, murders, robberies and rapes, they do exist!
    Duoh, evil only respects firepower, not your sweet thoughts directed at the goblins.

    I have no pleasant thoughts for anyone that wants to take away my ability to defend my family and myself through governmental force. To use surrogates for such dirty work shows that they are cowards. It is also an admission that they know that we are nice and law-abiding and won’t shoot their sorry dictatorial butts, or they would not be so demanding that we surrender our firearms.

    The comments on firearm accidents and broad firearm ownership also need to be furter addressed.

    Firearms are not infected with the Plague (although that would give rise to a new term, the “Black Death Rifle”, ohh, I may have to trade mark that). If they paid any attention they would realize that firearm accidents are quite rare. However, I’m sure that they oppose any training and teaching of youth to mitigate this risk because it would show that “Black Death Rifles” are actually quite fun to shoot and it is safe to touch them if you follow some simple rules.

    Regarding the broad ownership of firearms and bringing more of them into the world, I can see a society that is more polite and restrained when it knows that violence will be met with the same. There would be no more of the strong preying on weak in a world where women, the handicapped, and minority or persecuted groups are sufficiently armed. Further, the U.S. Constitution has more intelligence and human nature insights wrapped up in it then this pathetic women will ever achieve (or even recognize). How about if we do as she asks and rewrite the Second Amendment. Here’s my draft…”All adult citizens of the United States are required to own and keep ready a firearm of military capability and to worship at the firing range of their choice with at least 100 rounds per week. No dissent on this will be allowed.” well, I doubt she would like to see the trampling of her First Amendment rights like she so easily does with our Second Amendment rights. Well, they are just words on paper, but they do matter, even if she is too stupid to see their significance.

  • Braden Lynch

    Well, her bigoted views got me worked up enough that I went to her website and left an equally unkind post on her personal site. So far I do not see it, but there may be big delays if she is in the path of hurricane Irene or if she chooses simply to moderate it into non-existence.

    If it is the later, that is her choice, but it tends to validate my views. I refuse to suffer fools.

  • “All adult citizens of the United States are required to own and keep ready a firearm of military capability and to worship at the firing range of their choice with at least 100 rounds per week. No dissent on this will be allowed.”

    Only if I can write off the expense of ammo on my taxes! 🙂

  • Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

    Once again, Reasoned Discourse [tm] swoops in to save the day!

    That being said, the one question I would have liked to have asked Miss Marcia (with appropriate follow-up, of course) is this:

    Exactly how would you enforce your desired gun ban, other than sending gun-wielding state functionaries to disarm about 1/3 of the total population of the United States? As a follow-up, madam, how many gun owners would you be willing to have said gun-wielding state functionaries kill to achieve the unattainable Utopia you seek? One million? Ten million? All gun owners? (I rather suspect that she would be positively gleeful if the last could be achieved, since that would make it far easier for her and her ilk to impose her will upon this nation.)

    And then, what next? A Ministry of Peace, along with a Ministry of Love?

  • I had this discussion, same arguments, same ideas, and more, with a gun-hating coworker after the shooting at VA Tech. Two things I remember that seem connected to your post.
    First, when pushed on the 2nd Amendment, he said that he thought it referred to single shot rifles and pistols, since that was what was available at the time it was written. Ignoring all the arguments about pre-existing rights, modern inventions, internet vs. printing press, etc., I went with it. I said okay, you’re in favor of me only being able to own single shot weapons, rifles and pistols? He said yes. I said without restriction, as in “not infringed”? He said yes.

    “I accept”, I said, “Starting today I will carry a pair of single shot pistols for self defense, everywhere, all the time, without restriction. Two shots is better than none, which is what I have at work now.”

    Sadly, when he thought about it clearly, he wasn’t really in favor of me having any means of self defense.
    Second, as our conversation wound down, he got to the crux of his thoughts. That the 2nd Amendment could be amended out of existence. Once that was complete, new laws could be written that would ban private gun ownership. I would then be obligated to turn them in by a set date.

    “No, I would not,” I said, “My acceptance of the agreement between me and the government would be broken at that point.”

    He replied, “Of course you would, you’d have to, it would be the law, you couldn’t fight the government.”

    “I certainly could,” I asserted, “It’s what people always do when they are pressed. It’s what the founders of the United States did.”

    “But you’d lose!” he said.

    “To who?”, I asked.

    “Well, to the police and the army”, he answered.

    My final reply was, “That’s right, isn’t it? I have guns. You have no guns. You can’t take my guns away. You would have to send other men with guns to take my guns. And if you did that, who would take their guns? No one. I will be dead. The men you sent to kill me and disarm me will be your new masters.”

