I’m sure someone’s fuming

So I’m sure our opponents will go into PSH over the following:

The four hour course, which will be held this Saturday, January 12th, is recommended for children who received a new BB gun, shotgun or hunting rifle for Christmas or for those who may already have a gun.

Sheriff Steve Prator told Shreveport Times, “Children who will receive a gun for Christmas can try it for the first time in front of certified law enforcement academy firearms instructors.

That’s right folks, a Sheriff’s department is offering free firearms training to kids.  But it gets better, to cover the costs of the training some different sources have stepped up to the plate.

The course is free and is sponsored by donations from local citizens, Walmart, and local wholesalers.  Children without a gun can use a gun that will be supplied by the academy, according to Shreveport Times.

I’m sure our opponents are screaming how Walmart and other businesses should be buying back the guns from the kids.  How that if we keep them hidden and out of sight children will never find them or be curious about them.  At the same time though these individuals are more than happy to have them go through sex education, because you “know kids are curious and not talking about it won’t do anything to solve the problem.”

I’m sure someone else will scream how it’s insensitive given the recent school shootings, blah de blah blah blah.  At which point their hood and veil come off.  We see right through their lies into the bell of the beast.  This isn’t about making kids safer, this isn’t about stopping criminals, it is about banning firearms and control. Period.  They use the tragedy merely as an emotional crutch to support their agenda because they cannot support it with facts and logic.

Don’t believe me?  Let’s look at a conversation that happened over at Sebastian’s place.  I’m going to post it here because honestly, I don’t want it lost down in some thread in the comments, I want it front and center.  Especially with how it ended.  This is pretty long so I’m shoving it below the fold.  Here is a link to skip to the conclusion below the fold.

This is extremely long, if you want you can skip to the end for the final comments which will illustrate my point.  I wanted everything here for context as well as a permanent copy of my responses that I could easily find.  If you want to skip to the most important parts, skip here.

First up, the opening salvo from “Peggy Graham”:

Peggy Graham:


Seeing Gabby Gifford and Mark Kelly on television was an eye opener. When Gabby said, “Enough is enough!” it stabbed my heart. No two people would be a better face of SHEMP, the Sandy Hook Ethics and Manners Project.

I am still STUNNED by SANDY HOOK. Even though I was on vacation in Maui, I kept bursting into tears about the tragedy. I now have a suggestion about what good could come out of this abomination. I suggest that WE turn Sandy Hook Elementary School into a training center for the SANDY HOOK ETHICS AND MANNERS PROGRAM. Perhaps, Bill Gates and/or Warren Buffet could provide the seed money.

PART ONE WOULD BE IN THE SCHOOLS: We get experts together and set up a curriculum that starts in Kindergarten through extends through Seniors in High School.

People should learn basic manners and ethics. We know from the “60 Minutes” segment that children make value judgments as young as 2 months old. Parenting is inconsistent and religion is not allowed in the school, but basic manners and good judgment can be taught.

We could start with “Mean Week”. They could get permission to play “Mean” by Taylor Swift after the announcements every day in every school. No one is allowed to be Mean for a week. The only mean thing they can do is to yell at anyone else who is being mean. They are allowed to Yell at the kid who is being “Mean” and tell them to “Stop being Mean or I will Stop being their friend.” They would learn all week about what being mean involves, including bullying.


Everyone in power at Penn State who knew about Sandusky’s behavior should be ashamed. Suing the school is not enough. We need an ethics and manners course for college staff.

THOSE KIDS AND THE ADULTS HIDING THEM IN STEUBENVILLE, ESPECIALLY THE COACHING STAFF, ARE JUST THE LATEST ABOMINATION. Did you see those boys in that Steubenville video. We don’t have time to argue about religion. We need non- partisan action now.

Parenting is inconsistent and religion is not allowed in the school, but basic manners and good judgment need to be taught now.

All High School and College Coaches, Staff and Executives get ethics and manners straining. They really need it. Stop the scandals before they happen. They are behaving like a third work country.


They all need an ethics and manners classes. Their behavior is a joke. They make us look like a third world country. They create problems, fight with each other in the meanest, rudest possible ways and wait until we are at the brink of a collapse to fix the problem. They have a lower approval rating than President Nixon did during Watergate and that was a Felony. They need to clean up their act or be voted out of office.

They need to pass immediate legislation outlawing insider trading from information gleaned from their jobs.
The children of Congressmen should have to repay their student loans. All laws passed to protect people from sexual harassment, discrimination and other business problems need to apply to all government, including Congress.

