One pro-gun blogger, Wer’d Beard, is sensitive about his real name being "outed" by CSGV. Poor guy, but I’ll abstain as a fellow blogger.

That tweet used to include a link to the CSGV’s weblog wherein they did the outing, until such time as Weer’d requested Baldr take it down.  One cannot mistake the sentiment in those short sentences, though. 

Well, it would appear as though Baldr Odinson has beaten all of the rest of us to the punch, and gone and “outed” himself on Facebook – say hello to Baldr, everyone… or should I say “Jason Kilgore”? 

Now, normally, I would not go posting the personal information of folks who choose to use a screen name while they make use of the Intertubes – being one of those folks myself, I fully understand the motivations involved.  However, in this particular case, I feel as though it is particularly warranted for a variety of reasons. 

First, as you can see to the left, he “outed” himself, on a public page, on Facebook.  He put his screen name right next to his carbon name, in a place where anyone and everyone could see it.  And, lo and behold, someone did. 

Second, as previously mentioned, he condoned / supported / encouraged / facilitated the CSGV when they were going on their mass “outing” spree a few months ago, and personally leveraged some of the outcomes of that despicable activities for his own gain.  The shoe is now on the other foot. 

Third, he has been using either his screen name or his carbon name to sock-puppet for the other, as seen in the two screen captures to the right (the first is available here, the second is available here).  Trying to make yourself look more popular, more appreciated, more widely-recognized, and more agreed-with by generating additional screen names / accounts / etc. is a time-honored tradition of the Intertubes, but not a particularly honorable one. 

Fourth, he actually gave an interview, to a television station, using his screen name as his identification: 

Really Jason?  Really?  Welcome to being a “public figure” (as your Facebook profile claims, by the by); once you assume that mantle, any semblance of “privacy” goes right out the window.  (Of course, the misspelling is all the more amusing, given the circumstances.) 

Fifth and finally, Jason Kilgore (aka “Baldr Odinson”) decided to get his panties in a wad over the lawful use of the above-left Facebook image.  As you all know, I am a firm believer in individual rights, including the right to intellectual property ownership; however, as I said in comments: 

He cannot even claim that. He did not take the picture!

That, right there, is the key element.

Baldr was in a public place, acting as a public figure. As such, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy when that photograph was taken. As such, he has no copyright claim, whatsoever, to that picture, despite being the subject of it.

The only person who originally owned the copyright was the person behind the camera that took it. Did Baldr have that person’s permission to put the picture on his Facebook page?

Seemingly petty though that question may be, it is invaluably important, given Facebook’s rather… demanding… copyright rules, in that they claim ownership of anything and everything that is posted on their domain, regardless of who owned it previously.

Unless Baldr has a notarized power of attorney (or equivalent documentation) from the person who took the picture, or from Facebook themselves, he simply has no standing.

IANAL and all that.

… And as Tango followed up with: 

That’s not the key. You didn’t reuse his picture. You captured the picture with the surrounding page because what you wrote is specifically about that exact picture and the article associated with it. You wrote an article ABOUT the picture, so reproducing it as such is very very clearly covered under fair use.

So welcome to the club of “outed” webloggers, Jason Kilgore (aka “Baldr Odinson”).  If you had not gone to the effort of Streisanding yourself, maybe this all would have blown over and no one would have been the wiser.  As it is, given your encouragement of the CSGV when the started violating people’s privacy, you are, as I believe the saying goes, not-so-respectfully invited to “suck it”. 

(Oh, and what the hell is with the Heaven’s Gate outfit?) 

Consider, if you must, the fairly impolite example of @BenjaminV, who had this “conversation” with me regarding the shooting at Virginia Tech on Thursday: 

BenjaminV:  There should be no guns on college campuses, period. #virginiatech #guncontrol

Linoge_WOTC:  How are those #gunfreezones working for you? RT @BenjaminV: There should be no guns on college campuses, period. #virginiatech #guncontrol

BarronBarnett:  @linoge_wotc @BenjaminV I will try and find the paper again but research has shown Gun Free Zones had a higher rate and higher victim counts

Linoge_WOTC:  @barronbarnett There is a reason #gunfreezones are more accurately called #victimdisarmamentzones @BenjaminV

BenjaminV:  @GunsnCoasters @linoge_wotc you can have this country, it’s going to hell anyway, keep clinging to your guns and religion. 

Linoge_WOTC:  @BenjaminV @GunsnCoasters Far be it for me to stop you from leaving.

BenjaminV:  @linoge_wotc @barronbarnett you gun nuts are proving my point. I knew you’d put your precious 2nd amendment before common sense. 

Linoge_WOTC:  @BenjaminV@barronbarnett I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

BenjaminV:  @linoge_wotc @gunsncoasters Enjoy Tennessee. It’s the home of our best and brightest. Oh wait. 

Linoge_WOTC:  @BenjaminV Ah, and now come the ad hominem attacks. Certainly did not take you too long to resort to petty childishness. @gunsncoasters

(Please note that the bulked screencap is arranged in top-last chronological order, and the text is top-first.) 

If you look carefully at the blockquote above, you will see that three quotes from BenjaminV lack hyperlinks to their Twitter records; this is not an oversight on my part, instead, it would appear as though BenjaminV decided to try to shove those comments down a Memory Hole by deleting them from Twitter.  Unfortunately for him, I leave my home computer running nearly all the time, and as long as it is up, TweetDeck is online and archiving everything it sees, including tweets with my username in them. 

So why did he try to take the coward’s escape and strike his comments – comments he obviously ardently believed in when the wrote them – from the record?  Maybe he realized they might damage his fledgling design business.  Maybe he lacks the courage to stand by his convictions.  Maybe he realized how reprehensible those comments were, but is so spinally deficient he cannot apologize for them.  One thing is for certain: this attempt at rewriting history is a systemic deficiency of anti-rights cultists like BenjaminV there, and should always be kept in mind while dealing with them; if you want anything for future records, take screencaps (I recommend WebShot) or have some kind of logging software, and be ready to use it if you need to. 

Regarding BenjaminV’s aborted attempts at points, I only need to say that, once again, Virginia Tech is a prime example of the failure of “gun control” and the pointless nature of “gun free zones”, and that “common sense” is, at best, a lousy reason to abridge the rights of law-abiding citizens (and, yes, the Constitution does take priority over it, thank you for noticing), and, at worst, a base and irresponsible logical fallacy not even worthy of consideration.  The remainder of his tweets consist of pointless, immature personal attacks, so there is no point in addressing them here. 

I wonder when “gun control” extremists like BenjaminV there will realize that “The Internet Never Forgets”… probably about the same time he starts presenting rational, logical arguments based off historical data, I suppose. 

iamboogie: Wow. “Some polls have indicated that 67 percent of Texans are against guns on campus.” And yet. http://j.mp/icBunr #noguns #TXlege

wotc_linoge: @iamboogie If 67% of Texans supported slavery, would you be ok with the resurrection of that hateful practice?

iamboogie: @wotc_linoge What a ridiculous logical fallacy. And a hateful question.

wotc_linoge: @iamboogie You are right – supporting the abridgment of basic human rights on the basis of a *poll* is a logical fallacy, and hateful.

iamboogie: @wotc_linoge Carrying a gun isn’t a basic human right-in the *USA* it’s the 2nd amdt & I support it. BUT I’m Texan & support gunfree schools

wotc_linoge: @iamboogie Self-defense *is* a basic human right, regardless of your opinion. Supporting its denial by way of a poll is a logical fallacy.

wotc_linoge: @iamboogie Specifically, a logical fallacy known as “appeal to popularity”.

iamboogie: @wotc_linoge I don’t think you understand–I don’t support anything based on a poll. I hope you support gay marriage rights.