  • Patrick

    Very nicely done…

  • Braden Lynch


    You are brilliant. Your logical progression that ends with the final situation of a blood-soaked government without any checks against its power is eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

    I rail a lot about not repeating the dark chapters in our history. However, ignorant, naive, gun-phobic, control freaks never realize that the end game may result in checkmate.

  • Tac


    2 points…

    1.) You need a floatation device to safely swim out that deep into the pool of logic.

    2.) If you would only stop confusing them with the facts we could all get along with Peace and Love. Wait… Piece and Love… I carry a Piece, and I Love doing it to help ensure my safety and the safety of those I care for. Honestly, given the right circumstance, I would even protect her life because ALL life is valuable, and I’d really like the opportunity to look at her after the threat is gone and say, “TOLD YA!!!!”

    Lastly, I suspect that if she allowed the conversation to continue unedited she would have had the last word and it would have been something along the lines of “SO!!!” or “YOUR MOMMA!!!!”. I also noticed she used the “I had a friend once” story. It seems those who can’t support the argument with facts always have “a friend” that justifies their position. That carries about as much weight with me as “that girl I lost my virginity to, but she lives in Canada so you can’t meet her”.

    That’s all I can say about her other than she is obviously a Vapid, Vacuous, Non-Entity.


    P.S.: I have never heard of a Pro 2A group or individual try and force an anti-rights cultist to carry, much less own a firearm. We do not force our views on them. We are perfectly content to allow them to choose NOT to observe ANY right that hey have. So why is it that they can’t do the same? Why can’t they practice the age old cliche of “Live and Let Live”? I don’t wish a gun, free speech, religion, search and seizure, etc. on them if they do not want it. If they do… more power to them (The Power of the People), but it is THEIR choice when it comes to THEIR lives. So maybe they should STFU and recognize that we have the same rights, but the difference is we have chosen to observe OUR rights and that somehow makes us wrong. That’s why they are called RIGHTS, by definition they are the opposite of “wrong”.

    Rant actually over now,


  • Check out the previous post regarding the earthquake. The quote that tells you everything you need to know about this person’s ability to reason” “My very first thought: this has to be a ghost!”

    When that’s your first thought regarding something not immediately explainable…

  • Penelope

    Nicely done. I can’t believe the lack of common sense that some people have! She was not only ignorant, she was entirely disrespectful of your position. I think that you can count this exchange as a “win” for this side.

  • You have more patience for ignorance and stupidity than I do. People like that (and their followers) aren’t worth my trouble.

  • Braden Lynch

    I have yet another thought on this exchange. Notice how she takes an indignant moral superiority position. I would find this hilarious if it were not so infuriating. They really feel they are morally superior because they want to ban those evil Black Death Rifles(TM). Easy to outlaw an object instead of addressing behaviors (e.g. murder and rape).

    The problem is, their view point conflicts with the Constitution (which she does not give a whit about), reality (evil exists and it does bad things to good people), and ethics/morality (to not oppose evil, is to endorse it). If pacifism and lack of armed resistance to evil is the highest moral good then we should have surrended immediately to Germany upon them declaring war on us in WWII. We wouldn’t want to shoot any of the Germans, now would we? That would be wrong! Using a gun is so wrong! Bad gun owner, no donut for you! So, per her logic, it would have been better to let them sail over and set up the concentration camps here. After all what’s a few million more dead Jews if we can just avoid using violence. [sarcasm!]

    Finally, I have co-worker who was shot during a home invasion. Agreed that this is an N=1 example so take it with a grain of salt. Anyway, I can also personally relate to the dangers that we face. In my case, an armed citizen should use a firearm for self-defense, and in her case with the negligent discharge, all I can say is that it was regrettable, but stupid nonetheless. There are no accidents; only negligent gun-handling. Perhaps, in my better society with more prevalent firearms and with better training all around, those will become even less possible.

  • Mark

    Two more opposed philosophies could not be more apparent. One is wishful thinking heavily colored by emotion, the other arrived at by reason, and in accordance with the concepts of individual liberty that America was founded upon.

    I don’t think she can even process your arguments, as her world view does not allow her to see things the way you do.

    We will continue to have to fight the likes of her even after the battle is won, and the Brady Bunch ilk and their fellow travelers are marginalized, and deny them access to the levers of power, because they will seek to impose their reality upon the rest of us if given the opportunity, likely at the end of a government agent’s gun.

