Moral Complicity

Filed in National by on August 14, 2008

Steve D of the Booman Tribune has written a spectactular piece that nicely sums up my thoughts over the last few days after the cold blooded murder of Arkansas Democratic Leader Bill Gwatney.

Yet, after losing his job (or leaving it), the first action [Timothy Dale Johnson] decided to take was to murder a prominent liberal and Democrat, much like Jim David Adkisson decided to take his rage and anger at his personal situation out on the “liberal” church in Knoxville. Both chose to use firearms to murder innocent people they did not know personally. It is logical to assume that they both chose their targets to make a statement. Indeed, we know for a fact that Adkisson, the church shooter, wrote a specific hate filled manifesto detailing his reasons for targeting the most prominent “liberal” church in Knoxville for his massacre.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that within a few weeks, another disturbed individual who had lost his job … chose to shoot someone associated with “liberals” and “Democrats.” The right wing bloggers and talk show hosts can deny their complicity in these “random” actions, and, indeed, legally they are not responsible for the criminal actions of a few “rogue” individuals. However, their writings and commentary, widely disseminated on TV, radio and the internet, has spread a culture where violence against liberals, Democrats, feminists, gays, blacks, immigrants, Muslims and any other out group is frequently expressed as “comedy” or in fantasies of wish fulfillment. They can claim all they like that they cannot be held accountable for the aura of hatred they have engendered in American society, but their protestations ring hollow to me.

Indeed, since the rise of daily right wing hate speech on TV and radio in the late 80’s and early 90’s, we have suffered through the corresponding rise of right wing terrorism directed at liberals and Democrats.   The Oklahoma City Bombing, a terrorist attack executed by a right wing whack job named Timothy McVeigh.   Eric Rudolph, a right wing terrorist bomber responsible for the Olympic Park bombing and other bombings at abortion clinics throughout the South.   Right wing supporters of Jerry Falwell were prepared to use homemade bombs against protesters at his funeral.  In April 2007, 150 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers carried out simultaneous raids in four Alabama counties in a sweep targeting a right wing militia that yielded 130 grenades, a rocket launcher, and 2,500 rounds of ammunition.  In May 2007, a right-wing vigilante arrested in a scuffle at one of the immigration marches in Washington D.C. was found to have a stash of automatic weapons and explosives in his home.

We have experienced another wave of African American church burnings in the 1990’s and 2000’s. We have seen numerous murders of gay men and women, like Matthew Sheppard.  In Texas, a black man was dragged behind a truck for miles until he was dead.   The violence and hate of the right is real, these crimes are real, and their motivations are clear.   As is the moral complicity of the vile smear merchants on right wing radio and TV.    Indeed, they all stoked this violence.  They suggested it.  And I am not entirely convinced they don’t want it:

“I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus — living fossils — so we will never forget what these people stood for.” — Rush Limbaugh

“I would have no problem with [New York Times editor Bill Keller] being sent to the gas chamber.” — Melanie Morgan

“”[T]he day will come when unpleasant things are going to happen to a bunch of stupid liberals and it’s going to be very amusing to watch.” — Lee Rogers

“And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.” — Bill O’Reilly

“Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!”– Michael Reagan

“Some liberals have become even too crazy for Texas to execute, which is a damn shame. They’re always saying — we’re oppressed, we’re oppressed so let’s do it. Let’s oppress them.” — Ann Coulter

“We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee. … That’s just a joke, for you in the media.” — Ann Coulter

“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.” — Ann Coulter

“We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too.” — Ann Coulter

“And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they’re the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove.”– Rep. Peter King (R)

“Where does George Soros have all his money? Do you know? Do you know where George Soros, the big left-wing loon who’s financing all these smear [web]sites, do you know where his money is? Curaçao. Curaçao. They ought to hang this Soros guy.” — Bill O’Reilly

“Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year?” Mr. Rove asked. “Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.” — Karl Rove

“These bastards like Clark and Kerry and that incipient ass, Dean, and Gephardt and Kucinich and that absolute mental midget Sharpton, race baiter, should all be lined up and shot.” — Kathleeen Parker

This is but a small fraction of what is out there.  Hell, I could fill tomes with the murderous thoughts of one Michael Savage.  You will find no corresponding liberal or Democratic talk show host or official saying anything remotely similar.   Name your favorite hated liberal icon, like Michael Moore or Keith Olberman or Al Franken, and neither has ever made public statements recommending the murder of of conservatives.

Do all right wing conservatives feel this way about their political opposition?  No.   But they all have been conveniently silent, happy to laugh at these supposed jokes, happy to clap at the hate, happy to have such hate win them election after election.   This is why I have no respect or regard for anyone with right wing views.   This is why we really don’t want them to have guns.  Because we know they are being motivated to use them.  On us.