wotc_linoge: @iamboogie I support the right of all people to engage in whatever contracts they desire. Which is immaterial to the debate at hand.

iamboogie: @wotc_linoge “Appeal to popularity” is only 1 facet of logical fallacy. Your first response was also a logical fallacy, called a “straw man”

wotc_linoge: @iamboogie Except not. You specifically pointed to an poll to support your position. Thus no strawman.

iamboogie: @wotc_linoge The specific law in TX applies only to students 21+. Many students are under 21. So they won’t be able to defend themselves.

wotc_linoge: @iamboogie So what about the students who are not under 21? Should their rights be arbitrarily infringed upon?

iamboogie: @wotc_linoge I did not use it to support my position at all. I just noted that several people had opinions like mine. Thanks. Blocked.

wotc_linoge: @iamboogie So, in short, you were relying on “appeal to popularity”, and are now too ashamed to admit it. Thanks for the clarification.

wotc_linoge: @iamboogie Gotta love people who are too cowardly to defend their positions, and instead resort on running and hiding.

iamboogie: I can’t stand losers who attack people for their beliefs. I support safe learning environments where students can learn peacefully. #TXlege

wotc_linoge: @iamboogie When your beliefs support the infringement of basic human rights, you had better get used to it.

[Update] My apologies to my readers, but it would appear as though iamboogie took the coward’s escape and locked down her Twitter feed; as such, the above links to her specific tweets will no longer function. Rest assured that they were quoted directly from her feed when it was public – a fact you can corroborate for yourself if she ever bothers to unlock it again (and does not delete the tweets in question). “Reasoned discourse”, at its finest. [/Update]

I should have known the conversation was going to be pointless just based off her first response – logical fallacies are arguments put forward that are are based on an error in reasoning. An argument, specifically, is “one or more premises and one conclusion”, and by that definition alone, a question cannot be an argument, and thus cannot be a logical fallacy. Unfortunately, given her profile (specifically where she claims to be a “vegan-eater”), it appears as though English is not iamboogie’s strong suit… unless, of course, she actually does eat vegans, in which case my opinion of her might increase a little, though we really should notify the authorities.

About the only thing I would have done differently in that conversation is not used the phrase “on the basis of” – she obviously supported the infringement of Texan students’ rights to self-defense long before she saw the poll, so she was only using that statistic to bolster her position… And make no mistake, she was using the poll to support her anti-rights argument – why else would she phrase her tweet in that fashion? It constituted little more than, “All these people agree with me, and yet we are doing this anywise!”

Yes, well, if all those people agreed with you that slavery was acceptable, would that actually make it acceptable?

I am not going to thoroughly fisk her obfuscation, flawed arguments, red herrings, and rampant denial of Supreme-Court-recognized, Constitutionally-protected rights, but I will ask this: how many students in college are at or above 21 years of age? Arguably, somewhere around a quarter, but in reality, how many adults are going back for a second degree, to finish what they started, or to get a masters/PhD? How many veterans are employing their GI Benefits to get their college degree? How many over-21-year-olds work at a college? Should all of those people be rendered defenseless just because iamboogie and some percentage of Texans have an irrational fear of firearms?

And, if so, why was the South not permitted to keep their slaves?

*shrugs* When she plugged up her ears and ran away, she conceded the argument, so this post constitutes nothing more than a small victory dance for myself; however, it more than adequately demonstrates why I have a significantly decreasing interest in engaging the anti-rights cultists in any way aside from exposing their idiocy here. Like so many people like her, iamboogie failed the discussion flowchart before she could even get to the actual discussion, and then she lacked the courage to defend her claimed positions… and my patience with that kind of behavior is pretty darned low these days.

As the saying goes, I am so very sorry her beliefs are so inherently weak that they cannot withstand questioning, or my beliefs being expressed.

At any rate, I left the following comment at SoBeale’s place, and figured I might repost it here as an excuse of a post, and expand on it a little:

Of course, the interesting thing about the Remington 700 situation is what you leave out. Namely, that the problem was corrected in all post-1982 rifles, that the company is more than willing to fix any pre-1982 rifle you send them (for a fee, which I personally believe should not exist), and that one of the supposed “experts” speaking during one of the trials was unable to replicate or repeat the problem. That it could happen is unarguable, given the creator of the system agreed. That it did happen exactly in that way, in every single case of people claiming it did, rather than debris, people futzing with their rifles, or other things coming into play? No way to know.

But try not to let that get in the way of your all-too-amusing hysteria.

As more people carry more guns around to more places we will have more shootings, accidental and otherwise. Count on it.

Why should we “count on it”? Historical data does not even begin to support your claim, so what basis are you using to make it?

Then again, you have never shown a significant resistance to succumbing to and spreading specious propaganda.

In truth, even the “sniper” CNBC used to “demonstrate” the Remington 700 going off randomly, seemingly of its own accord, was using a rifle that was extensively and heavily modified, and any of those changes could have made the firearm significantly more, or significantly less, prone to the claimed uninentional discharges. As others have said, what the videos did not show was buying current Remingtons and demonstrating the problem, or procuring bone-stock pre-1982 Remingtons and demonstrating the problem.

Why is that?

As for SoBeale’s unsurprising “ZOMG, BLOOD IN TEH STREETS!!111!!11!” prognostication, I need only point out that the number of states permitting the concealed and open carry of firearms has been drastically increasing over the past 30 years, the number of people availing themselves of those permits have been drastically increasing over the past 30 years, the number of firearms per person in America has been continuously increasing over the past 30 years, and even after all of those years, anti-rights nuts like SoBeale still cannot point to any kind of data supporting their claims.

Specifically, as I said in the relevant post:

1. The hypothesis of more guns = more deaths is demonstrably false over the past 26 years of American history. The number of firearms in civilian circulation have been steadily increasing over that time period, and the number of firearm-related fatalities has not been equivalently increasing. [...]

2. When comparing raw numbers, there is a weak, negative correlation between the number of firearms in America, and the number of firearm-related fatalities.

3. When comparing rates, there is a strong, negative correlation between the number of firearms per person in America and the number of firearm-related fatalities per person.

And in regard to the main topic of SoBeale’s inane comment, when comparing raw numbers, there is a weak, negative correlation between the number of states with “shall-issue” permitting processes and the number of firearm-related fatalities (the specific r-value was -0.36405); and when comparing rates, there is a strong, negative correlation between the percentage of states with “shall-issue” firearm carry permits and the number of firearm-related fatalities per person (r-value of -0.78029). This, however, does not take into account whatever timelag there may be between states installing a permitting system and citizens availing themselves of it.

People like Southern Beale would be a lot more convincing if they had a bloody clue what they were talking about…

[1530 24OCT10 Update] I will admit that I was surprised SoBeale actually permitted the above comment to be posted… However, my surprise did not last long. She responded, and then I responded to her, and then apparently Laci the Dog Bitch commented, and, strangely enough, my response has not yet been posted… though Laci’s all-too abusive and irrelevant one was.

No worries, though. I kept backups.

Southern Beale said…

And Linoge, the second part of your comment just defies logic and common sense. The more people have access to ANYTHING potentially lethal the more likely there are to be accidents and misuse.

But common sense is not exactly a hallmark of the gun loon set.

I love doing gun posts. The nuts fall out of the nutbag en masse.

Common sense this, common sense that… sound like anyone you know?

My still-unpublished response is as follows:

As for logic and common sense, SoBeale, you like using those words and yet you have absolutely no idea what they mean. Since I was bored today, and this post provided me sufficient motivation, I did some number crunching comparing the number of states that have “shall-issue” firearm carry laws to the number of firearm-related fatalities, and the comparing the rates of those two.

