Wednesday, June 10, 2009

...and that's all I have to say about that.

Joe Huffman encounters the most irrefutable argument in the gun-banners' arsenal, which goes something like this:
LaLaLaLaLaLaIcan'thearyou!

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is the Liberal worldview. Facts don't matter, principles don't matter, the law doesn't matter. All that matters is that the Liberal gets what he/she wants. The ends always and absolutely justifies the means. If by banning private ownership of firearms we can cement the liberals in control in Washington, it doesn't matter if an additional 3-5 million die each year due to increased crime. The "Party Members" will be in secure enclaves; the proletariate can just die.

Joanna said...

No, you see, he's wrong because Shut Up.

What's the saying? That liberals want their opponents silenced, while conservatives want theirs quoted and heard?

Joe Huffman said...

I think Joanna must have nailed it this time because he deleted everything he said as well as what I and others said. Of course I have a copy of his post from the Google cache so it doesn't matter all that much.

Of course his explanation is somewhat different.

reflectoscope said...

I guess he really doesn't like to get slapped around like that. Heh.

Jim

TJP said...

I just read the update in the comments. Wow, I guess it's a three step plan:

1. Post uninformed opinion

2. Delete entire thread when it is challenged

3. Make a new post with a creative interpretation of the original content

That last part is just like reading a newspaper. Some editors may claim that they change all the big words so stupid Americans can understand, but we all know they change the words in the hope that no one will understand.

Brad K. said...

I see the initial post was pulled - the anti-gun guy didn't like the way the comments went.

Actually, I think the guy missed his chance. He states, in a post on why he *deleted the post* (not allowing comments) that he doesn't think he would have an opportunity to retrieve separately stored weapon and ammo in time to refute an intruder - so he chooses not to expose his children and grandchildren to the dangers of guns in his home.

*I think* his argument should have consisted of "I don't think the danger of having firearms is worth the risk to my family." And stopped. I doubt anyone would have argued, much.

I kind of lean toward the position that holds someone refusing to carry concealed is as much a risk and danger to community safety as the armed thug they cannot oppose. I also note that invasion by corrupt or tyrannical authority, by hostile states, and by organized criminal elements - not to mention zombie over-runs - must be met with the strongest array of weapons available. I note that communities and nations with the best armed citizens tend to experience less invasion or crime.

Instead the poor guy tried to belittle established fact, and focus only on the anti-gun numbers of people killed or injured, without regard to situations, whether the incident was arrest by the athorities or self defense. When he tried to *prove* he was right, he failed. If he had just stuck to "This is how I feel." - he would have won his argument.

Joanna said...

You know, my dad had a .22 rifle in the back of his closet the whole time I and my sisters were growing up. When we were very young, my mother showed it to us and stressed that we were to never, ever, ever, ever touch it. Coupled with a strong respect for personal property and boundaries, it worked -- we never went near it. And, frankly, just because you might not get to a weapon and ammo in time doesn't mean they shouldn't still be handy.

Brad K. said...

When I was about nine, a rabid skunk ran up onto the farm yard. I recall my grandfather chasing it with a ball bat, and Dad was scared as could be. After that we had a .410 shotgun in the basement. And, no, I never did play with Dad's gun.

Mark Alger said...

Joanna;

I'll see your .22 and raise you one. I had a .22 rifle in MY closet when I was a kid. My old man had a .30-06 and an 8mm Mauser.

And a GI Colt .45 and a Woodsman .22 and...

And Mom had a .38 Colt Commander...

Same lesson as yours, though -- children do not touch or whatever damage you may do with the weapon (and we'd had graphic demonstrations) will PALE next to the wrath of MOM that will rain down upon you, yea, unto the moment the Lord Thy Father getteth home from work. THEN it will be Katie, bar the door.

Needless to say, no incidents. I was (lemme think) nine when I got that rifle. My sister was four, my brother not yet born. That regime held true until brother joined the Navy.

No incidents.

As many folk have said, but Roberta X said it most charmingly in MY hearing, "The safety is between your ears."

GFW hoplophobes seem to have cotton fluff in there. Which is why they can't conceive of a behavioral safety regime.

And that applies to more than guns.

M

YeOldFurt said...

There were loaded guns all over our house when I was growing up. I cut my teeth on a 45 slide and my Dad gave me a 51 Navy when I was seven. Taught me how to load it and I kept it loaded. My folks must have had everything from Reisings to 03s and all kinds of pistols in drawers and tucked away in corners. NO INCIDENTS!!! Same philosophy of DON'T TOUCH WITHOUT PARENTAL PERMISSION.
YeOldFurt

Lorimor said...

Same here. Guns all over the house when I was lad and the oldest of six boys.

The idea that guns were not toys was instilled in us early and there were no incidents.

Of course, we got to shoot quite a bit so that satisfied our curiosity.

Living on a farm has definite advantages. And naturally, there is NO substitute for involved parenting.

Brad K. said...

We have to be a bit careful, here, about relating how we grew up to children today and gun safety.

Our parents had guns, and discipline. We grew up knowing "don't touch" as a rule, and not a challenge to be gotten around (well, mostly).

Kids today seldom have parents that understand discipline, respect, nor know how to teach it. Which tends to support the nay-sayers worried about exposing (ignorant and undisciplined, disrespectful) children to dangerous situations.

Anonymous said...

Note that the anti-gunner thinks that rights are GRANTED by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Rational discourse is difficult when childish emotions and abysmal ignorance are the sum total of one side's argument.

Art

fast richard said...

I am grateful that there are those, like Joe, among us who are willing to take the time to debate with anti-gun fools. The hard core anti-gun types will not be convinced, but when they are challenged with reason and facts, it makes it harder for them to spread their mistaken ideas.