Congressmen no longer get pay raises. They only get Cost of Living raises. The want belts tightened. Let’s start with them. They would no longer get separate Congressional pensions for the rest of their lives. Depending on the years they serve, they get that many years of service toward Social Security. Somehow, they will find a way to fix that program.

We allow “K Street” lobbyist to peddle influence carving out tax breaks and exceptions in the law that save companies billions. We bribe Congressmen with Pork for their votes, like money for fishing in Alaska or Algae Research in the Hurricane Sandy bill.


People are being murdered by people who are very, very crazy, but in the 70’s and 80’s states were tired of being threatened with exposure of abuse in secure mental institutions. The faceless government bureaucrats decided it was too expensive and “no win” situation. A group of nasty shrinks used the excuse that some of the mentally ill who were in mental institutions should not be there. They were in danger from poorly trained hospital staff. Instead of cleaning up the institutions, they closed them down, using the excuse that the mentally ill deserve the “least restrictive environment.” That is code for closing the mental institutions and throwing the chronically mentally ill and dangerous out on the streets. I was there when they created Group Homes for the Mentally Ill. It made it possible for the mentally ill to repeatedly walk out of Group Homes, stop taking their meds and be a danger to themselves. They become homeless and vulnerable to criminals.

In other cases, their illnesses resurface and, in some cases, they hurt themselves and/or others. One person pushed an innocent brown faced man onto the tracks of a subway train, because they he was a Muslim. Some of these people shoot up a college, try to kill a Congresswoman, a movie theatre, or kill 20 innocent angels and their six guardian angels at an elementary.

At that point, the prosecution tries to prove they are NOT crazy. The Defense tries to prove they are crazy. Who are they trying to fool. They are all mentally ill. They may know the difference between right and wrong, but are still crazy and should not be in prison. Prisons are not a substitute for mental institutions. Mental patients should not be placed in the general prison population to protect all parties.

We need to stop ignoring our mentally ill and make sure they get the help they need. If they can live in a non- secure setting and take their meds, they can be in the community. We should set up sheltered workshops to assist them in being successful, not just throw money at them and hope they will go away.

For those who refuse to take their medication and a dangerous to themselves or others, they should be put away in small, local, secure facilities and given meaningful treatment. Three days in an inpatient unit and dumping them out on the street doesn’t work.


They fought for us. Some were injured for us. Some are physically disabled. Others have Post Traumatic Stress Distorder. We need to make Vets our priority. They are our heroes. We need HEROES. It is good for America. They need Retraining, Mental Health Treatment, Marriage Counseling and Job Placement Help. Nothing Is too good for our vets.


My answer to guns is very simple. Stop selling semi-automatic weapons and weapons clips with more than 10 rounds in them. Sportsmen can take 4.6 seconds to change clips. Don’t take guns away. After you ban the semi-automatics, you buy them back at twice the price. You also add two zeros to the number of rounds in each clip and buy them back. A 10 round clip is good for $1000. For a 20 round clip, the government pays $2000 in tax free cash. For a thirty rounds clip, the government pays $3000. Pay by the round. We protect our Constitutional rights, but we also require background checks on everyone in the household of a gun buyer. We get around HIPA privacy rights by putting a big red X by someone’s name who is a danger to himself or others. If you live in a home with a Red X’d person, guns must be locked up. No exceptions. Tell the NRA they can keep their guns, but greenbacks are better than blood splatters.

The America we knew is going away. With bad politicians, ignoring our Vets, pretending mental illness is a character flaw, instead of an illness, allowing children to grow up without ethics and manners, we are becoming more like Syria, Russia, the Congo or China. We need to change back to the best of the old America, not the intolerant part, but the more tolerant. Parents aren’t parenting. Our Congress is behaving badly. Our soldiers are being ignored by those who for whom they fought. We did it to the lawyers. Let’s start teaching ethics and manners with the children now. Follow up by teaching school officials, government employees and anyone who does business who does business with the federal government. LET’S GO BIG.


At which point a few people, including Exurban Kevin point out some of the false hoods in her post regarding police response time as well as her horrible use of capitalization. Patrick H. delivered a great comment that I will post here:

Patrick H.

I know you are troll, but for others reading, this needs fisked:

“My answer to guns is very simple. Stop selling semi-automatic weapons and weapons clips with more than 10 rounds in them. Sportsmen can take 4.6 seconds to change clips. ”

Then with the 20 minutes the Newtown shooter had, what is the purpose of banning mag clips? He could have done just as much damage. Killers can plan on taking many- if I’m defending myself I may only have one to grab. 30 is better than 10.