Looking at the raw numbers, there is a weak, negative correlation between the number of states with “shall-issue” carry laws, and the number of firearm-related fatalities. Looking at rates, there is a strong, negative correlation. In both cases, that means more states allowing more people to carry more guns has almost no affect on the number of firearm-related fatalities, and what affects it may have are, in fact, negative*.

Interestingly, this also holds true when one compares the number of firearms in America to the number of firearm-related fatalities – the two are weakly, negatively correlated when comparing raw numbers, and strongly, negatively correlated when comparing rates. (All of this work is available at my above link, though I will admit I did the “shall-issue” numbers on the fly and have not put them online.)

Logic would require you to examine the data, look at it objectively, and consider what it is actually indicating. You have failed at this. Common sense would also indicate that you would have something more substantial to base your claims on other than “BECAUSE I SAY SO!!!111!!!”. You have likewise failed at this.

You enjoy failing? Interesting.

* – I will admit I did a bad job of explaining myself in this particular sentence, but something tells me that is not why Southern Beale moderated my comment out of existance. However, that sentence should have read, “In both cases, that means as states allow more people to carry more guns, firearm-related fatalities generally decrease, though that does not necessarily (and probably totally does not) indicate any form of causality.” That is what I get for commenting while watching TV.

In any case, when facts substantially and demonstrably disprove a belief, holding onto it is no longer logical. And no amount of “common sense” (which, in SoBeale’s case, boils down to “whatever I say it is!”) will replace, supersede, or overshadow basic truths. And, predictably enough, anti-rights nuts do their absolute damnest to oppress, suppress, and silence those fact and truths whenever they effectively demolish those hoplophobe’s belief structures – I kind of feel sorry for anyone whose grasp on reality is that very tenuous. [/Update]

In checking my referral logs over the past few days, I stumbled across the afore-referenced “An NC Gun Blog“, and discovered that Sean Sorrentino, a long-time pro-rights commenter at a lot of gunblogs around the ‘verse, had finally decided to pick up the weblogging mantle. While perusing his already numerous collection of posts, I happened across the again-aforementioned one regarding the fact that all nine then-seated Justices affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and saw that Japete had once again proven she was nothing but a spineless coward by refusing to post his comment disproving her assertion:

japete said…

Sean- Both Stevens and Bryers continued the Civic/Collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment.

I have to admit, I am somewhat glad I missed out on the whole Japete fiasco (be advised: Japete is Joan Peterson, and is on the board of the Brady Campaign and other anti-rights organizations) by dint of being on vacation at the time, but I was bored, and curious, and that is never a good combination… so I left a comment at Japete’s post that was effectively identical to Sean’s unpublished response, just shorter:

Linoge said…

Both Stevens and Bryers continued the Civic/Collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment.

That statement is patently false.

In something of a surprising, to both Sean and me, move, Japete actually allowed that comment to see the light of day; unfortunately, her response was, predictably, formulaic:

japete said…

” JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.
We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment. The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not.

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.
The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.”

My readers can decide whose statements are “patently false.”

Curious to see how far this particular rabbit hole went, I responded again:

Linoge said…

My readers can decide whose statements are “patently false.”

Indeed they can:

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

And:

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.

[...]

The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

So, as I said, your above comment is patently false. Amusingly, I am far from the only person to acknowledge the simple fact that all nine then-seated Supreme Court Justices agreed that the Second Amendment protects an individual, non-collective right. See:

Interestingly, on the narrow technical question of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right, it would appear that all nine Justices agree.

And (which also notes Stevens’ numerous logical inconsistencies):

…Breyer claims that, even if the amendment does protect an individual right, D.C.’s laws — which effectively banned handguns, and required that long guns be stored in non-functioning states — constituted “reasonable” regulations.

Stevens’s dissent is the more substantive, though it does contain some rather embarrassing factual errors. Stevens concedes the amendment “can be enforced by individuals” and “protects an individual right” before going on to argue around what he just theoretically conceded.

And:

I’M WRITING A SHORT PIECE ON HELLER FOR NORTHWESTERN, and something became clear to me as soon as I started writing: What’s most striking about Heller is that absolutely everybody — majority and dissents — says the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

And:

Thanks to District of Columbia v. Heller, we now have unanimous agreement that the “collective rights” theory of the Second Amendment is incorrect. All nine Justices agreed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right; the Justices simply disagreed about the scope of the individual right. Nothing in the dissent claims that there is now, or even has been, a scintilla of evidence from the Founding Era, or from Supreme Court precedent, in support of the “collective right.”

And:

Kleinfeld also explains that the phrase “the right of the people”—which Reinhardt “simply skips over”—refers to an individual right in the usage of the Bill of Rights.

In June 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, all nine justices reject Reinhardt’s position (even as they split 5-4 on the scope of the individual Second Amendment right).

As the saying goes, it is there in plain English.

Apparently realizing that she was suddenly and shockingly out of her depth, Japete responded, not with a reaction to the facts and supporting opinions I brought to bear, but rather with an ad hominem attack on one of my sources:

japete said…

Clicking on “see”, this is the website I found where the quotes must have come from ( above) — ” “Radicals in Their Own Time: Four Hundred Years of Struggle for Liberty and Equal Justice in America”"

Is this a credible source?

As we can see, it only took Japete two comments to resort to blatant logical fallacies rather that discuss the matter at hand – on the one hand, that is longer than some anti-rights nuts can manage, but on the other hand, it is a disappointing show. I did comment again, however, this comment has not yet been posted, while comments from MikeB302000 and Laci the Dog Bitch, written after mine, have been:

Linoge would have said…

Actually, Japete, the first two quotes I provided you were the dissenting opinions from the Heller case, and each of the following quotes are from their own respective sources, as indicated by the links preceeding each one (the “And:”s).

Regarding the source you are questioning, if you read the author’s most recent post, you will find that he recently published a book by the same name as what you quote – said book is described in the above link. Furthermore, his profile indicates that he is a law professor at Michigan State University who appears to specialize in Constitutional law.

What is your definition of “credible”?

In point of fact, Michael Anthony Lawrence really is a MSU professor (*.pdf warning) who does teach Constitutional Law I and II, Constitutional Theory Seminar, Comparitive Constitutional Law, and Writings of the Founding; secured his J.D. (cum laude) from the University of Wisconsin Law School; has countless published articles regarding the Constitution and a few regarding the Second Amendment specifically; has amicus briefs for both Nordyke v. King and McDonald v. Chicago (cases that went the way he and his fellow brief-writers wanted); and has spent more than a little time discussing the Constitution and what it permits.

Does that sound credible to you?

I will repeat myself, though: that above comment has not been posted – while it took two comments for Japete to devolve to attacking the messenger, it only took her one additional comment to break out the Reasoned Discourse (not that I was not expecting it, and keeping copies of all of my comments).

So, to echo Sean’s question, why do anti-rights nuts moderate comments? And what was so very evil about my most-recent comment that she killed that particular one, but neither of the two before it? Furthermore, if Japete had bothered to follow my first link (a dubious proposition, at best) or any of the links provided in my username, she would have known that I write at this particular corner of the ‘verse – did she really think that not publishing my comments would be the end of the discussion?

That, right there, is the disconnect – the belief that squelching conversation at your website ends the conversation. Simply put, it does not. As the saying goes, the internet views censorship as damage and routes around it, and as long as you keep backups of whatever comments you leave across the Cortex, you can go back and either re-submit them, or just start up you own weblog at one of the countless free blogging engines, and put those comments up for the whole world to see… while simultaneously calling out the spineless coward for what she is. To be certain, The Signal used to be that tightly controlled; in that, if you did not get into the vaunted sanctuaries of newspapers, or news channels, or radio stations, or the like, what you had to say was not going to get very far… and, suffice to say, Joan’s organizations have been very good at getting into that hallowed ground and defending it from the pro-rights activists of America. However, thanks to the Magic of the InterTubes, that is no longer the case, and any halfwit can hang his shingle out and be picked up by countless Google searches across the country, and the world, and in that kind of environment, simply shutting down responses is simply not going to work – people are going to take their marbles and just go somewhere else… somewhere typically even more trafficked than their particular corner of the ‘Net.