  • @ Gaston: I dare say you answered your own question right there… Anti-rights cultists only talk about doing things to other people because the only thing they are really interested in is control. Oh, sure, they talk up a storm about peace and love and all the rest of that flowers-and-rainbows bulldren, but people like Marcia just want to be able to tell other people what to do, and they know that is never going to happen unless they have the government backing them up… and unless we do not have the means to definitively tell her to piss off.

    Remember – to her, the “self-defense” argument is “old”, which, in plainer language, means your life has no meaning to her.

    @ Shamandin: Why thank you :).

    Unfortunately, she is very much a product of our “modern” society – in her world, her feelings are just as valid reasons ot tell other people what to do as facts and reality are, and she literally cannot see where the disconnect lies, or why I was so antagonistic to her notions. She is Right because she believes she is Right, and that is all that matters… to her.

    @ Brick: Unfortunately, a not-insignificant amount of the American populace both cannot recognize logic and is completely unswayed by it even if they could…

    @ Braden Lynch: I was really curious what her potential response to a rapist / robber / murderer / burlgar / home-invader might be, given her non-violent and “peaceful” schtick – would she “give them what they want and hope they go away”? What if they wanted her life? What then? Sadly, she lacks the conviction necessary to defend her beliefs, so we are not likely to ever know her answer to those hypotheticals…

    Marcia is assuredly not at all removed from the old totemistic beliefs of history and the according faith in ‘deodands’ – if you destroy an object that was used in a crime, you are stopping anyone else from committing the same kind of crime in the future. Of course, being men of science and fact, we know now those beliefs are so much hogwash down the drain, but there is a reason I refer to people like her as anti-rights cultists.

    @ Erin Palette: Deal!

    @ AuricTech: Thanks for the pointer… the sad thing is that we were well on our way to giving her the highest number of comments she has likely ever received on a single post. The ungratefulness of some people…

    And yeah, I thought about embarking down the whole hypocrisy of sending armed men to violently confiscate private property from law-abiding citizens, but I figured she would not really grasp the nuances of that any better than “molon labe”, and it would only serve to spin her up farther. Of course, if I knew beforehand (rather than just suspected) that she was going to show her cowardice, I would have otherwise :).

    @ asm826: And even worse than legislating into existence the presence of an armed overlord, your friend followed the exact same hypocritical path that Marcia did of denying firearms to private citizens, but relying on public officials with firearms to enforce that edict.

    In fact, due to that belief, Marcia is far from “non-violent”… she just does not like getting her pretty fingers dirty.

    @ Patrick: Thank you!

    @ Tac: To be perfectly honest, I have some pretty significant doubts about the veracity of her self-serving story… Yes, it very well could have happened, but the vague and confusing language, the convenience of its appearance, and so forth cast some rather large shadows on the whole affair.

    Never mind misappropriating that event to castigate millions upon millions of people who had absolutely nothing at all to do with it…

    And, yeah, the very fact that anti-rights cultists are willing to force other people to do as they want them to, while we are willing to let all people live as they prefer to live, very clearly indicates that not only is ours the more internally-consistent position, but ours is also the morally correct position. She may claim to be tolerant and open-minded all she like, but we actually are.

    @ LC Scotty: … I had missed that. Perhaps a rational, logical conversation was far too much to ask of her…

    @ Penelope: The rudeness definitely was uncalled-for… Her immediate leap to “ignorance and violence” when I asked her to respect my rights was Poisoning the Well off the highest degree, and unquestionably colored the conversation from there on out.

    ‘Course, from that point on, I should have known better, but…

    @ BobG: You misunderstand, I believe – I did not write that whole mess for her, I wrote it all for you and everyone else who would stumble across it. Just her two tweets were enough to convince me that she was a lost cause, but the opportunity to reach fence-sitters and actually open-minded folks should never be passed up.

    Something else I stole from Kevin Baker, actually…

    @ Mark: I fear you are exactly right – she got so aggressive and condescending because she literally could not grasp what I was saying, and by her own admission, this made her angry. I fear for the society we are building where emotions and beliefs take the place of logic and reason….

  • Re how she would react to a rapist/robber/etc: She’d call the police and they’d come right away and make it all better, of course. Duh!

    It’s interesting how people like her seem to think the world was all sweetness and light before gunpowder was invented.

  • […] likely this realization is what leads them to practice cognitive dissonance. Lionge did a masterful job of pointing out the logically fallacies in a comment made by an anti-gunner. As par for the […]

  • adam

    “Ah, no, my best line is “molon labe”, but something tells me you will not grasp the finer nuances of that particular statement.”

    Best. Comeback. Ever.

  • Kristopher

    Linoge and ASM: That is the first thing I ask “peaceniks” who advocate gun control: Are you planning on voting to send armed government officials out as your agents to seize guns and kill those who refuse to comply?