About the Author ()

Comments (82)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. mike w. says:

    More of the same liberal creed. Blame the gun, blame conservative talk radio, blame any person/object you can to deflect responsibility from the man who made conscious decision to go out and murder someone.

    and a “militia” with “2500 rounds of ammo! OH MY GOD!. Seriously, that’s nothing. I have a mere pittance worth of ammo and still have about 2.5 times that amount in my closet.

  2. delawaredem says:

    Answer me one question Mike: why do conservatives find it funny to dream about the violent murder of liberals and Democrats?

    I am sure you have laughed at similar disgusting statements in your life.

    Ask yourself why you laughed.

  3. Tropic Wonder says:

    1. This is the equivalent of saying all Iraqi insurgent roadside bombs are inspired by Barack Obama. After all, his raison d’etre is to get out of Iraq. Therefore he is complicit in any efforts to bring that about.

    2. We laughed because we know where they’re going for eternity. Hell is a funny punch line!

  4. jason330 says:

    DD –

    The violence and hate of the right is real, these crimes are real, and their motivations are clear. As is the moral complicity of the vile smear merchants on right wing radio and TV.

    This post does a great job pointing out the reality of the hate and the reality of the downstream effects that these cheerleaders have thanks to their huge megaphone.

    Of course right wing apologist will continue to claim that “the left hates too” as if there is a moral equivalence, but that position spits in the face of reality.

  5. mike w. says:

    The fact that you don’t want us to have guns because you’re afraid we’ll use them on you says so much about your blatant paranoia.

    I’ll tell you what I’m afraid of. I’m afraid of my fellow countryman who doesn’t trust me with guns and wants me disarmed because of his paranoid, irrational fears. What you should fear is a government that has a monopoly on force.

  6. jason330 says:

    BTW –

    I’m back to ignoring Mike . I doubt he even read past the first line of your post.

  7. mike w. says:

    I don’t know DD. I’m not a Conservative nor do I enjoy Rush or these other right wing folks and their bigoted diatribes.

    Unlike DE Liberal folks however, I’m not in favor of censoring these right wing talk radio personalities because of their so called “hate speech.” You give the government the power to censor “hate speech” and you’ve given them the power to define said “hate speech” as a means to silence political speech they don’t like.

    If there was one type of speech held in the highest regard by our founders it was political speech. I’ll defend their right to say what they say unimpeded, no matter how despicable I may find their views to be. That’s why I support the right of the KKK and Nazi’s to march, speak, and distribute print media.

  8. pandora says:

    I’m still waiting for Mike’s list of Liberals who killed conservatives…’til he supplies this list (of at least 7 names) I will ignore him and his “liberals do it too” whine. Put up or shut up.

  9. mike w. says:

    Oh look. It appears the Arkansas shooter was on anti-depressants. Are you still going to blame the gun and his status as a “liberal hating conservative?”

    http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/08/im-shocked-shocked-i-say.html

  10. mike w. says:

    Pandora – I don’t give 2 shits who’s killing who I will defend the right of these Conservatives to say what they want.

    Why? because I’d like to continue to live in a free country.

  11. jason330 says:

    What is obvious to anyone paying attention is that a full blown hate-industrial complex has grown up around the fact that promoting violence against fellow Americans is profitable.

  12. JohnnyX says:

    Look, guys, I’m a liberal tried and true and I read this site way more often than is probably healthy. And I don’t by any means advocate anyone calling for the murder of anyone, regardless of political ideology.

    That being said, I think this attitude of “it’s Limbaugh and Coulter and O’Reilly and Hannity and Savage etc.’s fault that people are getting murdered” is getting a little ridiculous. I agree that they’re all a bunch of schmucks, but they don’t pull the trigger for anybody. I can’t help but think back to the preposterous trials that went on in the 80’s where Ozzy and Judas Priest were accused of subliminally encouraging young kids to be violent or to commit suicide through their songs.

    The fallacy that you’re falling into here is thinking that correlation implies causation. Yes, if somebody is pissed off at liberals in general and kills somebody because they perceive them to be a liberal, there’s probably a high good chance that they’ve got a couple Coulter books on the shelf and consider themselves to be a “Great American.” That being said, Hannity / Coulter / etc. are no more caused that person to be killed than you or I. When someone is murdered in cold blood, the person who is responsible is the crazy motherfucker who did the murdering.

    Protest and boycott these shows all you want, don’t buy their books, ignore them to the best of your ability, that’s great. But place the blame on the person who actually did the deed.

  13. jason330 says:

    X –

    I guess you don’t remember what the country was like prior to Limbaugh and Coulter. My own eyes tell me that there is cause. Should I not trust my own life experiences?

    I remember this country prior to this hate industry. People would say thing like, “We have differences, but we are all patriotic Americans.”