And banning semi-autos wouldn’t stop Newtown anyway, a hunting shotgun could do just as much damage.

“We protect our Constitutional rights”

You have a funny definition of that.

At which point “Peggy” responds:

Peggy Graham:

I prepared a Proposal, not a FB post or a Tweet. I used Proper Grammar and punctuation. I am an old lady. Who decided all caps was yelling? There was no vote. Is that all you got out of my Proposal? I DID NOT suggest taking away anyone’s guns.I may even buy my own hand gun. I did suggest that only law enforcement and soldiers need semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, keep them, UNLESS you want money for them. YOUR Choice. Are you too LAZY to change magazines. I think ten rounds per magazine is enough. Just buy 2 or 3 or 4. Maybe the next crazy’s gun will jam when he is changing the magazine or someone can tackle him. Isn’t ten dead bodies of babies or teachers or firemen enough for the NRA? Did you read my proposal or did the Capital Letters prevent you from concentrating?

At this point I said, I’ll bite.

Barron Barnett:

Did you miss internet 101? Why should we pay attention to someone who is too stupid to properly use bold and italic html tags to properly emphasize her points? You see the reason capital letters are yelling is because it is louder than the rest of your writing, it stands out and draws your attention in a manner as to distract you from the rest of the writing. Quite like yelling.

Second, you’re calling my wife with radial nerve palsy who cannot easily change magazines lazy? You’re calling every other disabled person lazy? You’re saying that they have no right to effective self-defense because they cannot quickly change magazines? For someone with that condition they enter the fight with just the ammunition they have in the weapon.

Also as a side note, if “normal capacity”, they are normal since that is what my weapon was designed to use, are only useful for mass murder, why do law enforcement officers use those same weapons? They’re reacting in defense of themselves just the same as we are.

I didn’t shoot anyone, and neither did the rest of the law abiding gun owners but you advocate the confiscation of their property by force of government.

As for your last comment:

Maybe the next crazy’s gun will jam when he is changing the magazine or someone can tackle him. Isn’t ten dead bodies of babies or teachers or firemen enough for the NRA?

Did you miss the fact that the Sandy Hook shooter ran wild for 20 minutes before the police arrived and was constantly changing his magazines. Very few had more than half the rounds shot out.

You’re directing your anger at an inanimate object and those who own them. You would rather disrupt the rights of those people for merely owning property because it would make you feel better. In the end though it would have done nothing to change the outcome.

At which point she starts descending into the normal talking points.

Peggy Graham:

I am not too stupid to realize that you are baiting me and using your wife’s disability to do it. I have not suggested that we take guns or magazines away from anyone. PAY ATTENTION.
Everyone who is allowed to legally own guns should own guns to protect themselves, including me.

I am just tired of crazy people using loopholes in the laws to murder innocent people. You should be, too. If someone is now or ever has been a danger to themselves or others, their shrinks should report them to the police and have them committed. They should not be thrown out of school or college or imprisoned on some charge when everyone knew they were crazy. They shouldn’t by hospitalized for 3 days, drugged up and released back onto the streets to push someone off a subway platform or microwave their baby. Unlike you, I know this is not all about guns.If we did something to protect society from the mentally ill and to protect them from themselves, we wouldn’t need so many gun laws.

So now she’s trying to shift off the guns and deflect attention from what she said to something else.  She did not however retract her statements so I fired back.

Barron Barnett:

Name one “loophole” that was used. Last I checked murder was illegal.

I never said mental health wasn’t an issue. You however stated exactly as I quoted along with:

Are you too LAZY to change magazines. I think ten rounds per magazine is enough. Just buy 2 or 3 or 4.

As well as:

After you ban the semi-automatics, you buy them back at twice the price. You also add two zeros to the number of rounds in each clip and buy them back. A 10 round clip is good for $1000. For a 20 round clip, the government pays $2000 in tax free cash. For a thirty rounds clip, the government pays $3000. Pay by the round.

And if I refuse to sell them back? I don’t think you understand the laws of economics. The exact scheme you describe minus a “buy back” was implemented with full-auto with the Hugh’s amendment. Want to guess what a cheap full auto goes for (ie ~500 dollars at the time of manufacture MSRP pre-ban)? If you guess as much as new car, you’d be right. So tell me, given the laws of economics, limited supply and demand, how would that “buy back” resemble fair market prices? It wouldn’t, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to their actual worth.

