1 of 24
1
No Sacred Cows—can rationalists remain rational when the issue is gun control?
Posted: 11 August 2009 05:29 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

Rerouted from Healthcare Protests. Wtf?

teuchter - 11 August 2009 06:26 PM

Prescient words, Mr. Razor, because it now seems some fuckwit showed up at the Obama health care town hall with gun strapped to his hip and a sign saying “It’s Time to Water the Tree of Liberty.”  Unstated, but implicit by the reference to Jefferson’s quote, was the statement “with the blood of tyrants.”  And of course, Obama is a tyrant to these (oh, did I mention he was a white male) racist morons.

But, was he knocked to the ground, cuffed and dragged away to federal hospital for the criminally insane?  Nope, he was interviewed by Chris Mathews after the town hall meeting was over.

Don’t these idiotic tools even wonder why the oligarchy doesn’t have them arrested?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxI3npnmny0

Woah ... no need to panic.

Yeah, he’s a fuckwad, but how about we stick with what really happened?

As Obama said in so many words, it’s fine to disagree, but how about we disagree within the realm of reality?

Mr. Wizard was apparently demonstrating in advocacy of NH’s open carry law (which is also the law in a number of other states), and the church he was at is much too far away from where Obama appeared for him to have been a potential threat even in theory. He was also being closely watched by law enforcement—not a chance this guy was going to be a threat to anyone just because he had a gun strapped to his (lower) leg. Mr. Wizard never came close to threatening Obama (other than with stupidity and the right to vote with which he’s also legally armed) and he was acting completely within the law. That was his point, apparently.

Stupid? Yeah, I sure think so, but I guess it depends on what Mr. Wizard wants to accomplish, and we’ll see in the coming days if he’s right or if we are (or if I am, anyway—can’t speak for how much we agree beyond that we both think the guy is a fuckwad/wit and acted stupidly). He’s calling attention to the issue, sure, but he almost certainly only feels the need to do so because of the fear mongering of the NRA (et al), which has only a tenuous connection to reality. I suspect this demonstration will backfire. If anything I think this supergenius has just raised awareness regarding the weapon carry laws (and gun control in general) in a really fucking moronic way.

The beauty of it all is that if I’m right and it backfires, it will be a case of the NRA(et al)‘s own standard practice of stoking fantastical, paranoia turning around to bite it in the arse, seriously, and that makes me happy, personally ... and I’m an advocate of the right to bear, just not the right to bear without reasonable restriction and regulation. The absolute best thing that could happen regarding the gun control “debate” would be for the rhetoric on both sides to be forced into some resemblance with reality (oddly like religion and the drug war and health care).

But the only reason people are really freaking out about the whole incident is hoplophobia. Mr. Wizard at least made a point of carrying the thing in a less tactical location, and he was demonstrating peacefully and within the law. Upon what basis then, should he have been “knocked to the ground, cuffed and dragged away to federal hospital for the criminally insane” rather than engaged in dialog? The automatic, exaggerated, intellectual- and debate-stifling reaction is solely due to the fact that he had a weapon (the nature of the issue), just like religion, the drug war, health care reform, etc. Many assume that means he was a threat (or just react as if), but the facts make it pretty clear he wasn’t. At this point we don’t even know if the gun was loaded or not.

Let’s all keep our intellects in charge, as we skeptics should on all issues, rather than letting our emotions hijack them. If we can do that we may actually make some progress on the issues.

Byron

[ Edited: 11 August 2009 05:46 PM by SkepticX]
 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 August 2009 06:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

More on Mr. Wizard

The reports says he was staying about 50 - 75 yards from the entrance to the school, but according to federal law he has to remain at least 1,000’ away from any school grounds, so I’m not sure what’s up with that (the report seems to be screwing up the time line). The report says he stated a “detective” had him move back for that very reason, and that’s when he moved to the church property. Mr. Wizard’s real name is William Kostric, and he’s married (so he is a threat because he’ll likely reproduce). He moved across the fucking country, from Arizona, because the gun laws there were getting too restrictive for him. AZ has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country—he’s pretty much out of room to run now, and in this spectacular demonstration of ideostrupidification he’s doing his damndest to undermine the very liberty he cherishes (as only the most hard core fundamentalists can).