    Now they say “Clark and Kerry and that incipient ass, Dean, and Gephardt and Kucinich and that absolute mental midget Sharpton, race baiter, should all be lined up and shot.”

    That sentiment came from somewhere and once it it out there, these weak-minded gun lovers see it as their duty to follow instructions.

  14. mike w. says:

    Well I agree with everything you just said about Sharpton up until the “should be lined up and shot” part.

  15. JohnnyX says:

    Come on, Jason, you and I both know that “weak minded gun lovers” is an unfair over-generalization. You can no more say that every gun lover is weak minded than you can say every liberal is a commie.

    You know what normal, rational people do when they hear BS like “line up Clark and Kerry etc. and shoot them”? They ignore it.

    You know what mentally unstable people do? They say “hey, that’s a great idea” and then start plotting how to do it. Which is precisely why I am absolutely against keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

  16. jason330 says:

    Instead of “these” I should have said “this”

    I wasn’t saying that everyone who has a few guns is a whackjob. I was saying that the people with a few guns who also are weakminded are like ticking timebombs thanks to the hate industry.

  17. mike w. says:

    If “weak-minded gun lovers” were as violent as you claim they are and had such hatred of liberals it’s safe to say liberals would be wiped out by now.

    If we were the violent nutjobs you paint us as (projection folks) then you’d see thousands upon thousands of highly violent law-abiding gun owners massacring liberals, which isn’t the case.

    I was at the NRA convention in May. Thousands of people in a enclosed area. Men, women, old & young and most armed. Over the course of several days there was not one incident of any kind. NOT ONE. If “gun nuts” were as violent as you all claim we are the NRA convention and our gun-blogger blog bash would have been a bloodbath.

    Reality doesn’t support your wild paranoia. You fear what you are ignorant of, and you fear guns because you fear you would be unable to act responsibly if you had one.

  18. JohnnyX says:

    Ah, OK, this particular guy. I agree with you there that he had obvious mental problems. And if he had been medically diagnosed as such, then I certainly think every effort should have been made to keep him from arming himself.

    Like I said – I’m no big fan of the hate industry. But again, the fact that I don’t like it means that I don’t listen to it or spend any money on it. If one of them did something that pissed me off enough, I’d consider joining a protest. But do I think they should be kicked off the air? Hell no. The same first amendment that allows me to type whatever the fuck I want on this blog has got to protect them just as it protects me, even if I don’t like what they’re saying.

    Now there are limits – if Limbaugh in a completely serious manner starts spending every one of his shows discussing a hit list of liberals he wants killed, offering pointers about how to best pull it off and promising rewards to listeners who follow his directions and provide proof that they did – then yeah I would say it’s time to ban him from the airwaves.

    But as long as he’s just a fat pill popping fascist windbag I’ll simply continue to mock him and do the opposite of whatever he thinks I ought to do.

  19. mike w. says:

    Jason – Weakminded whackjobs who would go and murder people are dangerous “ticking time bombs” regardless of whether they have guns or not.

    Did you know that the most deadly school massacre in history was due to the use of a bomb and not a gun as the weapon of choice?

    May 18, 1927 – The Bath School Disaster

    http://www.einsteinsfrig.com/bath/index.html

  20. Truth Teller says:

    I see our little gun nut is back this morning more than likely rubbing his gun and stroking his penis.

  21. Al Mascitti says:

    “Reality doesn’t support your wild paranoia. You fear what you are ignorant of…”

    Hey Mike, got a mirror handy?

  22. mike w. says:

    Al – That’d work if I were the one with an irrational fear of an inanimate object. I’m not.

  23. Al Mascitti says:

    No, you have an irrational fear of animate objects.

  24. mike w. says:

    So because I CHOOSE to be responsible for my own protection I’m being irrational?

    and remember the gov. has NO obligation to protect me. It’s called personal responsibility Al. It’s called being prepared.

    Do you have a fire extinguisher? Why? You shouldn’t, you should just call the fire dept. if you have a fire. Do you carry a car jack? Why? You have those tools because you understand that shit happens and it’s best to be prepared. That’s why I have a gun.

    Are you saying that if I don’t rely on the state to come to my aid whenever I have a problem then I have “irrational fears?”

  25. Al Mascitti says:

    I’ve read your posts, Mike. Unless you’re living in a much worse neighborhood than I think, you’re in nowhere near the personal danger you think you are. I’d say your level of fear, rather than the fear itself, is irrational.

    Let me know when accidental deaths from fire extinguishers and car jacks equal the accidental deaths from gunfire.

  26. Linoge says:

    I am sorry, but Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Coulter, and all of the rest have not pulled the trigger on anyone, anyhere, any time. They did not arm the attacker. They did not make the attackers in both of these cases mentally unstable. They did not perpetrate heinous actions.