After a fashion, we should thank Japete for encouraging exactly that – her whimsical deletion of comments prompted Sean Sorrentino to start up his own weblog, such that those comments would ever manage to see the light of day. Now, rather than just having those responses show up in her comment streams (where they rank lower in most search engines), Japete is faced with comments-turned-posts that cannot be squelched, that rank significantly higher in Google and so forth than they would have, and that attract the attention of people like me with posts like this (posts that only serve to further expose the intolerant, bigoted tactics of a controlling, petty authoritarian).

So, tell us, Joan – how did that censorship work out for you? Seems to have ended up pretty well for those of us on the pro-rights side of the fence, actually!

[10OCT10 1010 Update] My repeated attempts to repost the above comment or put up this new one:

It would appear as though our host has engaged in her standard censorship tactics… As such, I have typed up my response, in its entirety, here.

… have all been “moderated” out of existence. It would appear, thanks to me demolishing her falsehoods, that I am no longer permitted to comment at Japete’s weblog. That certainly did not take long… [/Update]

(A not-so-brief aside to Laci the Dog Bitch, since I know any further comments from me will just be “moderated”:

1. I never said that the ruling in D.C. vs. Heller was unanimous, which you might not have lied about if you had bothered to read the entire post – rather, the title of that post refers to the fact that nine Justices, out of nine Justices (thus, “unanimous”), agreed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Funny that you would lecture someone about honesty while simultaneously, and maliciously, misrepresenting their words.

2. If you were not so busily engaged in crafting strawmen and repeating your same fallacious arguments over and over again in some vain attempt to make them true, you might realize that it is not my fault that your heroes are so remarkably internally inconsistent (see previous post) as to make a statement that they hold to be true (“it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals” and “The Amendment protects an “individual” right”), and then spend the rest of their time arguing against that statement – in fact, that very behavior, in addition to the glaring factual errors in both Justices’ dissents, has been the topic of some lengthy discussion, while the topic of how out-classed they were has been the topic of some lengthy (and well-earned) derision. See:

As we will see below, the dissent has great difficulty even enunciating its understanding of the Second Amendment. Its treatment of case law, and of pre-1789 history, is replete with glaring errors that suggest hasty and careless research. Its discussion of legislative history omits the most crucial events which, when considered, seriously undercut its conclusions. Its treatment of the early constitutional commentators contains serious errors, where one commentator’s discussion of Congress’ power over the militia is substituted for his discussion of the Second Amendment, and major commentators are overlooked in favor of the opinion of a little-known writer of form books.

And:

But gun control has very little effect on rates of violence or death (I think the evidence, while contradictory, points on balance to a small reduction associated with some gun controls.) Given this, the DC case should be an easy one for balancing: a major restriction of liberty (an outright ban) cannot be justified by a small or nonexistent gain in public safety.

That Justice Breyer reaches the opposite result from what should be a very easy case of balancing major restrictions of gun rights against minor net benefits suggests either that Justice Breyer is an unusually biased judge or – more likely – that the balancing test he posits is not workable in practice. Thus, Breyer’s own opinion may be the strongest possible refutation of his jurisprudential approach.

And:

In his spirited dissent, Justice Stevens took potshots at Justice Scalia’s methodology, but most of these projectiles missed their mark.

And:

Comment on to previous post points out at p.2 of the Stevens dissent he refers to NFA and US v. Miller: “Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that…”

Same mistake the 9th Circus made years ago and had to issue a new opinion, since Miller was never convicted — commentators noted this was pretty suggestive the court hadn’t bothered to read Miller before citing it.

And:

With the majority having established that handguns are “Arms,” which are protected by the 2nd Amendment, he’s left to argue for the status quo. Of course, Heller “threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States.” That’s the point; those laws are unjust and unconstitutional.

He is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is his duty to strike down unconstitutional laws, not protect them.

And:

Apparently, for Stevens, reading “the people” as “the people of the United States” is an all-or-nothing proposition. An exception for violent criminals demolishes the whole idea.

IT ONLY GETS more ridiculous.

[...]

When a test finds that a handgun ban is compatible with the right to keep arms, and that a handgun ban coupled with a ban on functional long guns jibes with the right to bear arms, it’s a useless test.

There is no other constitutional right that state and local governments can carve up at will, with the excuses that the law is “limited” to their territory, and that any less restrictive law will, in their analysis of the evidence, hurt a governmental interest to some unknowable degree.

And:

Stevens is arguing that the “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” in the First Amendment, is a “collective right.” He needs to, to establish the existence of collective rights under the Constitution. But this is so stupid an argument as to embarrass a moron. The right to peaceably assemble doesn’t belong to the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association. It belongs to any individual who wants to join one or the other. When you make this stupid an argument, you are either dumb as a post (Stevens is not), or you are trying to save a bad proposition.

And:

Justice Stevens’ dissent in Heller begins by acknowledging that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. The rest of the dissent critiques Justice Scalia’s arguments for construing the individual right according to the Standard Model of the Second Amendment. I have not yet studied the Stevens dissent in depth, but on my initial read, I was confused as what exactly is the scope of the individual right that Justice Stevens thinks the Second Amendment does protect?

[...]

In my own view, the reason for the weakness of the alternative theories is that they are not really alternative theories at all; they have just been a continuing repackaing of efforts to deny the validity of the Standard Model.

As usual, Laci is far too busy projecting his own inadequacies on others, making up nonsense out of whole cloth, and attacking other people (often to the point of wishing them murdered, though not by his hand… of course) to actually pay attention to the facts of the matter. And, yes, I know none of this will make even the slightest of dents on whatever passes as his brain, but this tangent was not entirely meant for him.)

However, while the topic of communal and individual underground shelters was the original reason for me writing this post, I stumbled across something far more interesting… Buried in the above-linked article is the following quote:

Catastrophe shelters today may appeal to those who seek to bring order to a world full of risk and uncertainty, says Alexander Riley, an associate professor of sociology at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pa.

“They’re saying, ‘I can control everything,’ ” Riley says. ” ‘With the right amount of rational planning, I can even survive an asteroid hitting the Earth that causes a dust cloud like the kind we believe wiped the dinosaurs out.’ “

That name jiggled a memory, and I booted up Google. Seems as though this professor’s full name is Alexander Tristan Riley, which set off all manner of bells.

Why? Well, here is a metric crap-ton of context to remind you, which is important, because Alexander Tristan Riley did an amazingly comprehensive job of deleting all three of his weblogs, all of the comments he could reach, and most of those records from Google Cache and the WayBack Machine. That is kind of strange behavior for a man who once said, “I ain’t hiding ANYWHERE. I’m out in the world defending my ideas in a community of other people who have actually done their homework and working politically to protect children from you lot.”

So who are “you lot”? Well, Alexander Tristan Riley, posting under the psuedonyms of “Culturologist” and “ATR”, rabidly opposed the civil right of self-defense in particularly demeaning, logically fallacious, and downright cowardly fashions, he attacked homosexuals and feminists with almost equal fervor (though his definitions of both are as fluid as the Atlantic), and he brooks no disagreement at all, resorting to editing posts, calling names, and finally running away. Thankfully, my run-ins with this particular childish authoritarian are exclusively limited to other people’s weblogs, but still… nice guy, is he not?

Heck, even his students (yes, that is, indeed, a scary thought – this man is responsible for educating college kids) generally dislike him, giving him an average score of 2.5 out of 5 (though the reviews in both directions are somewhat amusing).

