I’m on a roll today

[UPDATE] Belay my last. Apparently, my comments were caught in spam catchers on both the blogs in question. I thought I had waited an appropriate amount of time to assume that the comments weren’t going to appear, but apparently I wasn’t patient enough. The comments have now shown up on both blogs.

My faith is restored in the powers of TRUE Reasoned discourse. [/UPDATE]

I’ve gotten TWO local bloggers to start ignoring me today. I feel a sense of accomplishment.

First was this post from Scott’s Morning Brew:

Ryan Frederick will forever be known as a cop killer. He shot and killed Detective Jerrod Shivers in January 2008 while the Chesapeake Police Department was serving a search warrant at his house. He is a cold blooded killer.

If the tables were turned, and it was a cop who shot blindly through a door, killing a civilian, I wonder how that would have turned out at a trial?

For the record, I believe that Scott works for one of the Local Police Departments. If I remember correctly, he’s not a sworn officer, but works in IT or something like that. Irrelevant really, but probably explains his attitude a little.

Anyway, I responded with a comment pointing out the Lima Ohio incident where a woman hiding in a bedroom with her children was killed when one of the assaulting…er…arresting officers “saw a shadow” and fired through a partially opened door when he heard gunfire coming from downstairs (the cops downstairs were busy executing the family pets). Of course, the cop in that case was acquitted.

Well, later on I tried to submit another comment about the Hannover County NC Sheriff ‘s deputy who shot Peyton Strickland through a closed door during a raid over some stolen Playstation 3 systems. In that case, Deputy Long didn’t even go to trial, the grand jury refused to indict him. I just wanted to emphasize that the case I pointed out earlier wasn’t an isolated incident. In fact there are plenty more examples to choose from should it be necessary.

At any rate, when I tried to post that comment, I was unable. No error message, no moderation warning, the post just refused to show up. Still not there.

Either his comment system broke, or Scott doesn’t like being proven wrong.

Another (relatively) local blogger chose to opine about the well-deserved death of the “Gun Show Loophole” bill in the state Senate earlier this week:

Maybe I’ve missed something, so I’m depending on readers of this blog to give me thoughtful, reasoned explanations for why Virginia lawmakers voted against the latest gun show loophole bill.

Of course, anyone who knows me knows that I can’t leave a question like that unanswered…so I responded in a reasoned and civil manner.

While I was writing that comment, someone named “Mike”, responding to someone who pointed out that there is no gun show loophole, wrote:

Yes there is – anyone can walk into a gun show and buy a gun – including felons, terrorists, heck even members of Al Qaeda – why do you hate America so much you want to give Muslim terrorists guns?

I’d call that a loophole…

I tried to respond to that one too. Same thing happened as with Scott’s blog…press the submit button, no error message, no obvious problem, the comment just doesn’t show up.

Here’s what I tried to post:

I’d call that a loophole…

I could call you a pink elephant. That doesn’t make it so, no matter how vigorously I insist it.

loop⋅hole
   /ˈlupˌhoʊl/
noun, verb, -holed, -hol⋅ing.

3. a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc.

loophole. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved February 05, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loophole

The law in question specifically requires federally licensed dealers to conduct background checks (whether at a gun show or elsewhere).

It also specifically exempts private citizens who are not federally licensed dealers from that requirement (whether at a gun show or elsewhere) .

That means when a private citizen sells their personally owned property to another private citizen without running a background check, they are expressly obeying the law, not exploiting a loophole to “evade” the law.

That’s why you are wrong.

You can argue that the law should be changed, that private citizens should be subject to conducting background checks. I would disagree with you, but at least your argument would be legitimate; but to characterize a specific and intentional provision in the law as a “loophole” is misleading. Sometimes also known as “propaganda”…but where I grew up, we called it something much simpler: “a lie”.

Both blogs are wordpress. Does wordpress have some sort of “ignore” function that gives no outward sign that you’ve been blocked?

At any rate, I think it’s pretty funny that I scored not one, but TWO banishments today, all without hurling an ad hominem, or breaking a sweat.

Reasoned Discourse and all that…

Some people just can’t handle the truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.