Moved from AZ because of the restrictive gun laws ... wow.

[ Edited: 12 August 2009 05:41 AM by SkepticX]
 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 06:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

Well, I have to admit I’m pleasantly quite surprised by Mr. Kostric. I don’t think he made the best choice of initial demonstrations, but on the other hand I’m not sure how else he could have anywhere nearly as easily gotten the attention he’s gotten. Maybe he’s even a bit more free of hoplophobia than I am.

Matthews acts like an adult version of a playground bully by contrast. What a knucklehead.

I did a Google search for “Second Amendment Revolution Kostric” and I’m finding the histrionic reactions he’s stirred up as curious as his whole fundamentalist civil libertarian schtick.

Now I’m hoping some rigorous, intellectually self-disciplined sociologist is going to write a book, or a chapter of a book, about this whole thing. Very interesting, if that sort of thing interests you, of course.

Sure would be nice if we didn’t mostly emote over such issues rather than dealing with them rationally, like adults.

[ Edited: 12 August 2009 08:12 AM by SkepticX]
 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 09:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  651
Joined  2006-12-08

This is the first I heard of this.  After watching the clips, I have to say I agree with your assessment:  Kostric didn’t make the best choice of initial demonstrations, but he came across better than Matthews.  This despite Matthews taking the more reasonable position.

 Signature 

Do-gooding is like treating hemophilia—the real cure is to let hemophiliacs bleed to death, before they breed more hemophiliacs. -Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 09:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20
SkepticX - 11 August 2009 10:54 PM

The reports says he was staying about 50 - 75 yards from the entrance to the school, but according to federal law he has to remain at least 1,000’ away from any school grounds, so I’m not sure what’s up with that (the report seems to be screwing up the time line).

If I am misrecollecting this, and you get busted, don’t call me, but I believe the Supreme Court found this law to have been in excess of Congress’ jurisdiction and struck it down.

SkepticX - 11 August 2009 09:29 PM

Upon what basis then, should he have been “knocked to the ground, cuffed and dragged away to federal hospital for the criminally insane” rather than engaged in dialog? The automatic, exaggerated, intellectual- and debate-stifling reaction is solely due to the fact that he had a weapon (the nature of the issue), just like religion, the drug war, health care reform, etc. Many assume that means he was a threat (or just react as if), but the facts make it pretty clear he wasn’t. At this point we don’t even know if the gun was loaded or not.

“Solely due to the fact that he had a weapon…”  Not exactly (although that might have been enough for me.)  He was strapped while holding a sign reminding us that the tree of liberty needed to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants.  Any question about who, in the mind of our hero, the tyrant is?

So what we have is some lunatic with a loaded gun announcing Obama’s blood should be spilled. 

SkepticX - 11 August 2009 09:29 PM

At this point we don’t even know if the gun was loaded or not.

Well, I’m willing to take his word for it.  When Mathews asked him if the gun was loaded, he said something along the lines of, “there’s nothing more stupid than an unloaded gun.”  Later Mathews referred to the gun as loaded, and although he had the opportunity to do so, he did not deny it.  That is what is known as an adoptive admission.

Now, its all good fun when a white guy who thinks Obama is a tyrant carries a loaded firearm 75’ from where Obama is going to speak and calls for shedding the blood of tyrants.  And god knows this country has progressed well beyond our frontier days when JFK was gunned down in Dallas, Reagan was shot on the streets of DC, and Sarah Jane Moore and Squeaky Fromm (in a cape and with an X carved on her forehead) tried to shoot Ford, so I must just be hysterical to think this guy’s conduct was abominable.

