Personal attacks are the modus opperandi of the anti-gunner. Case in point, Josh Horwitz attempted character assassination of 18 year old James D'Cruz. Gun control groups are desperate, broke, and on the defensive. They've been getting thoroughly beaten down the past few years and they're lashing out. Ultimately it's something all anti-gunners do, and the Brady's, CSGV etc. are no exception.
All of this is over something as simple and non-controversial as allowing adults to exercise their Constitutional rights as adults. If I'm legally an adult then all of the rights protected by the Constitution apply, not just some of them. It's not an either/or proposition. If we are going to say that an 18 year old is an adult then we should treat him as an adult, not a child.
This is the face of the anti-gun movement, and I quote,
"The best case scenario here is that D'Cruz is strikingly immature and incapable of handling the serious responsibilities that come with gun ownership. The worst case scenario is that he's a ticking time bomb in need of psychiatric care. In either case, he's a poster boy for why we should prevent handgun sales to those under 21 years of age."
How does Horwitz come to this conclusion about Mr. D'Cruz? From movie quotes D'Cruz posted to his Facebook. I'm sure you could pull quotes off of this blog in order to do the same thing to me, probably with no more than referencing my "quotes of the day." Josh also uses these quotes to compare D'Cruz to the Columbine shooters and infer that he might do the same thing. That is despicable, even for the anti's.
These are the kinds of personal attacks I'd expect from the folks at Delaware Liberal or from any number of other vile anti-gun bloggers. One would think the CSGV, Brady's, etc. would be smarter than stooping to blatant personal attacks on teenagers. Sure they're pathetic, but they are the national face of the gun control movement.
I hope Josh & his ilk keep this up. The more our enemies engage in such hateful rhetoric the more it helps us. If this is the best they can come up with as to why 18-20 year olds should be denied their Constitutional rights then I'm optimistic about our chances.
Keep spewing your bigotry against young people Josh Horwitz. You'll be relegated to the 3rd rail soon enough. I hope Oleg Volk sues you for copyright infringement.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
It's not an either/or proposition.
Sure it is - either an 18-year-old is legally an adult, and thus able to enjoy, and be held to, all of the associated rights, responsibilities, and laws (up to and including the Constitution itself), or they are not.
If they are not, it is time to change the ages for Selective Service and volunteering for the military, to begin with...
As for Horwitz, far be it for me to interrupt an enemy while he shoots himself in the foot, but this is pretty despicably low, even for him. To be certain, D'Cruz copy-pasted a lot of ... interesting ... quotes from all kinds of sources, but you cannot tell me that is not a relatively normal activity for 18-21-year-old males. On the flip side, you know what is not a relatively normal activity for them? Going on shooting sprees.
Oh, sure, it does happen, but given how infrequently it transpires, it is fair to say we do not have nearly as much to worry about as dumbass-Horwitz here would have us believe - after all, if you are going to go on a shooting spree, what does it matter if you are legally permitted to carry or not?
Fortunately or unfortunately, the anti-rights nuts have no logical argument to bear, so instead they rely on the tried-and-failed method they always use - attack the person. We can only hope it will rightfully bite them in the ass this time.
I sure hate to think of what they'd say about me, considering all the heavy metal lyrics I post...
Pointing out that someone violated a social norm is not an "attack" on him. He chose the personality and made it public--Horwitz only calls attention to it. It looks to me like you want to treat the kid as an adult for gun ownership purposes, but defend him as a mixed-up kid for purposes of pointing out that he seems to have some interesting ideas about life and his place in it--ideas that may not match up well with firearms.
By the way, I would like to see your evidence that posting statements like "im bored...ill light someone on fire" is a "relatively normal activity" for 18-21 YO males. I would jack my son up fast if I saw him writing this on Facebook.
In any event, Horwitz is making the following argument: kids that age who turned out to be spree shooters behaved much like D'Cruz prior to their violent actions, so this might be a sign of potential trouble. And since kids like this have apparently not yet reached emotional maturity, putting guns in their hands may not be a good idea. You may disagree with this argument, and it may also be wrong. But it is certainly a logical argument to "bring to bear."
Why am I not surprised a bigot like yourself would defend such behavior Stan? You have no class. Also, I would be defending D'Cruz regardless of his age.
Also, nice of you to totally miss the larger point.
But it is certainly a logical argument to "bring to bear."
No. It is not.
It is not logical to employ assumption, presupposition, and stereotyping when marginalizing a person who has broken no laws, committed to crimes, and attacked no person.
And speaking of "attacking people", it is an attack on a person to blatantly misrepresent words that he is quoting as words that he originated himself, especially when those words could be construed as demonstrating that this individual is somehow unbalanced.
But, then, you are old hat at that, so I guess you do not want to have your own tactics invalidated.
Correction: it is logical to use those kinds of despicable tactics when marginalizing another person... but it is not logical to attempt to use those tactics while making an attempt at something approximating a rational, reasonable discussion.
So, Stan, by your own admission, should we assume that the Brady Bunch and its lackies are doing nothing more than attempting to demonize and marginalize someone who has broken no laws and done nothing wrong?
looks to me like you want to treat the kid as an adult for gun ownership purposes, but defend him as a mixed-up kid for purposes of pointing out that he seems to have some interesting ideas about life and his place in it--ideas that may not match up well with firearms.