This also disregards the fact that our country is broke and going into debt at such a rate that something is going to have to break. Tell me, where does the money for this program come from? Many easily have enough magazines under your 3000 stipend to make 300000 easy, if not more. Magazines are disposable items and wear out, often they’re rebuilt but usually at a later time. Just buy a new one, they’re cheap.

Then lets look at:

Stop selling semi-automatic weapons and weapons clips with more than 10 rounds in them.

Along with:

I have not suggested that we take guns or magazines away from anyone.

Yes you have, what happens if my wife’s firearm breaks, or magazines wear out. I can’t buy a new one under your plan. You have effectively banned her from ownership by preventing her from being able to replace them.

The second you argue that more gun laws need to exist to solve the problem you’ve lost the debate. We will not compromise, we’ve been doing that since 1934 and enough is enough.

If you want to argue orthogonal solutions, I and many others are all ears. You try and argue that the rights of the law abiding need to be further infringed and we will not discuss it with you any further. We are not willing to cede ground, we are not willing to negotiate, we are not willing to have more of our rights abridged because the actions of a lone madman.

So here’s my tip if you’re wanting to engage in a discussion regarding this topic, don’t try and argue for gun control. Talk orthogonal solutions, if you touch guns (your “fifth” (actually sixth, you screwed up counting) part), you’re going to turn everyone off and you’re promptly going to be dismissed. Those who don’t dismiss you are going to center on that exact topic, why? Because we will not accept any further infringement of our rights.

To which she then replies.

Peggy Graham:

I am NOT trying to take your guns away. People can give or sell their guns to anyone without a background check. I have to pass an FBI check to be a substitute teacher. Everyone who has been adjudicated “a danger to themselves or others” should not be allowed to live in a house with a gun, unless the gun owner has a secure gun safe with no key. All adjudicated mentally ill people should be reported to the FBI. They don’t need to know what is wrong with that person. They just need a Big, Red X by their name. That’s it.

At which point I then break down and explain piece by piece the problems in her idea and how in fact she is trying to take our guns.

Barron Barnett:

I hate to break it to you but yes you are. Every last time something like this comes up people come in like you arguing for this and that. What matters right now is what you’re arguing for would require registration to enforce properly. In order to verify every sale goes through an FFL, you would need to have every firearm registered, period.

Now currently you have legislators in NY, California, and other states wanting to Confiscate firearms and if there was registration they could easily do it. Welcome to the real world, it isn’t black and white and legislation can have unforeseen consequences later down the road.

It is already illegal for a prohibited person to purchase a firearm, (felony). It is also illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person (felony). You also cannot sell a firearm to someone who is not a resident of your state (felony). You also cannot purchase a firearm for another person (felony), read straw purchase.

But lets humor you for a minute. Lets say they open up NICS so that any Tom, Dick, and Harry can call in and run a background check. Currently the NICS service cannot even handle every day demand, much less every private party sale going on. Then to add that icing, what is to stop the buyer from giving false information to the seller? Never mind the fact that many people get a “delayed” status from NICS. The way delayed works, unless we call you back he’s clear but give us 72 hours. So now you have serious delays and effort required for a simple transaction. Why because the service is so overloaded that they need more time to shift the burden of processing.

So other than delaying someone from their constitutional rights what did you buy? Because here’s the real problem.

If someone is such a danger to themselves or society that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, they cannot be trusted in society. They cannot be trusted with a knife, matches, gasoline, or a car. All of which can easily be used to kill people. Your focus is on the tool as if somehow that magically makes it different. Is it really different if someone lights a house on fire and burns to death everyone inside? Is it really different if someone had taken their car and run over a bunch of 1st graders at a bus stop?

No argument that there are people who are a danger to society and it is exceedingly difficult to get the help they need as well as doing what’s best for society. No argument that the system needs to change.

But then you keep saying things like this:

I am NOT trying to take your guns away.

Here is all of your last section you wrote:

My answer to guns is very simple. Stop selling semi-automatic weapons and weapons clips with more than 10 rounds in them. Sportsmen can take 4.6 seconds to change clips. Don’t take guns away. After you ban the semi-automatics, you buy them back at twice the price. You also add two zeros to the number of rounds in each clip and buy them back. A 10 round clip is good for $1000. For a 20 round clip, the government pays $2000 in tax free cash. For a thirty rounds clip, the government pays $3000. Pay by the round. We protect our Constitutional rights, but we also require background checks on everyone in the household of a gun buyer. We get around HIPA privacy rights by putting a big red X by someone’s name who is a danger to himself or others. If you live in a home with a Red X’d person, guns must be locked up. No exceptions. Tell the NRA they can keep their guns, but greenbacks are better than blood splatters.