So given his all too ironic opposition of adult human beings taking steps necessary to defend themselves and their families from criminals who do exist and who do prey on them, is it terribly surprising that he is now ridiculing people who are making what preparations they feel are necessary for natural disasters that do occur, typically at the worst possible times? Like I said, I am not sure I agree with the utility of a centralized, common shelter, but it is those people’s money to spend, and if they want to invest it in a project that is not hurting anyone else and might actually prove to be useful in the future, more power to them… Unfortunately, it would appear as though Alexander Tristan Riley’s authoritarianism knows no bounds.

In the end, Robb was right, nearly two years ago:

Guess what Alex? When you were just a no-name teacher all you were on my radar was a nasty troll. Now that you’re actively taking a part in removing rights from citizens, you’re going to have to deal with us now. We’re not going to let you slither away from your hateful screeds. Every time you open your filthy soup cooler, we’re going to be there to remind everyone what a nasty, hateful creature you are.

And here I am, shining the spotlight back on the cockroach. Something tells me he will just scuttle away, and try another day…

It would appear as though The Armed Citizen, along with 75 other political webpages, is being sued by the perpetually linkless (at least at this website) “Las Vegas Review-Journal”. Apparently the dead-tree media outlet took exception to The Armed Citizen copy-pasting part of, and linking back to, six stories, and rather than attempt to contact Clayton Cramer or David Burnett, the proprietors of The Armed Citizen, the newspaper went straight for the courts and filed a lawsuit against them.

Because, y’know, that is the mature, reasonable, and responsible reaction to someone doing something you do not like – ignore them completely, but file a lawsuit at the US District Court. Well, these days, it certainly seems to be the American way of settling disputes…

Even better, thanks to the general-purpose idiocy exhibited by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and its licensee, Righthaven LLC, The Armed Citizen has taken down their entire compendium of nearly 4,700 posts concerning American citizens defending themselves with firearms, just as a pre-emptive CYA maneuver:

We have removed all postings except this one until such time as we can carefully review each one for compliance with Fair Use–and it is entirely possible that they will never come back. Make you sure thank the Las Vegas Review-Journal for destroying a valuable gun rights resource because they can’t figure out how to run a newspaper, and have to make their money with dozens of lawsuits filed against multiple organizations for unintentional violations of Fair Use.

I am not a lawyer, and my understanding of fair use is pretty elemental… likewise, I would be rather pissed off if someone copy-pasted an entire post of mine, and passed it off as their own work. However, The Armed Citizen was doing neither – they reposted excerpts, and provided full links back to the original source of the information. If The Armed Citizen‘s readers wanted more information, or even the whole story, they would have to click on the link, go to the originator’s webpage, and read it there… and feed whatever clicks-per-minute advertiser counter those dead-tree webpages are running. If this arrangement was unsatisfactory to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the email addresses of the owners of The Armed Citizen are not exactly hard to find, and that should have been the newspaper’s first avenue of redress – as it is, the spineless representatives of the dead tree media source did not even see fit to officially notify The Armed Citizen of the impending lawsuit. Nice, huh?

Even better than getting their panties in a twist over properly-cited partial-repostings of their oh-so-very-important articles, though, the editor of the Review-Journal had no problems with that kind of activity in the past – in fact, he encouraged it. I guess his positions have changed over the years.

So, sure, go ahead with your potentially illegal lawsuit, comforted in the knowledge that you might win the battle, but you will undoubtedly lose the war – at this point, we could remove the “tree” out of “dead tree media”, and it would be almost as accurate.

More here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Who wants to bet that the weblogs covering this story have a larger collective reader base than the Review-Journal does?

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.

That same day, Rob went on to clarify:

Ok, a boxing match, then. I’m not immature, I just like hitting conservative assholes.

Threatening unlawful violence against another individual over the internet may be in violation of Tennessee State Code 39-17-308:

(a) A person commits an offense who intentionally:

(1) Threatens, by telephone, in writing or by electronic communication, including, but not limited to, text messaging, facsimile transmissions, electronic mail or Internet services, to take action known to be unlawful against any person and by this action knowingly annoys or alarms the recipient;

[...]

(c) A violation of subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor.

On 09JAN10, Rob Russell defended, rationalized, explained, and excused his violent threat against Bob S., saying:

In several of my comments, I made derogatory remarks directed at the trolls. I said some nasty stuff. Some colorful language was used. I stand by that language. I also stand by my offer to face them one on one and punch these idiots in their faces. That’s how I roll.

On 11JAN10, Rob Russell and SouthernFemaleLawyer deleted all of their recent weblog posts pertaining to firearms, civilians carrying firearms, and Rob’s threats against Bob S.
Today, 12JAN10, Rob Russell deleted his weblog in its entirety. Feel free to check for yourself – “The Coolest Generation” no longer exists on WordPress.com. For those of you interested, Google maintains a cache of The Coolest Generation, and both Sarah and I retained screenshots of the most eggregious comments of Rob’s, but the original webpage is gone. “Memory hole” indeed.
Back on Saturday, Rob said he stood by his language, and stood by his offer to assault, batter, and possibly even kill people who disagreed with SFL. Today, Tuesday, he has removed any trace of that language, and that offer, that he has control over.
Unfortunately, Rob does not control the entire internet, and the internet never forgets.
Rob Russell is a coward who makes potentially illegal threats he cannot back up (threats of actions that would be illegal if he were to follow through with them), and then attempts to destroy evidence of his abusive demeanor when people call him on it. And this scoundrel wanted to represent a portion of Tennessee at the federal level? No wonder our government is in such sad shambles.
12JAN10 2330 Update: Hello again, Rob and SouthernFemaleLawyer – saw you stopped by, yet again. Have you no statement concerning your failed attmepts at sweeping this despicable incident under the rug? No apology? No official retraction? How not very surprised I am…
14JAN10 Update: Rob Russell apologized for his behavior after two separate threats of violence, two separate defenses/rationalizations of those threats, and attempting to sweep the entire incident under the rug.

Seems Rob Russell has another career he hasn’t told anyone about – Magician.

Yep.. His post thanking the “trolls” who disagreed with his wife — POOF, gone.

Yep, his post explaining how he rolls — POOF, gone.

It seems as though SouthernFemaleLawyer has gone much the same route, and deleted all of her posts (and corresponding comment threads) dealing with firearms and the carrying thereof.
Unfortunately for them, as I have already pointed out many times here, the internet never forgets. Not only does Google have a cache of Rob Russell’s first threat of greivous bodily harm against Bob S. (screencapture preserved), but I retained screencaptures of Rob’s more eggregious comments, for just this reason:
Comment 1:

Comment 2:

Comment 3:

Note the address bars included with each of those screencaptures – those statements were clearly posted at both Rob Russell‘s and SouthernFemaleLawyer’s weblogs, and yet if you were to type in those addresses into your browser, you would be greeted with a 404 error.
And here you see the final phase of “Reasoned Discourse“, otherwise known as the “Memory Hole” – when you are obviously losing the rational argument, and have exposed your own violent temper and psychological shortcomings through your irrational arguments, delete the whole shebang, and pretend like it never happened.
Only it did happen. And we have records to prove it, having dealt with “Reasoned Discourse” and “Memory Holes” in the past, and having learned that backing up comments, from both sides, is sometimes important.
How interesting the difference a day makes… Just this weekend, Rob Russell had a very long-winded post up (almost as verbose as some of mine) explaining, rationalizing, excusing, and defending his threats of greivous bodily harm, and possibly even death, against Bob S. and anyone else who would dare disagree with SFL. Likewise SouthernFemaleLawyer had at least two posts, in addition to her first one, dealing with her opinions and stances concerning the civilian carrying of firearms in public, and how she was adamantly, emotionally, and rudely in opposition to it (with bonus expletives!). Today? *poof* Over five separate posts at two separate weblogs, with a grand total of over 150 comments, are gone. No retraction. No apology. Just straight-up cowardice.
But I thought making “derogatory remarks”, saying “some nasty stuff”, employing “colorful language”, and continuing to “stand by my offer to face them one on one and punch these idiots in their faces” was just how Rob Russell rolled?
It would seem as though those promises, stances, and claims of standing behind his words rolled just about as far as Rob’s political career did. Coincidence? I think not.
1925 Update: Sarah has more and better Google Cache screenshots, documenting the entire sordid tale.
Oh, and hi, Rob and SouthernFemaleLawyer! Saw you stopped by (many times in the past few days), and just wanted to extend a very warm and friendly welcome – after all, your actions have generated over 2000 hits on my webpage in the past four days. Thanks for that!