    The single, solitary, sole people who bear responsibility for each of these attacks are the shooters themselves… not talk show hosts, not columnists, not other gun owners, not anyone except the shooters. As I have said before, that simply is not open for debate – it is the very nature of personal responsibility and accountability.

    That said, there are morally complicit people in this realm of firearm control… and they are those people who would disarm law-abiding citizens for no other reason than their own fear. For instance, those people who have barred law-abiding citizens from owning personal defense firearms in such places as Chicago and DC (at least until recently, and not a whole lot better now) bear a significant portion of the responsibility for any crime or death that could have otherwise been prevented by lawful citizens exercising their natural rights to personal self-defense.

    The difference between the situations? In your chosen crusade, those columnists and writers and speakers neither forced anyone to act (after all, no one can really force anyone else to do anything), nor did they prevent anyone from being capable of acting. However, gun banners and restricters have been preventing people from being adequately capable of defending themselves for years upon years… the blood of thousands of potentially preventable murders, rapes, assaults, muggings, and other crimes is on their hands.

  27. mike w. says:

    Al – I don’t live in a dream world where bad shit only happens in bad neighborhoods. I know enough Delaware police and folks in the AG’s office to have a damn good grasp of crime in Delaware.

    Did you know the video showplace in Lantana Square in Hockessin has been robbed 3 times this year? Violent crime happens everywhere, not just in “bad neighborhoods.”

    And who said anything about my living in fear? Oh right that was you. Being prepared isn’t living in fear. I wear a seatbelt everytime im in the car, not because I’m paranoid and afraid of getting in an accident, but because I know that it’s possible at any time. It’s basic common sense.

  28. nemski says:

    I think what disturbs me most about these right-wing pundits is that they NEVER show the outrage over incidents like the church shooting and the Arkansas shooting.

    However take a look at Rev. Wright or Edwards’ affair and they go nuts for days over these issues. There is the complicity.

  29. mike w. says:

    Nemski – There’s a fundamental difference though. These shootings are in no way political issues, the actions of politicians however ARE political issues. Since they are political pundits it makes sense that they’d talk about……politics.

    Quite frankly I don’t even find the shootings newsworthy. When you have days of coverage of some school shooting you’re only fueling the ego of the next deranged lunatic who “wants to be famous and go out in a blaze of gunfire”

  30. nemski says:

    There’s a fundamental difference though. These shootings are in no way political issues

    There is the rub. Many of us believe they are political issues. You don’t, which is fine. However, understand the debate then. Many of us believe people are being killed for their beliefs and we are very concerned. Now, you can stick your head in sand or maybe try to understand why we may be concerned.

  31. mike w. says:

    People are killed for their beliefs all the time and throughout all of human history. It’s not a new phenomenon.

    What you fail to grasp is that regardless of those beliefs, one person, and one person only is responsible for killing another person in cold blood. The murderer is responsible. You can obfuscate the issue and abrogate responsibility all you want but that doesn’t change things.

    Even if they WERE relevant political issues that’s no reason to infringe upon the rights of anyone.

    You folks not only want to infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights because of the actions of these criminals, you want to muzzle the 1st Amendment rights of the “evil right wing” whom you feel are complicit. This is America, we don’t censor speech, especially political speech because of some far-fetched, tangental “public safety” argument. I find much of what those right wing pundits say to be inflammatory and morally repugnant, but I will fiercly defend their right to say it, just as I defend your right to bash President Bush.

  32. nemski says:

    Even if they WERE relevant political issues that’s no reason to infringe upon the rights of anyone.

    Maybe some people here want gun control or maybe some people here want hate speech legislation.

    But not me. What I would like is the following:
    1. Right-wing pundits to be outraged over these political shootings.
    2. The NRA not to fight every piece of gun control legislation. Work with the liberals to find a solution that will not allow guns in the hands of the mentally disturbed, criminals and the untrained.

  33. pandora says:

    No one here is advocating infringing upon or muzzling the 1st or 2nd amendment. We are having a discussion.

    You’ve said (time and time again) that you have a gun for your protection. Fine. We are discussing if there’s a need for protection, how to deal with the criminal fall-out from guns, and accidental shootings. It’s a discussion, Mike. And I know it’s hard to believe, but it’s not all about you.

  34. cassandra m says:

    nemski makes sense. But it is amazing to me that the right can impossibly contort itself to wave away any cultural effects of the nonstop hateful rhetoric of their pundits while turning around to accuse liberals for all of the bad of the popular culture.

    I don’t think that I’ve read anyone here call for any censorship. But no one on the right can ever be credible in any of its claims for individual responsibility for violence (or for any of their claims that music, movies and TV are a liberal project to coarsen the culture) if they won’t even condemn those on their side calling for all of this violence.

