Monday, April 13, 2009

Asking for Facts

Skyewriter is asking for proof that Obama is "'anti-gun." Now, given what we know of her she'll likely delete or just not post any comments that contain those pesky things called facts, and she's certainly not going to post my comments. That said, if you're up for it head on over to her post. As she said, she's asking for it.

Of course she'll likely dismiss all evidence as not "recent" enough for her, or just dismiss it out of hand without thought or discussion (as she did with the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act) Obama's past is littered with anti-gun stances, which he's predictably been running away from ever since he decided to run for President.

Here's a small bit of evidence for her of Obama's opposition to "bearing" arms, which she'll of course ignore or dismiss.

Obama stated he believes the following, despite it having NO basis in reality. He "feels" that this is the case, so it must be true and the reality of CCW in this country over the past few decades is irrelevant to Obama.

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

Does that sound like someone who's pro-gun to you? How about someone who thinks DC's ban is Constitutional?

Now if Obama suddenly makes an about face and starts championing pro-gun legislation that's great. Until then any rational thinker will base their assessment of him on his past actions and statements.

Update - I post one comment. It goes through. Instead of reasonable discussion I get a copy & paste job and flat dismissal without any actual thought involved in her response whatsoever. Then I get this,

"You. are. a. dick.And you are not welcome on this blog.Adios!"

Ah, the typical response. She asks for an answer, doesn't like the response because it might challenge her irrational belief system, and resorts immediately to childish BS and banning. She's simply incapable of having a discussion based on the merits of each opposing arguments.

What a surprise!

Update #2 - Wow! I know I shouldn't be surprised, but this is some quick "reasoned discourse."

Skye in comments

"To traffic being directed here by Mike W. (once again acting in a manner that confirms my resolve not to engage in any kind of communication with him):Please see my post from today, 4.14.09.Life is short: don't waste my time and yours."

This is quite an interesting thought process on Skye's part. She asks for evidence that Obama is anti-gun, but doesn't allow me to comment. She then whines and complains that I linked to her post and drove over traffic. Can facts really be that damaging to the psyche of an anti-gunner?

She also insinuates that I, by virtue of my post, am acting in an uncivil, rude (insert other baseless pejorative here) manner. I did nothing more than link to her, provide her with some evidence to answer her question and predict (accurately) how she'd react when commenters tried to post facts that conflicted with her worldview.

Why ask for proof if you never intended to allow any to be posted in the 1st place.? Why even make the post if you were going to remain willfully ignorant and turn off your mind and comment section from the very beginning? Why ask for proof if you consider rational thought and educating onesself to be "a waste of time?"

A sarcastic, "Awww, you took your ball and went home all because of a handful of comments" is apparently a "mean" thing for me to have said, but it continues to be such a demonstratably apt description of the pro-ignorance, anti-freedom crowd.*

*I shamelessly stole that line from Weer'd.

Sad But Predictable, even when you give them evidence exactly as they asked for in a calm and reasonable manner they still go through the predictable standard stages I've laid out before. Then eventually they take their ball and go home.


none said...

Obama voted to ban all hunting ammunition along with Ted Kennedy in 2004 I believe..if that isn't anti gun I don't know what is.

RuffRidr said...

Skyewriter seems like a nice enough person, but I have found that she is not interested in a discourse on anything gun related. She had a post about a month back called "The Annals of Gun Nuttery". With an inflammatory title like that it was predictable what followed. She got a ton of heated posts and several that were downright ugly. She could have deleted the ugly ones and chose to have a rational debate with the rest, but instead she chose to ban all those on the pro-gun side. In an email exchange that I had with her she agreed that my posts had not been inflammatory, but she would not let me post any more because then the others would demand to be allowed to as well.

I'm not sure what she hopes to accomplish with this latest post. She asks for civil discussion (with whom, I dunno seeing as she has told most gun owners they are not welcome) on Obama's gun banning legislation, but then puts the caveat that we ignore a huge chunk of his history. Instead we are to focus on the last couple of years in the US Senate. Ya, the years where he was campaigning for the Presidency and didn't do much of anything legislatively.

So what you're left with is a nice little echo chamber where posters are free to agree with her all day long. Those who do not are mocked and then banned before they can retort.

RuffRidr said...

CORRECTION: Sorry, it was not her that posted "The Annals of Gun Nuttery". Her post did not have an inflammatory title. I got that confused with another story posted around that same time. My sincerest apologies.

Mike W. said...

You're right RuffRidr. She wants an echo chamber. There is a reason why the anti-gunners NEVER have open comment sections.

I've had incredibly nasty personal attacks levied against me on this blog, but I leave ALL comments open because I actually believe in open discourse.

And yes, Obama has very little legislative history AT ALL. If we don't look at his past where are we to look?

Then again, I'm also willing and able to defend my position, which is something Skye and her ilk have trouble with.