But, I lived in California before we adopted a long string of laws making carrying concealed weapons, loaded concealed weapons and loaded but unconcealed weapons a growth industry for criminal defense lawyers.  And as much fun as it would be to see our society break up into armed bands of rival militias, which has worked so well in Lebanon, I am trying to remember why California passed these laws.  Oh yeah, it was

 Signature 

“I am one of the few people I know who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”  Sam Harris October 17, 2005

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 11:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 10:19 AM

Sure would be nice if we didn’t mostly emote over such issues rather than dealing with them rationally, like adults.

Well, moi doesn’t think he’s setting a desirable precedent. This whole right to openly carry guns in public like the wild west is insane. The guy is all over the place with his political agenda and the healthcare issue didn’t seem to be his focus at all. The sign was menacing and provocative as Chris completed the quote. I wouldn’t be stupid enough to go anywhere near the guy. I think he just has small feet, owns a big shiny truck and the gun just gets him hard.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 02:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 10:19 AM

Sure would be nice if we didn’t mostly emote over such issues rather than dealing with them rationally, like adults.

We know that you think you’re the only rational one, you and Mr. Kostric. After all, you two read the right books with all the important, unintuitive data.

Anyone who disagrees with you is just being emotional and not honestly studying the selected sociological data. He’s your kind of guy. He was promoting a book called “more guns - less crime”. He referred to his sidearm as a “defensive tool”, (I’m surprised that he didn’t call it his first aid kit that he brought to show the President). He even claimed to have casually carried the gun because he was afraid of losing his rights.
The sign he was holding combined with the gun on his hip was an obvious threat. So we know he is a political right wing wacko, and we have to note that he was by standing on the grounds of “his” church. Gee I hate to unfairly sterotype this guy, after all the deep research shows that he is actually extremely unlikely to be who he appears to be. We should all be perfectly comfortable around this beady eyed nutcase with his weapon and his (politico/religious) agenda walking into our homes and places of business. Yes, I’m afraid of characters like this. No reason to trust them, his intent was not to be peaceful, but to deliberately threaten. From the Matthew interview…

Mr. Kostric - 12 August 2009 10:19 AM

Sometimes when people get mired in their positions, you can try to pull them out of it a little bit but sometimes if you show the other end of it, you can pull them a little bit in your direction…..I’m not advocating violence….I’m advocating an armed society….a polite society

Meanwhile over at the Southern Poverty Law Center….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/officials-see-rise-in-mil_n_257128.html

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 02:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
teuchter - 12 August 2009 01:22 PM
SkepticX - 11 August 2009 10:54 PM

The reports says he was staying about 50 - 75 yards from the entrance to the school, but according to federal law he has to remain at least 1,000’ away from any school grounds, so I’m not sure what’s up with that (the report seems to be screwing up the time line).

If I am misrecollecting this, and you get busted, don’t call me, but I believe the Supreme Court found this law to have been in excess of Congress’ jurisdiction and struck it down.

I recall something like that as well, but apparently it’s a newer, nearly identical law (dunno). In any case the secret service (it would seem) had Kostric move from where he was within 50 - 75 yards of the entrance. That’s how he ended up at the church.

teuchter - 12 August 2009 01:22 PM
SkepticX - 11 August 2009 09:29 PM

Upon what basis then, should he have been “knocked to the ground, cuffed and dragged away to federal hospital for the criminally insane” rather than engaged in dialog? The automatic, exaggerated, intellectual- and debate-stifling reaction is solely due to the fact that he had a weapon (the nature of the issue), just like religion, the drug war, health care reform, etc. Many assume that means he was a threat (or just react as if), but the facts make it pretty clear he wasn’t. At this point we don’t even know if the gun was loaded or not.

“Solely due to the fact that he had a weapon…”  Not exactly (although that might have been enough for me.)  He was strapped while holding a sign reminding us that the tree of liberty needed to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants.  Any question about who, in the mind of our hero, the tyrant is?

How about the patriots?