  35. jason330 says:

    Nemski and Pandora nailed it. Thank you both. I agree with Nemski 100%. I want:

    1. Right-wing pundits to be outraged over these political shootings.

    2. The NRA not to fight every piece of gun control legislation. Work with the liberals to find a solution that will not allow guns in the hands of the mentally disturbed, criminals and the untrained.

    Everything else is just gun nut blather that is beyond uninsteresting to me at this point.

  36. mike w. says:

    “The NRA not to fight every piece of gun control legislation. Work with the liberals to find a solution that will not allow guns in the hands of the mentally disturbed, criminals and the untrained.”

    I think the NRA compromises too much. Why should we compromise with gun control groups? A compromise means one group gives up something they want in exchange for something else. What do the gun control groups “give up” when they ask us to compromise?

    Why should someone simply fighting to retain their rights “compromise” with someone seeking to restrict them?

    Gun owners in the UK compromised, believing that gun control groups would hold true to their promises. Now they’ve lost their guns, and even swords, knives, or anything else that could be used as a weapon. The English Tradition of fox hunting? Banned in the name of “gun control.”

    The gun owners actually believed the anti’s when they said things like “we don’t want to take away your deer rifle, just “assault rifles.” The progression of gun control isn’t pretty, and it never ends well for gun owners.

  37. mike w. says:

    It’s true pandora. Where’s the compromise? We give into a “reasonable restriction” and what do they give up?

    Read Brady II and tell me how we’re supposed to compromise with folks pushing for such draconian restrictions on our rights?

    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/brady2.html

    Note for example that under that proposed law simply owning 1000 rounds of ammo (1 case) would require an “arsenal license” at the cost of $100/yr. (just owning the ammo, even if I didn’t own a gun!) To give you some perspective. I just bought 1000rds. of 9mm and it fits in a box not much bigger than a shoebox.

    Would you support such an “arsenal license” for posting more than X number of posts per month on this blog? Somehow I think you’d be outraged at such a law.

  38. jason330 says:

    Pandora,

    I second that.

  39. mike w. says:

    “Would you support such an “arsenal license” for posting more than X number of posts per month on this blog?”

    Jason or Pandora – Would you support such a law?

    And why bother responding if the response is “*sigh*?” – you clearly didn’t even begin to read my comment.

  40. Linoge says:

    Pandora, according to Jason, you (that word being used in its collective definition) may be having a “discussion” in your mind, what what is obviously wanted is an echo chamber.

    Of course, that has always been the significant fault of anti-rights folks… open debate kind of leaves them wide open.

  41. mike w. says:

    Linoge – Why do you think they get so pissed at me and hurl personal insults? I disrupted their echo chamber and that hurt their feelings…..

  42. pandora says:

    “Would you support such an “arsenal license” for posting more than X number of posts per month on this blog?”

    Hmmm… A month ago I would have been outraged at such a suggestion, but then you arrived…

  43. Crotchrocket says:

    Mike….they don’t like folks who come in and rain down three-pointers in a bastketball game between short and fat little men who smell like rancid lunchmeat and laundry funk.

  44. mike w. says:

    Crotch – I’d do the same to them in a literal sense too. I played basketball for years and was what you’d expect from a skinny white guy. I was a shooter and 3’s were my specialty.

  45. mike w. says:

    “Would you support such an “arsenal license” for posting more than X number of posts per month on this blog?”

    Hmmm… A month ago I would have been outraged at such a suggestion, but then you arrived…”

    So then you have about as much respect for Free Speech as you do 2nd Amendment rights? I can’t say I’m the least bit surprised.

  46. Linoge says:

    Well, Mike, after all, they have drawn parallels indicating that words and writings are just as dangerous as firearms (after all, accoring to the people who write here, neither the church shooting, nor this shooting of the Democratic Party leader, would have happened without the assistance of both firearms and vitriolic writings/words), so since they are so hell-bent on “reasonable” regulations of firearms and the Second, how long do you think before the same topic comes up on words and the First?

  47. mike w. says:

    Which is exactly why it’s hard for me to have any respect for them.

    I show these folks a modicum of respect (which they certainly don’t show me) for no reason other than because it’s the right thing to do.

  48. MissAO says:

    Is this a bad time to point out that the blogger who has offered to get into a physical fight with the authors of this blog is not right-wing, conservative, or Republican? Just sayin’.

    Oh, wait, I forgot, I’m a brainless zombie awaiting transmissions from Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh to not only “hate”, but rise up and eat your brain, although I don’t know why I’d bother with such an amuse-bouche.

    Now if that were the case, who did Mark get his marching orders from?

  49. Tom S says:

    “This is why I have no respect or regard for anyone with right wing views. This is why we really don’t want them to have guns. Because we know they are being motivated to use them. On us.”

    You are paranoid, and a little close-minded.

  50. mike w. says:

    Tom – And yet that is EXACTLY what they accuse me of being…..

