why we win

CSGVBloodDancingIt really boils down to a difference in perceptions.

On the one hand, "gun control" fetishists gleefully dance in the blood of victims and exploit the murder of innocents to further their own, personal, unjust, totalitarian, anti-Constitutional dreams, as documented in the image to the right. (Highlights added to really bring out the crazy in those cultists’ eyes.)

On the other hand, we quite cheerfully and respectfully celebrate the lawful, peaceful defense of civil rights and the restoration of the same to an entire state of people for whom certain aspects of the United States Constitution might as well have never existed.

Now, tell me – to an outside observer, which group of people would appear to be the more rational, reasonable, well-adjusted, and positive? And which would be perceived as being destructive, irresponsible, and negative? Hm.

In other news, I am very thankful I am not the only person who considered the Portland, OR mall shooting yesterday to be remarkably… coincidental… what with it happening on the same day as the decision in Moore v. Madigan being passed down. Obviously I am not hypothesizing that "gun control" extremists keep spree shooters locked in a big pen until they are needed, and then release them into the wild to distract/detract from pro-rights victories; that would require more coordination and intelligence than those organizations are capable of. But I do think the media sees incidents like these transpire on the same day as something major like that court case, and think, "Oh, hey, this would make a great counterpoint; let’s blow this out of proportion!"

After all, more people were murdered in Chicago on the 30th than were murdered in the Clackamas Town Center on the 11th, but the former is the "gun control" capitol of the country, and we would not want to highlight the fact that such policies demonstrably do not work, now, would we?

(And for a dose of humor, that Michael Barkley character at the bottom, whinging about not being supported by his anti-rights cultist ilk? We have discussed him before, and apparently even his fellow fetishists think he is too far out in the weeds to really care about – he admits to coming in "a distant fourth" in his district. Poor baby.)

quote of the day – jmg257

By now, nearly every single other pro-rights weblog is aware of the cold hard truth that Michael Bonomo, writing under the assumed name "mikeb302000", is nothing more than a flame-baiting, attention-whoring, logically-deficient, ignorant, uneducated*, bigoted, lying troll with a admitted criminal history who only comments on other people’s weblogs to try to get return traffic, and who only cares about "gun control" insofar as his comments and posts on it generate attention for him, negative or otherwise. In short, he may or may not actually support "gun control", but he only writes about it because he is a narcissist, and we pro-rights advocates are sometimes easy to prod into providing the attention Bonomo so desperately craves.

But, like I said, we know that… however, it is always interesting to watch other people realize it as well.

Up until a few days ago, I could probably count the number of times I have visited Democratic Underground on a single hand; obviously, the site’s core political beliefs are something at odds with mine, and I found the vitriol and occasional viciousness found within its depths to be too much for regular consumption, even for entertainment value. As such, imagine my surprise when, starting a few days ago, I started receiving regular traffic from that particular site, starting with this thread (scroll down a bit to see the link back to here). Offhand, it would appear as though the progressives / liberals / left-wingers / etc. that inhabit DU – in short, Bonomo’s political brethren – have caught on to the facts that not only is he maliciously exploiting the "journal" feature at DU in order to direct traffic back to his miniscule corner of the internet, but also his reasons for supporting "gun control" in general are about as transparent as his attention-whoring.

Then, just yesterday, a new thread showed up on my stat trackers, which brought my attention to this post by jmg257:

Other then the obvious attempts to draw attention to your ramblings, there is a real hate for guns & gun owners in so many of your comments. Here we were thinking you were just some fool wallowing in ignorance, making things up as flamebait, imagining the worse about people, and spouted it all out in a sad effort to get others to give you and your ‘solutions’ some attention. Are your opinions on guns & gun control due to self- loathing?

But now I see you were a gun owner, and an illegal gun owner.

Are all your opinions about gun owners, the police, violence etc. actually based on how you perceive yourself? An illegal owner is bad enough, but were you also irresponsible? Did you always feel irrationally enpowered by your guns? Did you really feel guns would save you from all your problems?? Do you have violent tendacies towards women? Did you always equate even the simplest target shooting with killing and violence?

All the chattering you do to call attention to yourself and your strange opinions seems a bit…much. Do you think your self-loathing helps explain your overwhelming need for attention?

"The Bandar-log feature most prominently in the story "Kaa’s Hunting", where their scatterbrained anarchy causes them to be treated as pariahs by the rest of the jungle. Their foolish and chattering ways are illustrated by their slogan: We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true."

Bandar-log…now I understand where the word Blog comes from. Mindless chattering in an effort to gain attention.

"We say it so it must be true". Unless of course, its not.

(For clarification, the Bandar-Log are from the original "Jungle Book" book, and that concept conveniently, though not perfectly, dovetails in with my "woman with the earrings" concept.)

I dare say jmg257 is on to something, and apparently Hoopla Phil agrees:

He probably believes he was a typical gun owner and considers his illegal activity typical of all gun owners. Hence all gun owners are criminal. I see his logic flow, but he starts out with a fallacy, he was NOT a typical gun owner.

In other words, Phil seems to subscribe to the theory that Bonomo is yet another "gun control" extremist who project his own shortcomings onto others and then believes those others should be controlled for those transposed shortcomings. Suffice to say, this theory is shared by a very large number of people.

Moving on, jmg257 responds with the quote of the day (specifically the bolded section):

When he responds, we will know more. But that is indeed my theory. Easy for HIM as a criminal with a willingness to be an illegal gun owner, to break the law, to be irresponsible…to be so obsessed with guns and violence as to view even olympic target shooting as nothing more then practice killing. Somehow HIS quirky experience has shown him how despicable ‘all’ gun owners must be.

I can sort of understand how many narrow-minded control-lists form their decision-making, yet it is how & when they start to think they can justify making those decisions for others, and justify their blanket opinions about others, that I do not understand.

For someone to fear & despise an object, a group, a hobby, so completely (and so describe them so inaccurately)? To be so obsessed? To need such attention? Seems there must be a whole lot of very narrow & likely very damning introspection going on.

Ignore, for a second, the inherent irony of someone at DU complaining about narrow-minded authoritarians trying to tell people how to live (and no, I am not saying the Republicans are any better), and ignore, for a second, jm257 giving Michael a bit too much credit on the whole "introspection" thing, and just take that whole quote in… and notice how it bears a striking resemblance to something I said earlier this year.

If "gun control", and specifically Michael Bonomo’s narrow take on it, cannot hold on to sites like Democratic Underground, what chance does it – or he – really have? While there are unquestionably other threats looming on the horizon, "gun control" in its original form is dying, and precisely for the reasons jm257 mentions – it is nothing more than the outgrowth of people who want to unilaterally, arbitrarily, and whimsically control other people, and not-so-surprisingly enough, those "other people" do not really want to be controlled.

Go figure.

People want to live free. People like their liberties. People enjoy exercising their rights. And "gun control" runs contrary to all of those concepts. I certainly do not expect the hardcore adherents of that misguided faith to identify that reality, or even admit that it exists, but I am very heartened to see it catching on in every corner of the internet, even those that traditionally supported "gun control" in the past. We are winning, and, amusingly, we have people like Michael Bonomo and the bigotry they spew to thank for it.

(* – "Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house." Lazarus Long.)