    How can you be in favor of ‘peace” and send out armed thugs to do your political will?

    You are not a pacifist. You are merely squeamish, and want someone else to murder others for you.

  • @ John Hardin: And that is yet another fault in her argument… She is opposed to people having firearms to defend themselves, but she will call people with guns if she ever encountered a situation needing them. “For me but not thee” indeed.

    As the saying goes, she wants to return the world to a situation where the larger and stronger get what they want through main force alone. Damned if I will permit that.

    @ adam: Sadly, I misphrased it – that should have been “request”, not “statement”. That said, thanks :).

    @ Kristopher: Exactly on point – being violent by proxy does not make you peaceful any more than it makes mob boses innocent. People like Marcia simply lack the spine necessary to execute their wishes on others by themselves.

  • Magus

    …More to the point, people give up their own rights when they start infringing upon other people’s – when someone murders someone else, their own right to self-preservation is surrendered, and thus society can decide to imprison them for life, or simply end their life if they are incapable of being a functioning member of that society…

    Thoroughly enjoyed the post. I don’t disagree with anything said except the above quoted statement. I strongly disagree with that sentiment.

    I’ve heard the argument that a person forfeits “X” right when they commit a crime many times from many people. I don’t buy into it.

    A person never loses his/her rights. In regards to the “justice” system, we as a society infringe their rights as a punishment. There can be no punishment without a corresponding infringement of a right. We justify this because that individual was incapable of respecting other people’s rights.

    If you didn’t have a right to own the means of personal self-defense you wouldn’t care in the least if that means was taken away or banned. Since you do that that right, infringing that right is a punishment for a crime you didn’t commit–period.

    Since you don’t have a right to go into another’s house at will it is no infringement upon you or your rights that you can’t. But you do have a right to personal liberty (even as a “criminal”)–it is an infringement to lock you up, a punishment.

    There can be no punishment without a corresponding infringement of a right.

  • The only flaw in that position is that taking something away from someone can still be a punishment even if they had no individual right to whatever that “something” was. For example, you steal a big-screen television from someone. You had no right to it. The government confiscates it back from you after the appropriate arrest/trial/etc. That would constitute a “punishment” in almost anyone’s books, but one without the according rights.

    In any case, I think we get the same place, just by slightly different roads… And I think we can both agree that conflating known criminals with law-abiding citizens is not only offensive, it intentionally and maliciously muddles an already complex debate.

  • […] commentsLinoge on why are they so eager to expose their bigotry?Magus on why are they so eager to expose their bigotry?Linoge on should have thought of thatLinoge […]

  • Windy Wilson

    Deodands – an excellent concept and term for the object of hoplophobia.
    Good violence and bad violence! Yes. Take sticking knives into people. It can be bad, and we seek to put those people where they can’t do it again, or it can be good, and they become rich, respected members of society we call “Doctor”.
    Self-defense is never old for the self who suddenly finds itself in need of some immediate existential defense, to use a phrase beloved of leftists and intellectuals (many of which may be the same people).
    Re how she would react to a rapist/robber/etc: She’d call the police and they’d come right away and make it all better, of course. Duh!
    Of course! She’d make an ex Parte motion, they’d stop until it could be resolved, everyone would go to a judge to decide the appropriate course, zero violence, problem solved! And, of course, if it were decided that the robber/rapist had some sort of Droit du Signeur (she can refer to the movie Braveheart if her Norman French isn’t up to snuff), then she’d be glad to submit, as it was all done legally without resort to nasty gun violence.
    Odd, how every other flavor of violence is ok by her.

  • Windy Wilson

    Oh, and Linoge, as to the right to possess something wrongfully taken, that right can only be denied or interdicted by .gov. The laws regarding such possession frown on self-help, as that encourages lawlessness.

  • I wish I could claim the idea to use “deodands” to describe the actions of the anti-rights cultists, but, sadly, I can only lay claim to calling their particular faith totemistic.

    In either case, it is accurate – time and time again, we see “gun control” supporters fixate exclusively on the firearm, often to the detriment of doing something about the person wielding it. They are wholly seized by the notion that objects are evil, regardless of who might be using them for what purpose, and that mentality simply does not have a place in modern legislation.

    They are, of course, welcome to believe whatever their little hearts desire, but forcing those beliefs on others by way of federal laws is wholly unacceptable.

    And I was never arguing that a person had a right to something that they gained through ill means – in fact, quite the opposite :). And, likewise, a fair case can be made that the government cannot – or at least should not – do anything that its people cannot.