    DD – Pot, meet kettle, and bash yourself in the head with it.

    MissAO – ZOMBIES!? Damn, I’d better stock up on ammo, buy an EoTech and practice headshots.

  51. jason330 says:

    Anyone who uses this hackneyed unimaginative phrase – “Pot, meet kettle” should be shot.

    And I mean that Coulter style. Funny right? Get it?

  52. mike w. says:

    So Jason….. why is it that you folks with outright contempt for the 2nd Amendment are also so willing to throw the 1st Amendment under the bus when you see fit?

    Your intolerant, anti-rights positions for dealing with things you don’t like are EXACTLY why I’m not a liberal, and why I lack respect for you.

  53. JadeGold says:

    One should point out that no guns (and no knives) were permitted at the NRA convention Mike said he attended.

    Security concerns, y’know.

    Look, the fact is we’ve seen the results of NRA/rightwing rhetoric. In OK City. We saw it with Adkisson. And I’d bet my bottom dollar the gun man in AR was an NRA member in good standing.

  54. I heard that isn’t true Jade. That the places they have the events are where laws don’t permit the guns….

    so I’ve heard at least…

  55. JadeGold says:

    BTW, the AR shooter was an NRA member.

    He was a meember of the Cleburne County Shooting Club. Members of that shooting club are required to be NRA members.

  56. mike w. says:

    “One should point out that no guns (and no knives) were permitted at the NRA convention Mike said he attended.”

    Except that you’d be 100% wrong I attended it this year, and carry was allowed everywhere. The only time it was not was in the dining hall during McCain’s speech. McCain originally said he would allow us to carry, but was overruled by the Secret Service.

    And no knives? They were selling knives at the event, and I had my benchmade on me the entire weekend.

    You might want to avoid speaking on something about which you know absolutely nothing.

  57. Al Mascitti says:

    “I don’t live in a dream world where bad shit only happens in bad neighborhoods. I know enough Delaware police and folks in the AG’s office to have a damn good grasp of crime in Delaware.”

    That explains some of it, then. You will never get a realistic picture of crime in Delaware by talking with cops and prosecutors, who deal with it daily. Most people don’t, because most people don’t have to. Which leads me to….

    “Did you know the video showplace in Lantana Square in Hockessin has been robbed 3 times this year? Violent crime happens everywhere, not just in “bad neighborhoods.”

    You realize, of course, that the fact that nobody was hurt in those robberies is an argment AGAINST arming yourself. Being armed escalates the stakes in such situations.

    “And who said anything about my living in fear? Oh right that was you.”

    The amount of time you have spent on this blog, spinning your scenarios in which you must protect yourself, is how I came to my conclusion. If you’re not afraid, you’re not afraid to go about unarmed.

    “Being prepared isn’t living in fear. I wear a seatbelt everytime im in the car, not because I’m paranoid and afraid of getting in an accident, but because I know that it’s possible at any time. It’s basic common sense.”

    Fair enough. But you don’t spend your spare time on blogs making the case for wearing seatbelts, since you never know when someone is going to blindside you. You spend your time preaching self-defense, since you never know when you’ll be the victim of a home invasion. Yet you’re far more likely to be in a car accident than have your home invaded by armed intruders.

    What distinguishes liberals from conservatives is what they fear.

  58. mike w. says:

    There is no “right to wear seatbelts” and no one is trying to infringe upon said non-existent right. The right to bear arms IS a right, and it’s one that’s under constant assault.

    And I agree on the last line. Liberals fear freedom, individual liberty, and their fellow Americans.

  59. Pinnochio says:

    jadeGOld is the great grandson of GOebbels

    Speak a lie often enough, and people believe it.

  60. mike w. says:

    “That explains some of it, then. You will never get a realistic picture of crime in Delaware by talking with cops and prosecutors, who deal with it daily. Most people don’t, because most people don’t have to. Which leads me to….”

    But you, who knows nothing about crime in this state are qualified to tell me about it? Please. Continue to live in your fairy tale world where nothing bad could possibly happen to you, and where a cop (with a gun BTW) will be able to stop all violence before it occurs.

    Personally I don’t believe in abrogating my duty to defend myself while asking a stranger with a gun to run to my aid, risking his life because I wasn’t willing to take responsibility for my own self-defense.

    I just wish you, and the anti-gun liberal politicians you support would leave me the hell alone to make that choice for myself. What right is more fundamental than the right to self-defense?

  61. Paul falkowski says:

    The real massacre Locally is in Wilmington.

    14 Deaths and counting in a city of 70,000.
    14 deaths all of last year, 2007.

    Wilmington is small, the idea of a safe neighborhood is gone. The 6th district has seen the greatest increase in violence in the last 10 years, and rivals the violence in the other districts.