He was never anywhere even close to a situation in which he could have actually done any harm to the president.

teuchter - 12 August 2009 01:22 PM

So what we have is some lunatic with a loaded gun announcing Obama’s blood should be spilled.

You really think that’s a charge that would hold up in court?

The man complied with law enforcement and moved away from the school, and he was engaged in legal, peaceful, constitutionally protected protest. Take him to the ground, cuff him and drag him off to a mental facility and you just brought the issue into prominence and made his case for him.

SkepticX - 11 August 2009 09:29 PM

At this point we don’t even know if the gun was loaded or not.

Well, I’m willing to take his word for it.  When Mathews asked him if the gun was loaded, he said something along the lines of, “there’s nothing more stupid than an unloaded gun.”  Later Mathews referred to the gun as loaded, and although he had the opportunity to do so, he did not deny it.  That is what is known as an adoptive admission.

Timeline. I posted that well before the interview.

Now we know ... yeah.

teuchter - 12 August 2009 01:22 PM

Now, its all good fun when a white guy who thinks Obama is a tyrant carries a loaded firearm 75’ from where Obama is going to speak and calls for shedding the blood of tyrants.

... and moved well away from that location when so ordered ...

You’re also assuming his message wasn’t meant metaphorically. It’s a reasonable tactical position, but not legally or logically speaking.

teuchter - 12 August 2009 01:22 PM

And god knows this country has progressed well beyond our frontier days when JFK was gunned down in Dallas, Reagan was shot on the streets of DC, and Sarah Jane Moore and Squeaky Fromm (in a cape and with an X carved on her forehead) tried to shoot Ford, so I must just be hysterical to think this guy’s conduct was abominable.

Hyperbole doesn’t help your case, and it certainly isn’t conducive to productive discourse on the issue (probably the biggest problem we have re: rational gun control policy in the US), and I’d say “abominable” is an extreme reaction if you consider the situation objectively.

teuchter - 12 August 2009 01:22 PM

But, I lived in California before we adopted a long string of laws making carrying concealed weapons, loaded concealed weapons and loaded but unconcealed weapons a growth industry for criminal defense lawyers.  And as much fun as it would be to see our society break up into armed bands of rival militias, which has worked so well in Lebanon, I am trying to remember why California passed these laws.  Oh yeah, it was [picture of The Black Panthers in the headlines]

And what’s all that got to do with this case?

The guy rendered impotent any potential for his hostility toward the president (or anyone else) by his full disclosure, which had him prominently in the sights of law enforcement. If you can get past the gun, he effectively held his arms up in truce, tactically speaking. He himself guaranteed there was no way he was going to actually even come close to threatening the president (or anyone else). So again, upon what legal (or rational) grounds would you suggest the guy should have been “knocked to the ground, cuffed and dragged away to federal hospital for the criminally insane”?

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 02:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 06:14 PM

he effectively held his arms up in truce, tactically speaking.

Mmmkay. So this is how we’re still supposed to communicate with one another, eh? Hand signals augmented by grunts. No offense intended to the military “grunts”. “Tactical”, my bleeding ass. Mobilization.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 02:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
goodgraydrab - 12 August 2009 03:11 PM
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 10:19 AM

Sure would be nice if we didn’t mostly emote over such issues rather than dealing with them rationally, like adults.

Well, moi doesn’t think he’s setting a desirable precedent. This whole right to openly carry guns in public like the wild west is insane.

I don’t think that’s a valid image, but I also tend to agree with that position.

goodgraydrab - 12 August 2009 03:11 PM

The guy is all over the place with his political agenda and the healthcare issue didn’t seem to be his focus at all.

Actually he was a very consistent hard core fundy Libertarian type.

goodgraydrab - 12 August 2009 03:11 PM

The sign was menacing and provocative as Chris completed the quote.