@Rev. Bob: I cannot speak to the new law in Arizona, but I can speak to the similar law recently passed here in Tennessee – it remains illegal to carry a firearm while even a single drop of alcohol is in your system (again, here in TN – AZ may be different). However, that said, I know of many states where it is legal to carry a firearm, and drink while doing so, so long as you do not meet the legal definition of DUI/DWI. After all, you can drive while you are under the DUI/DWI limits as well, and automobiles are tools, like firearms, that can be misused to kill and inujure many people. Also, to clarify some of your other misconceptions, all but two states require licenses to carry concealed, rocket launchers are already out of the question, armor piercing rounds are illegal for civilians, and fully-automatic firearms and suppressors already require special licenses from the BATFE.

@thekamisama: I see your “display of human waste” and raise you another.

@Warren: I understand you live in Merry Old England, and I further understand that just about all firearms are banned on that island. How is it, then, that England’s violent crime rate is nearly four times America’s? Four times! England’s violent crime rate is the worst of the European Union, and impressively even worse than South Africa’s. So, please, refresh us on how disarming your country’s law-abiding subjects is working out for you all…?

More topically, here in Tennessee, we have the unique advantage of being able to learn from our neighbors – specifically, Georgia passed similar legislation last year, allowing licensed individuals to carry their firearms into restaurants and bars that serve alcohol, as well as public transportation systems and some other locations. Would you care to place a wager as to how many of those licensed individuals illegally shot someone while at a restaurant that serves alcohol? (Here is a hint: the answer starts with a “z” and ends with an “ero”.) On the flip side, I can already point to an instance of a concealed carrier potentially saving his own life, and definitely saving his company a lot of money.

And regarding your post’s title, if you decide not to visit Tennessee simply because law-abiding, handgun-carry-permit-holding citizens can now legally carry into restaurants that serve alcohol (but not legally drink while doing so), I certainly will not be heartbroken. When given the choice between a citizen being able to defend himself from criminals, wherever they may be, and you signing some book… well, there is no choice.

From a certain standpoint, I can certainly see why Warren would not want this kind of comment published… But it certainly does say something about him.

To start off, I guess I should share a few disclaimers. First, I am not female, I am not a parent, and I am not a regular reader of this weblog. By the rationale of some commenters here, I should keep my trap shut and keep moving. However, the administrator/writer at this weblog has chosen to allow comments on this particular post, and I see no reason why I should not leave mine – the only people who fear open discussion are those whose beliefs are too weak to survive.

Second, I grew up (and was homeschooled, for a time) in a family that effectively did not have firearms. Sure, my father had a monstrous black powder beast, and a .22 rifle, both trigger-locked and stashed under their bed, but I do not recall any ammunition ever being stored in the house, nor do I remember the firearms being used. Before I was born, both of my parents were what I would describe to be “avid” shooters, but moving to California and dealing with their onerous firearm laws convinced them to give up that hobby. In addition to not having firearms in the house, my mother would not permit me to have firearm-resembling toys, whether they were GI Joe figurines and their accessories, or full-size mock-up replicas. I was not permitted to see any movie rated for above my age, and my television viewership was effectively limited to ST:tNG and a few other options.

Third, I served in the military for four years, and while us officers rarely got to interact with firearms, I carried one, on average, every six days as I helped protect the two ships I was stationed on.

Fourth, at current count, I own two operational rifles, one rifle lower (which is legally a firearm, but is about 25 pieces away from actually, you know, working), one shotgun, and two pistols. The shotgun and one rifle are in condition 3, and one of the pistols is in condition 1 when it is on my hip. Yes, I am legally licensed to carry a firearm, and do so wherever and whenever I am legally permitted to do so (which, here in Tennessee, is a lot of places).

Fifth and finally, I strongly and adamantly believe in an individual’s natural right to self-preservation and self-defense.

Now that I have bored away most people with shorter attention spans, I will get to the heart of the matter. GGC asks “Oh my God, am I sheltering him?” The simple, honest, and straightforward answer is, “Yes.” Violence exists in our world, whether it is violence perpetrated with a firearm, with knives, or with bare fists and feet. There are good and bad people in the world, and the bad people would very much like to cause harm to the good people, especially if they can extract some form of gain out of it. And whether you teach Archer those simple facts yourself, or whether the world teaches them to him, he is going to learn them. Of course, you are supposed to shelter him… for a time. Just like the “birds and the bees” question, the question of violence will eventually need to be answered, and if you do not do it, the world will.

GGC goes on to say, “Using gun as defense seldom works to defend.” Fortunately, that simply is not true – I can point out over 4000 instances of successful defensive gun uses, and those are just the ones reported by the media. Many times, simply displaying a firearm is sufficient to discourage a would-be criminal, and incidents like that never make the news, if they are even reported to the police departments.

Moving on, GGC says, “What are you afraid of?” Honestly, that question is more accurately directed at yourself. What are you afraid of, GGC? An inanimate lump of metal that is incapable of action on its own? A tool that is actually less dangerous than the four-wheeled conveyance sitting out in your driveway? Or the people who actually wield that tool? And has the thought ever crossed your mind that I do not own/carry firearms out of a sense of fear? That you openly admit to your own fear of firearms is all well and good, and I laud you for being so forthright about it… but using that admission as a basis for projecting your fears onto other people is fallacious to the extreme.

Additionally, GGC states, “Guns are far more likely to kill innocent people than criminals when kept inside the home. Period.” I am sorry, but the Kellerman study to which you allude has been disproven every way possible. Simply put, your assertion is not only unproven, it is arguably false.

Continuing on to the comments, one in particular made me giggle, more than a little: “Blogging creates community, and by barreling in with cold statistics and colder attitudes, you are not going to have any kind of positive effect on the readers of this blog.” I am sorry, but the only thing that matters in this kind of discussion is the statistics, the numbers, and the reality of the situation. To put it very honestly and very bluntly, Erin, it does not matter how you feel. It does not matter what you fear. It does not matter what your emotions on the situation are. The fact is, we have a naturally-granted and Constitutionally-protected right to self-defense, and a right to ensuring that defense through the use of modern tools. Neither you, nor anyone else, has a right to “feel” safe. Guess which one wins between a “right” and a “not-right”? Furthermore, I notice you never disputed those statistics that were brought up, nor did you attempte to refute them, but rather you stuck your fingers in your ears and started going, “Lalalalala!” Why is that, exactly?

However, I am going to bounce back up to GGC’s comment that has been echoed by sympathetic voices throughout the comment thread, “Do I believe in the right to bear arms? Yes. But I believe there should be stricter regulations.” If that quote is an honest asessment of your beliefs, GGC, then you do not believe in the right to bear arms. I assume that you are aware that there are already over 300 major state and federal laws concerning firearms? I also assume that you understand that felon possession of firearms, use of firearms in the execution of crimes, killing people with firearms, assaulting people with firearms, threatening people with firearms, injuring people with firearms, and countless other inappropriate uses of firearms are already illegal? I finally assume that you understand that criminals do not obey laws?