    What can citizens do when the perpetrators are caught killing, and shooting, and it is exposed that these kids have extensive records. WHO lets these kids out on the STREETS?
    Yet they are out on the street? They possess weapons they are forbidden to have or carry.

    NO EXCUSES. We have a set of rules: DO NOT lie, steal, cheat. Do no HARM. Do not KILL.
    Missing parents and bad neighborhoods are not an excuse. Bad society is not an excuse. Economics is not an excuse.

  62. pandora says:

    “I don’t live in a dream world where bad shit only happens in bad neighborhoods. I know enough Delaware police and folks in the AG’s office to have a damn good grasp of crime in Delaware.
    But you, who knows nothing about crime in this state are qualified to tell me about it? Please. Continue to live in your fairy tale world where nothing bad could possibly happen to you, and where a cop (with a gun BTW) will be able to stop all violence before it occurs.”

    I’m a city cop’s kid, Mike, and I’ve formed most of my positions on guns based on that life experience. Most of the cops I’ve known – and I’ve known a lot – are not thrilled with private citizens being armed. That does not mean they are against the 2nd Amendment. The general consensus seemed to be that it was hard to tell the good guys from the bad when everyone is armed.

  63. Steve Newton says:

    Unfortunately, mike, it’s talking points like this

    Liberals fear freedom, individual liberty, and their fellow Americans.

    That cause many of your arguments–even those with which I happen to agree–to lose credibility here.

    Liberals define freedom differently that you do; neither side has a monopoly on the word.

    Liberals view individual liberty as freedom from want, hunger, and lack of medical care, with the best possible remedies coming from an enlightened public policy that manages the necessary redistribution of some of society’s excess wealth to insure that all people start with a foundational basis of security and prosperity.

    Liberals don’t fear their fellow Americans any more than conservatives, moderates, or libertarians do. People of all ideologies in this country have developed fears about the actions of other groups; that’s a process (whether jason admits it or not) that started well before Woodstock.

    My point: if you want other people to get beyond shouting talking points and lecturing other adults on their ideological shortcomings, and get into a real discussion, then you need to make a genuine attempt to understand their hopes and fears in their own terms.

    I happen to disagree with most of the liberal beliefs I imputed above; but liberals are my fellow American citizens, and if I expect to engage them in public policy debates that can someday lead to meaningful advances, then I have to know what they’re thinking, and why.

    And before you drop back into the “they don’t read my posts and they make ad hominem attacks on me,” take a good hard look at whether your posts have treated them as partners in a discussion or students to be lectured.

    I get into it with jason or dv or DD all the time. I’ve given and taken abuse. But as Pandora says, it’s their house that you have come into. Everybody’s house is–to a certain extent–an echo chamber for the beliefs of the inhabitants.

    They didn’t call this website Delaware Undecided.

    Pandora, you can thank me later.

    Cassandra, we’ll still do lunch.

    jason, you’re still an idiot, but you’re one of my favorite idiots.

  64. mike w. says:

    I’ve got an entire family of Delaware law enforcement and only one of them is anti-gun.

    In fact, they own several non-duty weapons.

  65. mike w. says:

    Steve – I should have qualified that statement with (several of the liberals with which I am having this discussion) or listed their handles rather than saying just “liberals” which is of course a broad generalization.

    “take a good hard look at whether your posts have treated them as partners in a discussion or students to be lectured”

    This is true. I have done that from time to time and it is not constructive.

  66. Paul falkowski says:

    What needs to be changed “Is the idea that it is expected that some ‘have not’ will attack someone who has, to get what they have.”
    The IDEA of stealing is reprehensible in a sensible society. Shooting someone, in support of stealing, is more reprehensible.
    Using violence is just a means to the end of taking something from someone else.
    .

  67. Paul falkowski says:

    When I hear: “Liberals view individual liberty as freedom from want, hunger, and lack of medical care, with the best possible remedies coming from an enlightened public policy that manages the necessary redistribution of some of society’s excess wealth to insure that all people start with a foundational basis of security and prosperity.”

    What I hear is “Someone needs to take care of me”.

    True individual Liberty, is the ability to provide for oneself, and to make choices.
    Depending on “Necessary Redistribution”, is another form of slavery. Slavery to a system where the recipient always has to meet the demands of the Distributor. The system keeps them captive. That is not Liberty. It is being held captive to the HAND OUT. And admit it, our system is not very efficient at providing a HAND UP.

  68. Paul falkowski says:

    “enlightened public policy” – #64

    Where does that exist? Who does the reporting? Where do the facts come from? And is it SPIN?
    Who do I / WE trust to provide the facts?

    I WISH.

  69. Al Mascitti says:

    “But you, who knows nothing about crime in this state are qualified to tell me about it? Please.”

