Yesterday Weer’d posted about the response of one of the handful of anti-gun bloggers out there to the counter-demonstration staged in response to their “stop a bullet with a candle” publicity stunt.
I don’t read the anti-gunner’s sites because they don’t say anything worth reading and it just gives them traffic. I believe the best way to deal with them is just to ignore them and let them wither on the vine. If it weren’t for pro-freedom people reading and linking them, they wouldn’t have any traffic at all…or at least very, very little.
With that said, I used to engage them and try to discuss the issues with them, as they inevitably claim they want to do. Every time I did so, I was met with derision, name calling, obfuscation, and the breaking out of “reasoned discourse” wherein any comment they couldn’t refute, was simply not published, followed by unfounded and unsupported claims that the unpublished comments were harassing, threatening or obscene.
The conclusion I drew from these experiences is simply that the anti-freedom lobby is made up of flatly dishonest professional victims who are incapable of actually engaging in discussion about the issues, whereupon, I stopped reading or engaging them.
This background was necessary in order to illustrate the irony of the comment that Weer’d pointed out in his post:
So far, no comments from the gun rights extremists are worth publishing. Come on guys, you can do better. “Dancing in the blood of victims”? Really guys. How rude and insensitive.
As if they actually would publish a comment that they can’t think of a way to dismiss out of hand. That’s funny right there.
I couldn’t resist so I actually followed the link to her place where I found some other aspects of her position that I just had to respond to:
No one said candles would stop anything. You totally missed the point of the whole thing- on purpose I would add.
You seem to have forgotten the many other people for whom the bell was rung and for whom candles were lit on Sunday. Jan. 8th was the anniversary of a horrific national tragedy that highlights our lax gun laws. The vigils on Sunday were to call attention to the way too many victims of gun violence. Gabby Giffords story is known to the world. There were videos and photographs of her plastered all over the media all over this country calling attetntion to the one year anniversary and many of them to our lax gun laws as well.
To which I responded:
We didn’t miss the point at all and I think you know it…because you know as well as we do what the point really was. It was about attempting to commandeer the memorial of a tragedy to exploit it for publicity and political gain.
You can claim that your sideshow was, in part, to honor the victims of the Tuscon tragedy all you want, but I find it interesting that at the ACTUAL memorial service, no mention was made of you, your group, your agenda, or your political stunt.
You know what I find rude and insensitive? People exploiting the deaths of others, even of loved ones, to push a political agenda that has virtually nothing to do with, and would not have prevented, the incident(s) being exploited.
This is how you honor them? By using their suffering and even death like a poker chip in a political game? By trying to use their victimhood as a shield against criticism?
It’s not just rude and insensitive, it’s downright disgusting.
You should be ashamed. But I’m pretty sure you’re not. Which is why I don’t much bother any more.
So far that one “wasn’t worth publishing”.
In response to commenter “Country Tea”, she asserted:
No one is going to take your rights away Country Tea.
To which I responded:
“No one is going to take your rights away Country Tea.”Especially not the Brady Campaign, that’s why they tirelessly fight for your rights.For example: They strongly supported the effort to overturn Washington DC’s unconstitutional ban on defensive firearms in the home.Oh…wait…Well, they strongly supported the effort to overturn Chicago’s unconstitutional ban on defensive firearms in the home.Oh…wait…Well, they strongly oppose the proposed ban of certain types of firearms specifically protected by the second amendment under the “in common use” language used by the supreme court in the Heller decision.Oh…wait…Well, they strongly support the property rights of individuals re: the ability of citizens to lawfully sell their privately owned property without the interference of the government.Oh…wait…Well, they strongly support the right of law abiding citizens to practice the “bear” part of “keep and bear arms” and carry defensive firearms in public.Oh…wait…Well…never mind all that. They really don’t want to take any of your rights away; just ask them, they’ll tell you.