Then what regulations, exactly, do you think will be necessary to satiate whatever fear you have conerning firearms? Many of your commenters recommend gun registration schemes – how, exactly, do you propose forcing criminals to register guns? Furthermore, history has more than proven that registration inevitably leads to confiscation, so how do you propose getting gun-owners who know better onboard with the concept? Some sophonts have used the argument that if we have nothing to hide, why should we fear closer scrutiny – in that case, why do you not allow the government to set up cameras observing your houses? After all, if you have nothing to fear, what do you have to hide, and those cameras might alert the police that you need help. Historically, the Jews had “nothing to fear” when their benign government asked them to register and make themselves known with their golden stars… need we reiterate how that ended? Again, the situation boils down to rights – neither you, nor the government, has the right to register my rights. Period.

Another commenter mentioned waiting periods. Not only do waiting periods not accomplish anything, but also waiting periods can kill. Remember, the “If it can save one life” saw cuts both ways, and an inconvenience to the law-abiding that accomplishes nothing is simply not tolerable.

A third commenter references nebulous “regulations”, like classes and training and whatnot. So long as those educational opportunities are optional, and have no bearing on an individual’s ability to purchase and own a firearm (if he or she is legally eligible), then I would have absolutely no problems with them. However, how would you like it if I suggested mandatory “regulations” concerning your ability to write at your own weblog, or comment at another? After all, both are protected rights under the Constitution – how is one any different from the other?

When we get right down to it, GGC, you may be willing to allow your fear to run your life, as it is right now (which is a supreme irony, given the nature of your post). However, I refuse to allow your fear to run my life, nor do I see any rational, reasonable, or logical reason for it to do so. If you do not want to keep firearms in your house, more power to you, and I wish you the best of luck relying on the better nature of criminals and a police force that has no responsibility to protect you. Me, I will take a more direct and active approach to protecting myself, my wife, and whatever children I may have in the future.

Oh, and for those individuals who would have others believe that I own firearms as a form of penile compensation, you are absolutely correct – I am, indeed, compensating for the fact that my penis cannot throw 100 grain pieces of metal at 1000 feet per second. If it could, I might actually pass on the whole firearms thing… But probably not – target shooting is just too much fun.

Unfortunately, between my lunch break and my getting home, the author of the post saw fit to engage in some Reasoned Discourse of her own, and closed down comments. Do I think that some of the comments, on both sides of the fence, were a little over the top? Yup. Do I agree with shutting down comments? Well, like I said in the not-quite-comment – the only people who fear the free and open expression, exchange, and debate of ideas are those whose own ideas cannot survive the experience. It is her webpage, and she is more than welcome to do whatever with it she so desires, but I certainly do not have to agree with those actions, nor do I have to support them, nor do I have to say they were good ones.
At any rate, as with all Reasoned Discourse, the author did not squelch the debate, the debate was simply taken elsewhere. For someone advocating the expression of everyone’s points of view to the bitter end, I wonder if she can recognize the hypocrisy and cowardice of her actions…
Oh well. The moral of the story is this: You may not want your opinion to be changed, and you may be running a webpage “just for you”, but if you are going to post something/anything online, you would be a bloody fool not to expect it to be discussed. The discussion may not go places you like, and it may challenge your world views, but shutting it down at your corner of the ‘verse not only demonstrates your narrow-mindedness, but it also guarantees that it will be discussed elsewhere… and probably not in a good light. Such are the vagaries of the Internet – better get used to them.

I have said some stupid stuff on this weblog. I have said some factually wrong things on this weblog. In the former case, when I felt it necessary, I apologized for what I said, and in the latter case I corrected my errors when they were pointed out to me (And do point them out to me… Hell, I wrote a massive post yesterday and was about five minutes from pushing the button, until I found something that completely disproved everything I wrote. Such is life.). However, in neither case do I delete the original text – I might strike it through, or otherwise annotate it as now being explained/excused elsewhere, but if I wrote it and publicly posted it, it is still somewhere on this webpage.
After all, as the saying goes, “the internet never forgets”, as we often like to remind some folks who are prone to trying to revise history. Make damn sure you mean to say what you are saying before you push that “Publish” button.
That bit said, yesterday, the gunblogger community was inundated with an overflow of drama – funfun. For the sake of clarity, the two sides will be defined as Fuckwit Group 1 (comprised of Alan, TD, Stingray, and Labrat) and Fuckwit Group B (Sebastian and Bitter). Fuckwit Group 1 (in part or whole) has a weekly podcast show on the internet wherein they sit around and moan, grouse, snark, and generally bitch about things in their lives, things they have read, or things they have done… all in good fun, of course. Honestly, I have never listened to a single one of the shows, simply because I go to the internet for entertainment, and, to me, that hardly sounds amusing in the slightest. The deportment of Fuckwit Group 1 regarding the drama in question has indicated to me that my avoidance has been well-justified. Fuckwit Group B organized this year’s Second Amendment Blog Bash, which I was unfortunately unable to attend, due to scheduling/cost conflicts. However, drama was already orbiting this particualr event, in the form of specious registrations, spam, and political disagreements.
Apparently, in the course of last week’s show, Fuckwit Group 1 addressed some of the shortcomings they felt were evident in this year’s 2ABB, ranging from the noise levels at certain watering holes, to the apparent deficiencies in the media room at the NRA convention. This broadcast was laced with what I assume to be the standard level of sarcasm, insolence, and impertinence, and was posted straight onto the internet.
Fuckwit Group B took some exception to the things that Fuckwit Group 1 said, and wrote a rather comprehensive post addressing each of the points line-by-line, as quoted in transcribed blockquotes. This post (which will not be linked to here for reasons that will become apparent in a moment) was written from something of a bleeding-martyr point of view, and a rather sizeable discussion erupted in the comments, as well as on the #gunblogger_conspiracy IRC channel.
This morning, Fuckwit Group B deleted their original post. And, predictably enough, it would appear as though the internet might just remember that particular post, though not nearly all of the 40-odd comments it received.
So where do I stand in all this? Well, as you probably guessed from the names I arbitrarily assigned to the two sides (and those names are all in good fun, I assure you), there has been more than enough fuckwittery on both sides of the equation. Fuckwit Group B should have contacted Fuckwit Group 1 before deciding to air their grievances to the world, but, likewise, Fuckwit Group 1 probably should have afforded the same courtesy to Fuckwit Group B. Fuckwit Group B probably should not have taken so personally the rantings of Fuckwit Group 1 (which were apparently intended to be comedic), but Fuckwit Group 1 probably should have considered how their words could be perceived by folks outside of their clique (and having read those words, I can certainly see where the misunderstanding developed). Fuckwit Group B could definitely do with some thicker skin in some areas (though I can certainly understand how having months of effort denigrated can be … annoying), and, ironically, Fuckwit Group 1 could as well (acting surprised at getting a reaction to sarcastic words is kind of… well… silly). Were there better ways to handle the situation? Absolutely – on both sides of the situation.
So, to put it simply, I had the nerve to take the middle road, which, no doubt, made me all kinds of friends on both sides of the debate. Let me tell you how much sleep I am losing over that…
And then folks started deleting posts. Sorry, Fuckwit Group B, but that is just gorramed stupid. Like Kevin said in one of his comments that has since been sent to the void, this situation is already in the public eye of the gunblogger community (thanks, in no small part, to the efforts of Fuckwit Group B) – deleting the post you wrote concerning the situation, as well as all of the resulting comments, is, at best, disingenous.
Sure, apologize for what you said. Maybe even shut down comments… I think it would be safe to say that the responses had successfully run their full course. But outright deleting them? Now some people have no clue concerning what you said, what you are apologizing for, or even the value of your words. Your reactions to Fuckwit Group 1′s words are, in my eyes, perfectly understandable, even if they are based on a misunderstanding from all parties. However, if you were not 100% sure about that post (and you should have thought long and hard about it), you should not have posted it… and now deleting it has cost you credibility (i.e. what else will you delete and why?). Does “Reasoned Discourse” ring a bell?
Let not only this situation, but also my response to how you handled it, be a prime example of the wisdom of President Lincoln’s words concerning keeping people happy…
All that said, I sincerely hope Fuckwit Group B organizes another 2ABB next year, since I was unable to attend this year’s. If not that, I sincerely hope they pass the torch to someone else, and one still gets organized. Of course, I will be going into it having read the instructions, and understanding that it is pretty much entirely about the convention, talking with the NRA-types, getting/using the “Media/Press” credentials, networking with folks in the firearm community, and stuff like that… and less about just hanging out randomly with folks. Not that anyone stopped anyone else from hanging out, but apparently some folks need socialization time scheduled into their days. I was not born a terribly social creature, so running around a massive convention with a press pass, a camera, and a notepad (when I sum up the nerve to actually, you know, interview people) sounds perfect for me. (Not that I do not look forward to meeting my fellow gunbloggers, but I do understand that was not the sole or even primary point of this exercise.)
From my point of view, there is not a whole lot of sense in changing the format… Out of 46-or-so attendees, 4 people were sufficiently annoyed/unimpressed/dissatisifed/whatever that they decided to go and grouse about it for the whole world to hear. Realistically speaking, a 10% failure rate, for this kind of thing, ain’t bad. But if you want to go ahead and change things for unrelated reasons, go right ahead – I will be happy as long as I have my press pass to hide behind, and someplace to crash after making laps of the convention floor.
….Aaaaaand, that is about it. The gunblogger community needs another excuse to schism itself just like it needs a bullet into the brainpan. Our efforts, as a whole, would definitely be better-expended attacking/ridiculing/responding to/debunking/haranging/debasing our real enemies (i.e. hoplophobes, anti-rights activists, victimhood advocates, etc.), rather than tearing into each other. Which, amusingly, is why I am done here.
Oh, and yes, this post was pretty much an excuse to write “fuckwit” a lot. All things considered, it seems a remakably appropriate word for the circumstances.

