Want to know the difference between “gun control” extremists and pro-rights activist in one easy-to-swallow lesson? Behold.
Brady Campaign Board Member, blood-dancer extraordinaire, arguable face of “gun control”, and eugenicist Joan Peterson (writing under the moniker “japete”) at the conclusion of a post abusively castigating pro-rights activists for daring to point out that the anti-rights cultists’ “candlelight vigils” will do nothing to reduce the number of “gun violence” victims (note: none of the links go to her site, in accordance with Clause 2 of the Terms of Use):
No comments will be published from pro gun activists on this post.
Sexual assault / date rape survivor (read with caution), pro-rights activist, holster-fabricator’s wife, and all-around good person Jennifer, in response to Joan’s vicious and vindictive post:
I know you won’t publish this. That’s fine. It’s your space. But I give you my word that I won’t censor you on my blog. And I do plan to publish my comment on my blog. Probably repeatedly.
I dare say that difference in mentalities is about as perfect an illustration of the chasm separating us from them as you could ever ask for.
We pro-rights activists do not need to rule our comment threads with the iron fist of censorship, because we know our ideas will survive the arena of public debate.
We defenders of individual rights do not need to hold publicity-stunt “vigils” to feel like we are Doing Something, because we are accomplishing our goals on a daily basis.
We believers in the sanctity of human life do not need to self-absorbedly narrow the playing field to only certain types of violence, because we are interested in stopping all predatory violence.
We who stand up for the individual do not need to use the threat of government force to coerce people to abide by our beliefs, because we accept anyone with open arms.
And that is why we are winning.
On the one hand, I wish I could unequivocally share Lila’s position on this distinction (read the whole thing):
Do you know what gets me? The sheer sadness of it all. Truly. When it comes to wanting to see less victims we are on the same side. The difference is that some have let their hatred of an object obscure any other thing.
But on the other hand, I am struck by two disjoint thoughts. First, as expressed by Cargosquid*:
Joan Peterson…without proof, without evidence, you slander good people. And yet you call us shameless? You have the outright, shameless, unmitigated, GALL to insult people that actually JOINED you in honoring victims of violence BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T DO IT IN YOUR APPROVED MANNER?
Apparently, the vigils were all about….. you.
I simply cannot get past the self-absorbed egotism of the average anti-rights cultist, especially not when coupled with their overriding sense of authoritarianism – while we want to live in a world where everyone can choose to defend themselves, or not, as they see fit, they want to live in a world where everyone is relegated to the position of “unwilling, defenseless future victim”, and I simply cannot tolerate that.
And, second, I cannot help but to see Joan and every other “gun control” supporter like her as being roughly analogous to book burners, especially when viewed in the light of their infatuation with censorship and controlling the message. Not only do they want us defenseless and easy prey for criminals, they want us quiet, docile, controlled. No. Just no. You cannot stop the signal, and we simply will not be forced to go quietly into that good night, no matter how many petty insults and specious accusations you throw our direction.
Yes, my life is worth enough to me to speak up against those who would deprive me of the ability to defend it. How about yours?
[Update] And in comes Barron to whack the crap out of that nail:
Also those you attack are also standing out in the open willing to freely debate, yet you hide unwilling to defend your position in public. That is a sign of someone who lacks integrity.
… among other things. To employ one of my mother’s favorite sayings, I am very sorry Joan’s opinions are so weak that they cannot withstand ours being expressed. [/Update]
(* – In fairness, I will more than admit to “attacking” “gun control” extremists for their honoring of those criminals amongst the ranks of “gun violence” victims. However, I stand by those words, and will not apologize for them.)
You and Jennifer provided excellent rebuttal to the dernier cri of the insane woman you cite.
[...] they can fight back, and if they do fight back they can win. You want us to be silent, well many of us would rather speak up because we find our lives worth [...]
I think that is the other thing that gets me. If this fight they are fighting is about the people and preventing harm then why not include all people’s thoughts? The only reason we have our moderation on is because we get spam pretty regularly. Unless it is an out an out attack on someone I will post the comment because hearing every side is a good thing. I want anyone that comes to us thinking about their personal defense to feel good about talking about it so all opinions are welcome. We used to have a guy who would comment on every post with an argument, I think just for giggles. Readers need to see the debate though. I have always said our goal is too vent lour own stuff and hopefully help someone else. I wish they felt the same way.
At least you all get a chance to post. I’ve made regular “respectful” attemps to give her a little food for thought and it never makes it through moderation.
I guess the best they can hope for is to keep out logic and thus they can continue to feed the rest of the lemmings the same old lines.
It’s easy to tell people they have options when you only give them one.
Disavowed With Honor
I am another that has never passed muster as a commenter with Ms. Peterson. While I feel personally slighted, perhaps in future it will be a mark of honor to have been censored.
@ Calm Gun: Spaceba. Unfortunately, being ‘stuck on victim’ gives Joan no end of new tactics to employ.
@ Lila Williams: The only person I have ever had to ban here was a certain despicable individual who engaged in some rather abusive cyberstalking of my family and myself, the only person I have auto-moderated engages in non-stop ad hominem personal attacks, and the only comments I have ever deleted are those that are either spam, employ language that even I do not wish to field here, or “out” me or my friends.
Aside from that, though, I am open to any comments anyone would leave, and I have gotten in some pretty heated debates on my own posts. Disagree with me, yell at me, or whatnot, and your comment will be posted. Of course, it stands a better chance of being taken seriously if you do so in a rational, reasonable fashion, but that rather goes without saying
.
@ Disavowed With Honor: Heh, no, Joan does not allow my comments to go through any more, and Jennifer’s comment was only allowed because Joan thought it actually helped her case. “Book burners” indeed – they seek to destroy information, opinions, and dissention… sad, that.
@ mikee: As the saying goes, being despised by the despicable is more of an honor than they would like.
So much for a free exchange of ideas. The Lib-Cong only believe in free speech that agrees with them. I see more diversity of opinion amongst the gun blogs and the conservative political blogs. The Lib-Cong live within their own echo chamber.
Is this essentially the same post?
opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/pro-gun-jerks-find-humor-tucson-shooting-anniversary
They can’t enforce Reasoned Discourse on Opposing Views’ website…
@ MAJ Mike: I think “echo chamber” describes Joan’s world perfectly. If you do not automatically, reflexively agree with her and borderline-worship her for her self-proclaimed “victimhood”, she simply does not want you to speak, at all. Nice lady.
@ John Hardin: Not quite the same post, no. The above was addressing a specific post by Joan Peterson; that is the canned CSGV post that Ladd Everitt has reposted anywhere and everywhere he can “outing” various gunbloggers. The only difference is that up until now, he has been posting it places where he can control the comments. Not so much now
.
[...] moving deeper, gun control organizations and supporters go to radical lengths to silence dissent, even going so far as to tell people with different opinions to "shut up". The rights [...]