Anonymous said...

While I am more than willing to defend my position against any willing to question it, I see absolutely no reason to cater to this person's ignorance. Obama's anti-firearm, anti-firearm-owners, and anti-firearm-owners'-rights stance is already well- and thoroughly-documented on the internet, a scant Google search away. If the individual in question is unwilling to put forward even that miniscule amount of effort, her ignorance is not only intentional, it is malicious, and I simply have no time for that degree of idiocy.

The Armed Canadian said...

Here's what I posted in her comments on her follow-up post. Let's see if it makes it out of Reasoned Discourse purgatory:

As POTUS, Obama cannot do anything. That authority lies with Congress. So what will it take to prove to you that Obama is anti-gun? Signing a gun bill into law sent to him by Congress? When he does that, will you retract your position and say that, yes, Obama is indeed anti-gun?

It is the fond hope of many gun owners across this country that Obama never be allowed to get to that point. It would thus be impossible for gun owners to prove you wrong since they will in large part be responsible for making sure it never comes to pass.

Believe what you will but I think your reasoning is flawed. The Annenberg Foundation is just as biased as any other source. As is You just need to look deeper at where their money is coming from.

But since you're not interested in listening, I won't bore you with details. Suffice it to say, my wish is to ensure that you never get proven wrong in your beliefs. If so, it means gun rights still survive largely intact and in the current political climate, I'll settle for that.

Good day.

Mike W. said...

Matt - That's exactly why she restricted the "proof" to only "recent" (by her arbitary standards) legislation.

If you look at Obama's body of work you can quite clearly (with voting records, citations, empirical evidence) prove that he is, without a doubt Anti-Gun.

Skye simply can't have that. It'd do far too much damage to her fragile belief system. Staunch willful ignorance makes things easier for her. It's easier than admitting she's wrong.

Hell, Obama served on the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the biggest anti-gun group in the country. I bet Skye thinks that doesn't mean he's anti-gun either.

Mike W. said...

here's one of my comments - which will also undoubtedly never see the light of day (reasoned discourse and all) - Besides, it's full of those evil, scary things called facts.

Straight from Obama's campaign website. Scroll down to the section on guns.

Supported banning "Assault Weapons" in IL.

Supported Handgun registration

Twice he voted for one gun a month laws (once he co-sponsored said bill.)

Also, he wants to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which is a law that restricts ATF trace data to law enforcement only. Tiahrt is supported by the FOP by the way.

For proof of the FOP's support of Tiarht scroll down to 4-16-07 here.

Rustmeister said...

Her whole "Asking for it" post is gone now.

Weer'd Beard said...

Funny that she dumped the whole post.

BTW while as far as I can tell I coined "Anti-Freedom Pro-Ignorance" there is nothing to "Steal" it's the truth, repeat it as often as necessary!

Good work, Man!

Weer'd Beard said...

BTW this one is on her latest about how us gunnies just should shut up and let her defame and lie at will.

"Well you are reaching us, and certainly your actions here speak far louder than your words.

Also nice touch that you condemn us for "insults" (not sure the extent of those as you moderate your comments) but you seem to be fairly free with the insults yourself.

You're an interesting lady!"

I trust she won't let that one out of the bag!

AztecRed said...

Skye's reponse reminds me a lot of this video:

Weer'd Beard said...

That's an awesome video, Red.

I put it up on my place. Thanks!

BobG said...

Never seen a hoplophobe yet who had the guts or brains to carry on a reasonable discussion.

Mike W. said...

Weer'd - It's like I said to Catherine, it's not rude or uncivil for me to call you out on the merits of your argument when you say something that's 100% false.

Say something I know to be untrue I'm going to correct you and call you on it. Make baseless assertions and I'm going to disprove them AND ask that you back up what you say.

You'll notice Catherine commenting over at Skye's terms my attempt to engage in dialogue that way as "abuse"

Calling a spade a spade and using cited evidence when I do so is hardly "abuse." Hell, it's the very basis of reasoned, civil discussion.

That said, as Linoge points out, both Skye and Catherine's ignorance isn't really anything of the sort. It's outright denial of the inconvenient truth in favor of malicious lies.

I look at some of the things they say and I seriously doubt anyone could possibly be THAT stupid. Things so blatantly false and shockingly stupid that ignorance alone cannot possibly explain it.

Then, of course, if you ask either of them to defend those shockingly inane positions they scream at the top of their lungs that you're abusing them.

Only in liberal la-la land could asking someone to back up what they say and qualify their statements be considered "Abuse."

It's sad and predictable, and I'd feel bad for them if they weren't outright hostile towards my rights.

Weer'd Beard said...

She has a new nasty post up.

I have a strong suspicion that the "Comments" she posts are in fact made up out of whole cloth.

I'd say she's a textbook case of psychological projection.

Brent said...

Good job, Mike!