[Whitebread] You know, I’m in this for the social change in favor of individual rights
[Whitebread] David is in it because he’s pissed off all the time
[Whitebread] Mike is in it because he dreams of shooting people

You can imagine which camp I belong to.

Mr. Licht,

If you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers were against individual, private ownership of firearms, you are sorely and completely mistaken:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
– Thomas Jefferson

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
– Tenche Cox

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
– James Madison

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
– Noah Webster

The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.
– Zachariah Johnson

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;…
– Samuel Adams

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.
– Richard Henry Lee

The constitutions of most of our States
assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may
exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think
themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive
and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all
judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by
representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right
and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom
of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of
the press.
– Thomas Jefferson

Any other questions?

For someone accusing other people of “disingenuous or delusional” tactics, you really should tend to the plank in your own eyes before worrying about he motes in others’.

Moving on to the rest of your points…

I fail to see how someone taking charge of their life, deciding to defend themselves and their family from potential assault, rape, robbery, or worse, and exercising their Constitutionally-protected (and Founding-Father-approved) right to keep and bear arms would be, in any way, silly. Furthermore, the holster you illustrated in your “dangerous” link is actually one of the most secure holsters currently in production, and the firearm contained within it was quite safe from falling out – how does that make it dangerous?

Additionally, how is myself, or anyone else, being interested in our own safety or self-defense “elevating” the bearing of arms to a “religious” status? Do you not want to live? Do you not want to be able to defend yourself should you be confronted with someone intending to do you harm? Or are you one of those people who believe women should “give the rapist what they want”?

Speaking of “assertations which can never be verified”, however, please provide me the statistics that indicate that sworn law-enforcement officers “are more likely to hit what they aim at than most civilian handgun owners”. More specifically, provide me the statistics comparing LEOs to handgun carry permit holders. If the statistics are not forthcoming, I trust you will stop using that unsupportable “point”.

Honestly, I am confused and curious – why are you so against people legally defending themselves? Why would you strip a person of an effective means of self-defense? Why would you make a law-abiding citizen easy and defenseless prey for an armed and dangerous criminal? And, please, spare me your excuses of “feeling safe” or your “peace of mind” – sorry, but the Constitution does not protect your right to “feel safe” or preserve your “piece of mind”. Instead, it does protect my right to arm myself, and to defed myself from those who would harm me, and I will neither ask your forgiveness nor your permission to exercise that right.

Finally, why do you feel the incessant need to belittle those who would choose to take the necessary steps and carry the necessary equipment to adequately defend themselves? Are you a certified psychologist or psychiatrist, and have you taken the adequate steps to diagnose those you seem convinced need “counseling” or other treatment? Something tells me to seriously doubt it, and that same something is indicating to me that you are simply using those cute little quips as failed ad hominems, which only serve to weaken your already eroding position.

[Writer's note: Given your already-demonstrated propensity for "reasoned discourse", this comment, in its entirety, has been reposted here, and linked back to your site. Bear that in mind when you inevitably "edit" my comment to your own purposes.]

If you want to drop off your own two cents (and have them “edited” by the weblog’s proprietor), the original post can be found over here. I wonder what my comment will turn into once he is done with it, if it will even remain…
2141 Update: Predictably, Mike displayed his true cowardice, and refused to reprint the comment, much less address any of the points, quotations, or questions I directed towards him. Weerd Beard has had a similar experience with Mike, and thankfully was quick enough on his feet to preserve his original comments on his own weblog as well.
Reasoned Discourse, we have found you a new champion.
09FEB09 0623 Update: Unsurprisingly, rather than be a man and logically, rationally, and reasonably defend his stance concerning the private ownership and carrying of firearms, Mike Licht showed everyone his complete and utter lack of spine, and resorted to name-calling, insinuations, and closing comments.
Like I said, this is completely unsurprising.
Whether he is willing to admit it, while private firearm ownership and carrying might look like a “hobby” to him, it is, in fact, law-abiding citizens exercising their naturally-granted and Constitutionally-protected rights to self-defense, and that is not likely to stop any time soon. That he insists on having his head in the sand and his ass in the air is a reflection on him, not us. In the same vein, that he is unwilling to recognize the growing number of citizens lawfully defending themselves with firearms shows a distinct shortcoming on his part, and an irrational block against admitting he might, possibly, maybe be wrong.
However, in my opinion, he is effectively an accessory before the fact to every single crime that could have been prevented or mitigated by an armed individual lawfully defending himself, and should forever be regarded as such – those who would seek to render victims defenseless are no better than the criminals who would do them harm.

Catherine, I have to admit, you are impressive.

On the one hand, just today, you put up a new weblog post decrying harassment, ridicule, confrontation, and all manner of other forms of unpleasantness – an undeniably noble sentiment.

On the other hand, there is this post, filled to the brim with harassment, ridicule, confrontation, name-calling, insults, childish behavior, and even more unpleasantness. Well, so much for “noble”.

As I said, you are impressive – the sheer amount of hypocritical irony you generated with just two posts is astounding.

(Oh, and no worries, I fully expect this comment to be deleted – you certainly cannot abide anyone having the unmitigated gall to disagree with you. However, I have experience with your type of “reasoned discourse”, and this comment will be backed-up and reposted elsewhere, linking back to this post. Unfortunately for you, turning off comments does not silence dissent. Is the internet not nifty?)

Rustmeister and Mr. Huffman both pointed me towards this hypocrite.
1929 Update: My comment was already deleted. How sad is that?

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.