Again in order to properly enforce your idea it will require registration and you stated the following:

Stop selling semi-automatic weapons and weapons clips with more than 10 rounds in them…. After you ban the semi-automatics…

That is a ban, you even call it such, period end of discussion. If you ban something, you are preventing others from obtaining it at a minimum. At it’s worst you eventually confiscate the rest in fairness citing “you don’t need them obviously since no one else can buy them.” Your ban you are arguing for would “grandfather” existing firearms. What happens when a politician decides to remove the “grandfather” clause.

Your last section has nothing to do with the mental health or any of that. It is an attack on an inanimate object and is the pure definition of fetishism. Your last section is the classic move by politicians to attach garbage to something that most everyone could agree with. Then when someone disagrees on that point you ignore it and say, “How can you disagree with the rest of that?”

In other words I have to eat your garbage because I might agree with what you said elsewhere? That’s not how this works. I can disagree with a single point and call you on it. Others can disagree and call you on it. You can’t then just throw your statement to the wayside and claim you didn’t say that or it doesn’t matter because of what you previously said.

You either want a ban on semi-autos, in which case you’re prohibiting the rights of others, or you don’t. You already stated you do and your response is well I didn’t mean it that way. Look, if you want to argue about mental health, do so, don’t tack a “and ban semi-auto firearms” to the end of it. You started with an orthogonal solution and then biffed it by putting something in there that shouldn’t have been.

The rights of law abiding gun owners have been nibbled at since the day’s of Jim Crow and large attacks started in 1934. Tell me would you prevent sober drivers from driving cars? If not then why do you want to prevent honest law abiding people from being able to have guns, including those you disagree with? Because honestly that’s what gun control is, you cannot control the criminal, just the law abiding.

Now this gets down right hilarious.

Peggy Graham:

Do you not know what the word “BAN” means. Are you so impotent that you don’t think Americans can protect themselves from an Imaginary Hitler or Imaginary Stalin or Imaginary Castro. How many Angels and Guardian Angels have to die? Facebook, Twitter, Fox News Protects us. We need to teach people manners and ethics NOW!!!

—–Original Message—–

After I spent 15 minutes laughing to get it out of my system, here’s the response:

Barron Barnett:

Yes I do know what the word ban means. Here is the definition since you obviously don’t.

Officially or legally prohibit: “he was banned from driving for a year”.

You want to ban (legally prohibit) people from getting semi-automatic firearms. Your statement. You seem to think that things magically happen and there are no side effects from your magical legislation suggestions.

You are focusing again on the weapon and then turn around and say how man more must die? We need manners and ethics! You think the internet and news media protects you? Tell me, how did that work out in the Middle East? It was all through social media? You seem to be under the delusion that “it can’t happen here.” Tell that to Vicky or Sammy Weaver. Tell that to the interned Japanese who had their property stolen from them. Tell that to the dead at Waco. It can happen here and your obsession with banning a tool merely serves to prevent someone from exercising their choice and defense of their life.

You want morals and ethics? Tell me how is it moral or ethical to punish innocent people for the behavior of another. How is it moral or ethical to hold someone accountable and responsible for the actions of someone else? How is it moral or ethical to consider one class of victims worth more than another? How is it ethical or moral to think that one type of violent crime is worse than another merely by the tool used?

You seem to think that I and the millions of gun owners like me had something to do with “Angels and Guardian Angels” dying. No, the majority of us would have fought to save their lives. Instead people like you, disarm us and insist that it is for our own well being. Instead people like you seem to think that banning inanimate objects will some how solve the problem. Instead people like you think criminals will observe laws, but instead all you do is create a victim disarmament zone for the criminal where his victims cannot fight back.

The fact is, you are arguing to restrict the rights of the law abiding in an effort to some how control the actions of a criminal. This was proven already to have no effect on crime, yet you would disarm us. Instead of focusing on mental health, like you claim, your obsession has been to support and defend your gun ban. You want us disarmed and your side has shown what you really want in the end.

Understand this, we will not negotiate with regards to the rights of gun owners any more. Any solution you want to have our support on will need to be orthogonal. Attacking the rights of the innocent is not acceptable and no amount of spin will make you morally or ethically justified in doing so.