    Grow up. I edited the crime and courts beat for several years at the News Journal. I also have several friends and a couple of relatives who are cops, though not in Delaware — they consider Delaware a laughingstock. I have a helluva lot better rounded view of crime than cops and prosecutors do.

    “Continue to live in your fairy tale world where nothing bad could possibly happen to you, and where a cop (with a gun BTW) will be able to stop all violence before it occurs.”

    It’s not a fairy-tale world. It’s the real world, and in that one I have defended myself — just not with a gun. Several times, in fact. Which, I believe, is several times more often than you have defended yourself with one.

    “Personally I don’t believe in abrogating my duty to defend myself while asking a stranger with a gun to run to my aid, risking his life because I wasn’t willing to take responsibility for my own self-defense.”

    Personally, I don’t think it’s a “duty” to defend oneself. Indeed, if one is a Christian, it’s actually against the teaching of Christ. Not that a little matter of ignoring Him is of any consequence to most of his so-called “followers.”

    “Liberals fear freedom, individual liberty, and their fellow Americans.”

    This is why you aren’t really debating — those aren’t the things liberals fear at all, and claiming they are shows that you’re not comfortable answering their actual concerns. You just want to belittle them for disagreeing with you. And no, I’m not saying they’ve done any better, but I’ve passed along those criticisms myself before you ever came along.

    “I just wish you, and the anti-gun liberal politicians you support would leave me the hell alone to make that choice for myself. ”

    I do support your right to arm yourself. What I call you out on are the side issues, on which you constantly reveal your mindset and biases.

  70. pandora says:

    Considered yourself thanked, Steve. And I plan on crashing that lunch with you and Cassandra! 😉

  71. Paul falkowski says:

    Luke 22:36: “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

    in response to #71 –“Personally, I don’t think it’s a “duty” to defend oneself. Indeed, if one is a Christian, it’s actually against the teaching of Christ. Not that a little matter of ignoring Him is of any consequence to most of his so-called “followers.”””

  72. Steve Newton says:

    nemski

    In answer to your request for outrage expressed by right wing pundits I can only offer this question

    What Would Richard Nixon Do?

    http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/08/wwrnd.html

  73. oh christ, now we are quoting scripture from a make believe book.

    I guess you believe the earth was created in a week too. and that Noah built an ark and led the animals on 2 by 2.

    bring your bible to court as your defense.

    Your honor, I stoned her to death. it says I can on page 455

  74. Al Mascitti says:

    DHB: Since you’re not familiar with the book in question, it’s worth noting that the scene Paul quotes from is the Last Supper. And that the swords in question were the ones used to defend Christ as he prayed in Gethsemane. And that when one of his followers used one of the swords … well, let’s give Luke the floor:

    49 And they that were about him, seeing what would follow, said to him: Lord, shall we strike with the sword? 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.

    51 But Jesus answering, said: Suffer ye thus far. And when he had touched his ear, he healed him.

    Good try, Paul, but your understanding of the Bible is as muddled as your understanding of everything else.

  75. h. says:

    “What you fail to grasp is that regardless of those beliefs, one person, and one person only is responsible for killing another person in cold blood”

    Charles Manson never killed anyone.

  76. Al Mascitti says:

    h.: And, of course, most killings are committed not in cold blood, but in the heat of passion. Something like 90 percent of murders are not the result of stranger-on-stranger crime, but domestic situations. But then, Mike knows that, since he’s related to all those cops. Just as he surely knows that, absent a gun in such situations, it’s much easier to defuse the situation before it turns fatal.

  77. Paul falkowski says:

    Al,
    I found one quote where Christ says, Buy a sword. And I followed with your post. I added nothing, no personal comment.

    It is more than unfortunate that you think you can evaluate people. You can not.

    At the Last Supper, we know it was the time for Christ to surrender to the authorities. It was not the time to use the sword. But Christ was teaching his disciples that they will need to defend themselves. There are many ways to defend oneself. The mere possession of a weapon is a deterrence, even without using it or brandishing the weapon. Christ used many parables.
    “”later reliable tradition says that none of the Apostles fought or even tried to fight their way out of fiery trials with swords, as some sort of misguided, twisted, violent martyrs. Instead, tradition says that all of the Apostles but John were martyred as a direct result of persecution “”.
    Gee, the apostles suffered “Persecution”, for their beliefs.
    However ‘muddled’ you think I am, you usually exercise some need to refute my comments. If I was so muddled, You would not have to try to pass judgment, nor would my comments warrant a response from you, would they.

    If I am so muddled, why do you fight back? It should be so unnecessary!

  78. Paul falkowski says:

    Hello, Al?

  79. mike w. says:

    Paul – Good luck . You’ll learn quite quickly that certain folks here like to habitually run away from arguments.

  80. Paul Falkowski says:

    Whoever is not Muddled, throw out the first Insult.