I am defending him as an adult and a citizen of this great nation. As such, he has all of the rights that you or I have. I'm not defending him as a "mixed up kid" I never insinuated that he should be treated as anything other than an adult. You mischaracterize my argument, perhaps because you fail to grasp simple concepts.
You apparently feel we should treat 18-20 year olds as children and deny them their Constitutional rights. What other rights should be denied to 18-20 year olds Stan? clearly under your logic they shouldn't be allowed to vote or speak freely either.
While this is somewhat beside the point, I'd like to note that the 18-year-old in question is free to walk into any gun shop or sporting-goods store he pleases and legally purchase a long gun. Perhaps he's already a firearms owner and, if so, what's the difference between him having a 12-gauge shotgun and, say, a .32 handgun?
To expand on Sarah's point, 18-20 year old's are also free to buy all the materials needed to make pipe bombs. they could buy gasoline and matches and burn down a school, or kill a bunch of people with a machete.
Hell, they could mix household chemicals containing chlorine & ammonia and run it through ventilation, killing plenty of people.
All of these items would be legally owned. If a young person were willing to break the law he or she could kill people with any of them.
And, as Sarah points out 18-20 year olds can legally own a gun as well. If they couldn't that would not stop school shooters.
If he or any other 18-20 year old were indeed predisposed to be a school shooter or go on a killing spree their ability to obtain a CCW would be completely irrelevant.
Anyone could walk right into the "Gun Free Zones" that Stan thinks keep people safe and start killing if he so chose.
I have to laugh at the fact that Stan comes to my blog, given that he takes an absolute beating in my comments section. Thank you Stan, for being the poster boy for the bigotry, intolerance, and outright stupidity of the anti-gun side.
"it is an attack on a person to blatantly misrepresent words that he is quoting as words that he originated himself..."
Perhaps. But he does not quote someone else when he writes "im bored...ill light someone on fire," and simply pointing out the quote and comparing it to quotes by others neither misrepresents him or attacks him. Horwitz simply draws attention to factual matters.
Anyway, I think it's cute the way you guys get all bent out of shape over personal attacks, when you use them so often yourselves.
simply pointing out the quote and comparing it to quotes by others neither misrepresents him or attacks him. Horwitz simply draws attention to factual matters.
This shows us that Stan either cannot read or is a liar. Horwitz most certainly attacked D'Cruz personally. You did read (and comprehend) the article right Stan?
Also, you're still failing miserably to engage in discussion. Try to refute any of the points made in this comment thread or offer anything of substance at all. I dare ya.
Other than my calling you a bigot, which is an objective truth based on all intelligent evidence, no one has even come close to attacking you. Calling you a bigot may hurt your widdle feelings, but you are a bigot. I wlll call you one and expose your bigotry at every opportunity Stan. I could care less about your "feelings"
My, watch those goalposts boogie.
Let us try to make this excruciatingly simple, since poor Stan obviously cannot keep up with the conversation.
Has D'Cruz ever lit anyone on fire?
Has D'Cruz ever actually broken any law, whatsoever?
Is D'Cruz a convicted felon, or has he been imprisoned for greater than a year?
Does D'Cruz's college have any records of him "causing trouble", attacking students, or whatever the hell else?
Has D'Cruz been legally declared a danger to himself or others, or had other forms of psychiatric or psychological care/treatment?
If the answer to all of those questions is "no", and I feel certain it is, given the amount of cyberstalking the anti-rights community has invested in this individual, then there is no "there" there.
It simply does not matter what he said on his Facebook profile, unless what he was saying was against the law, or he actually followed through on what he said - given that I went to college significantly more recently than you, I know full well just how much online college communication consists of getting a rise out of other people (something you should know more about than you are admitting, given one of your favorite online past-times revolves around it), and the fact is that particular quote could be an inside joke, it could very well be a quote (the broken grammar and contractions make it difficult to source, but the possibility exists), or it could be nothing more than a half-assed trolling expedition.
D'Cruz may not be the perfect candidate for moving the minimum age of "bearing arms" back to where it should be, but he sure as hell is not the kind of character Horwitz is disgustingly attempting to compare him to, your continued rationalization to the contrary.
Speaking of, should we take your silence as assent to my previous question?
Try to refute any of the points made in this comment thread or offer anything of substance at all.
You will have to excuse me for channeling Weer'd, but Stan ain't here for the huntin'.
Pointing out that someone violated a social norm is not an "attack" on him.
Violating a social norm? I would hardly categorize posting random ramblings on Facebook as violating a social norm. Should I be barred from owning firearms because now and then I post violent song lyrics on Facebook?
"Wet with your blood, I sharpen my sword! No turning the other cheek like a coward! Come tomorrow, I may lay down and die, but not this day...this day we fight!"
Oh teh noez! Somebody stop me before I go on a rampage!!!!111eleventyone!!! I don't just really like Megadeth, but it's quite obvious I have homicidal urges.
Sweet bleeding Buddha on a pogo stick. Somebody call the tow truck to pull Stan's head of his ass, already. Call two of the bastards.
Ah, R. Stanton Scott. Dishonest and thoroughly divorced from reality. Keep lobbing up softballs and making a fool of yourself Stan. I appreciate it, as it does wonders for the pro-gun cause.
Other than to complain of non-existent "personal attacks" Stan has offered nothing of substance here. He hasn't offered a cogent rebuttal to a single point made here, nor has he answered any questions posed to him.
This is the level of intellectual debate you get from anti-gunners. As Weer'd would say, Stan ain't here for the huntin'
Post a Comment