Yes I was snickering as I did that first part.  To which she then attempts to continue her lies.

Peggy Graham:

You can have a hundred 10 round clips if you want them. I will shout. I WANT YOU TO KEEP YOUR GUNS, unless you are crazy or a criminal. I don’t want crazy people to get them. I want people to pass background checks. If you do that now, the far left won’t get to take away your guns later. We just had
another shooter at a school. Pretty soon people will overreact because like you will not compromise. You are being irrational now. Wake up and look around before it is too late. Why can no one find the middle ground?

That’s right folks, she called me irrational.  She stated the fact that I was arguing against her and saying I would not cede my ground given facts and logic on the subject made me irrational.

Jeff stepped up at this point and, responded quite succinctly, I might ad with.


Why can you not understand the simple fact that if you’re advocating a *BAN* that saying “I WANT YOU TO KEEP YOUR GUNS” is a lie?

At that point there was no reply for a while, but eventually, in the wake of another shooting she replied.

Peggy Graham:

We just had a 5 year old killed in Guernsey County, Ohio in a murder suicide. That is not even a 100 miles from Steubenville, Ohio. That was the same day as the California School shooting. Enough Is Enough. It is time to stop talking and start acting.

That’s right folks, she stepped up and used the emotional crutch to support and defend her argument.  To which I replied:

And I’m the one being irrational? Let me get this straight, you hear about something bad happening, go into an emotional response to “do something” and that is rational?

I suggest you watch this, it’s a set of rules regarding how to correctly cope with tragedy.

Why do I bring all this up? Where’s your emotional “do something” for all of these instances? You scream, rant, and rave about how guns are the problem, while disregarding the fact that while gun ownership has increased, violent crime has been trending downward. Despite claims by talking heads in the media, Great Britain isn’t so great in the violent crime department.

It isn’t the tool, it’s the person using it. Your focus is set on the tool and it doesn’t matter who’s behind it unless that person is anointed by the government with a badge. Never-mind the fact that law enforcement isn’t the shiny beacon of perfection that many make it out to be.

Never-mind the fact though that statistically it has been shown over and over that those who have concealed weapons permits are more law abiding than the rest of the public. Yet you would disarm them (you said so yourself, you want a ban, you can not claim to let people have arms and want a ban, choose one or the other).

So you call me irrational, I present facts and statistics, you present bleeding heart emotion. I present a rational case with evidence that it isn’t the tools, it’s the person. You present a case of tragedy and say “start acting”. Acting to what who really knows other than previously you said to ban semi-automatic weapons. Who’s the irrational person? I’ve already explained over and over that attacking firearms will result in no support from this side of the debate.You must present orthogonal solutions that work for both sides. You cannot tell us to cede ground as a compromise when there are alternative solutions that are actually amicable to both sides.

If you want a discussion, be prepared to hear from the other side that some things you say they consider abhorrent and down right not acceptable. For instance you would probably consider my solution of getting rid of gun-free zones and allowing any one with a valid concealed carry permit to carry into a school. It would certainly cut the response down from 20 minutes and remove it from the list of disarmed victims in a game preserve.

So either pay attention to the discussion, or it isn’t a discussion it’s a lecture. You’re trying to lecture us on what will happen and we’re saying, “piss off.” We let you say your piece, we listened, we rebutted, and now you’re upset at the rebuttal saying, “Just shut up and take it.” That isn’t a discussion, it’s a lecture.

That last salvo from me has resulted in a silent room.  This is how our opponents operate, this is the only way they can fight.  They know it, look at the Brady conference call.  The know the only way they can win the debate is by pulling at heart strings and getting people to forgo logic and reason.

Fight it every time you see it and call them on it.  Ben Shapiro did a great job of doing exactly that:

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

About Barron

Barron is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms. He has a BS in electrical engineering from Washington State University. Immediately after college he went into work on embedded software and hardware for use in critical infrastructure. This included cryptographic communications equipment as well as command and control devices that were using that communications equipment. Since then he’s worked on just about everything ranging from toys, phones, other critical infrastructure, and even desktop applications. Doing everything from hardware system design, to software architecture, to actually writing software that makes your athletic band do its thing.

2 Responses to I’m sure someone’s fuming

  1. Old NFO says:

    Ye Gods and little fishes… They just DO NOT get it… Thanks for the reasoned response (at least on your part)!!!