Sunday, March 22, 2009

1st State Liberals

A few of the intellectuals in my state continue to blame everything but the criminal and insinuate that every shooting that happens is the fault of law-abiding gun owners.  They say we are responsible, that we need to do something, and that we hate the police.

The fact that today's murder of several police officers happened in #1 Brady ranked California is irrelevant.  These people disgust me, but thankfully I remind myself that they are the minority even in this state.  Most of my fellow Delawareans area not like them, rather they are normal, decent people who know where to place the blame rather than politicizing every tragedy.

Dana says all that needs to be said here,

"Our friends on the left want to do something about the guns, because they are so unwilling to do something about bad people."

Their logical disconnect is astounding, as is their insistence on remaining untethered from reality.  It really is as simple as Dana states above, but they're unwilling to accept that.  Their mental deficiencies prohibit it.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, their logical disconnect runs many, many layers deep. On the first level, there is the unyielding desire to blame anyone except the criminal - after all, he must have had a troubled childhood, or society convinced him to do what he did, or some other thing. After all, if the criminal is held responsible for his actions, they might be held responsible for theirs. On the second level is their irrational and strange totemization of firearms - which stems from their idiotic belief that no one person is responsible for his actions. Those objects must have played some role, and thus diminished his overall responsibility. And the third level is the senseless lashing out at people who dare to disagree with their points of view. After all, while no one's point of view is "wrong", these days, they are less "wrong" than most, and any degree of dissent might threaten that belief.

Insecurities, anthropromorphization of inanimate lumps of metal, irrational defensiveness, illogical and inconsistent arguments, inability to indicate or take responsibility... you do the math.

detroitccw said...

As pro freedom advocates, this is essentially where our side differs from the other side. They blame everything but the criminal. Our side places the blame squarely on the criminal. In fact, we go a step further: give everybody a gun and make the criminal's job a more hazardous profession.

Mike W. said...

And I think it goes without saying that violent criminals can't commit crimes, gun or otherwise, if they're locked up separate from the rest of society.

It really is that simple, but like you said Rick, they refuse to put the blame where it so logically and obviously lies. Instead they twist themselves into mental knots looking at everything but that which is right in front of them.

Unknown said...

As a member of the "other side," I would like to question that idea that we blame everything but the criminal. I say availability of firearms is often a factor, but it's never the only factor. I say in some cases if the gun had not been available, no damage or much less damage would have been done, not in every case, but in some.

Part of the answer is fewer guns, and I'm afraid you guys suspect as much and as a result resist every step of the way.

Weer'd Beard said...

This comming from a man who denies the existance of self-defense firearms, and generally lies just for the sport of it.

Nice try, MikeB, but your credability is zilch.

Mike W. said...

"Part of the answer is fewer guns, and I'm afraid you guys suspect as much and as a result resist every step of the way."

Mike - Other than the fact that gun control (I.E. fewer guns) has never been shown to work, there's another HUGE issue with your "answer."

You say fewer guns is the answer. Define "fewer" Mike. You say you don't support banning all guns, but your "fewer guns" necessitates reducing the number of guns in civilian hands.

At what point will your calls for "fewer guns" stop? When 30% of the population owns guns? 10%?
.01% And when 99.99% of the population has been disarmed and your gun-free utopia hasn't materialized what then? Will we able to get our rights and our guns back?

History shows us where this road leads, which is why we fight you and your ilk every step of the way.

Mike W. said...

Care to respond MikeB. I promise I won't moderate comments or call you names.

I might call you dishonest or a liar, but only if I can backup such a statement with proof (in which case it's no insult, but rather a statement of fact)

Hell Mike, a certain anti-gunner named "jadegold" once insisted that no guns were allowed to be carried at the NRA convention. I was at the convention and everyone was carrying. I called him a liar and told him to backup what he says. I got banned from an anti-gun liberal site for that Mike. For calling someone out on something I knew to be a blatant lie and telling him to prove it or leave.

That's the behavior of the kind of people on your side Mike. Hardly folks interested in reasonable, rational discussion of the issues.

Unknown said...

Mike, Sorry it took so long to get back here I was busy on my own site moderating and deleting weer'd's comments.

You're right fewer guns has never been shown to help, but I think it would. Just because there's no proof that I know of anyway, doesn't mean it wouldn't work.

Now please try to refrain from calling me a liar on that. Say I'm mistaken, or wrong, of delusional, but please get off the word liar. It doesn't apply to this.

About how much they should be reduced, I don't know. Since none of us is a legislator, that I know of, and we're just guys talking, why don't we say cut the guns in half. Half as many over the next 10 years, lets say. That combined with some of the other obvious initiatives, like increased police activity, education in the ghettos, maybe, changes in the war on drugs, and you'd have a big improvement.

With half the guns around, very often you'd have that spur-of-the-moment rage attack that results in a fist fight instead of a fire fight; often you'd have that depressed teenager cut his wrist superficially as a cry for help instead of blowing his brains out with dad's gun; you'd have all those marital disputes over the job lay-off that nowadays end up with the whole family whiped out in a multilpe murder / suicide, perhaps landing in couples counselling.

That's my idea.

Mike W. said...

Mike - I know this is simplistic, but wouldn't logic tell you that it's not the number of guns avaliable, but who's hands those guns are concentrated in that is the real issue?

There were a whole ton of loaded guns in a small area at the NRA convention / blog bash last year and we had not one incident.

Shooting ranges are heavily armed, yet we don't see mayhem & bloodshed, nor do we see that at every police station in the country.

You say you don't know the answer to my question. Well lets look at the anti-gunners. They talk of "reasonable" gun control, yet "reasonable" is whatever they say it is. There's not a single restriction that they consider "unreasonable."

They say they just want "common-sense gun laws" yet they consider outright bans to be "reasonable" and "commonsense" This proves quite clearly that their true agenda is not merely to reduce the number of guns, but to reduce that number to 0 (or as close to 0 as they can possibly get)

Mike W. said...

"You're right fewer guns has never been shown to help, but I think it would. Just because there's no proof that I know of anyway, doesn't mean it wouldn't work."

This is the crux of the problem with you MikeB. You admit your solution has never been shown to work, yet you want to do it again, only HARDER.

Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is the definition of insanity Mike.

You say that just cause there's no proof doesn't mean it can't work. You don't seem to get it Mike.

It's VERY simple. You are advocating restricting my Constititutional Rights, thus the onus lies on YOU and your ilk to prove the validity and efficacy of your position.

That you cannot and will not do so speaks volumes, as does the consistent abcense of facts backing up your assertions.

Your whole discussion about "spur of the moment rage attacks." There you go again Mike, proving my point. That whole paragraph is based on your "feelings" about hypothetical situations. It has no basis in reality nor is it backed by any factual or statistical evidence.