I don’t think people would be so quick to assume it was meant literally if it weren’t for the gun. In the interview he stated very directly and clearly that he wasn’t advocating violence. I’m not assuming that’s true, he may very well have said that simply because he was on TV (or rather, because he was being interviewed by the news media), but we have no reason to presume he has any tendency toward violence.

goodgraydrab - 12 August 2009 03:11 PM

I wouldn’t be stupid enough to go anywhere near the guy.

That’s the thing that interests me. Near that guy was probably the safest place to be just after the area around the president when he arrived. Being near that guy meant being under the constant watch of presidential security, but all most people seem to be able to cogitate is that there was a gun, and that means fear and danger.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 02:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 06:14 PM

He was never anywhere even close to a situation in which he could have actually done any harm to the president.

He himself guaranteed there was no way he was going to actually even come close to threatening the president (or anyone else).

Come on Byron, there were people around him. And the legislators who enacted this law gave no consideration to the disturbing effects this kind of open visual presentation would have on a large measure of the population, not to mention the message it sends to children about our culture… look at all the trust he’s thwarting or eroding there. Hunting and target practice are one thing, but I wouldn’t even begin to trust a guy who thinks he should strap a side arm on his hip and parade around in public as a symbol of freedom - law or no law.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 02:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 06:46 PM

[That’s the thing that interests me. Near that guy was probably the safest place to be just after the area around the president when he arrived. Being near that guy meant being under the constant watch of presidential security, but all most people seem to be able to cogitate is that there was a gun, and that means fear and danger.

Why safer? The secret service would have just gotten to me quicker to chalk an outline around my body. I hope it means danger to you too when you don’t know who the nutbag is carrying it.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 02:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
goodgraydrab - 12 August 2009 06:47 PM

Come on Byron, there were people around him.

It’s not as if I don’t know what it’s like to fire a revolver within earshot of other people. Anyone who takes lightly the significance of bringing a piece into the public square has a piece missing, no pun intended.

[ Edited: 12 August 2009 02:56 PM by Traces Elk]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 03:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 06:46 PM
goodgraydrab - 12 August 2009 03:11 PM

I wouldn’t be stupid enough to go anywhere near the guy.

That’s the thing that interests me. Near that guy was probably the safest place to be just after the area around the president when he arrived. Being near that guy meant being under the constant watch of presidential security, but all most people seem to be able to cogitate is that there was a gun, and that means fear and danger.

Byron

Wow, Byron, an impressive bit of evasive thinking. GGD just meant that he wouldn’t go near the guy because he’s an obvious wingnut, an armed obvious wingnut. Maybe just this side of good old american redneck skinhead. You don’t have to be overly emotional to want to steer a clear path of such people. Normal people do this kind of thing to avoid having to carry handguns for protection.

Regardless of it’s misappropriation, your fantasy “reasoning” about it being safer to be near the white maniac with the weapon threatening the black President because the Secret Service would protect you if they got in a firefight with the maniac…...well, it’s pretty distorted thinking. Safer than what??

You are correct, the gun, especially in that place at that time, created a potential for violence that sane people were afraid of. We know that you just see it as a first aid kit, but we beg to differ. I rather doubt that the SS would allow an open nutcase like this anywhere near the president, the laws of NH notwithstanding.

From the SPLC,

A key difference this time is that the federal government — the entity that almost the entire radical right views as its primary enemy — is headed by a black man. That, coupled with high levels of non-white immigration and a decline in the percentage of whites overall in America, has helped to racialize the Patriot movement, which in the past was not primarily motivated by race hate. One result has been a remarkable rash of domestic terror incidents since the presidential campaign, most of them related to anger over the election of Barack Obama. At the same time, ostensibly mainstream politicians and media pundits have helped to spread Patriot and related propaganda, from conspiracy theories about a secret network of U.S. concentration camps to wholly unsubstantiated claims about the president’s country of birth.

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 03:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
Traces Elk - 12 August 2009 06:54 PM
goodgraydrab - 12 August 2009 06:47 PM

Come on Byron, there were people around him.

It’s not as if I don’t know what it’s like to fire a revolver within earshot of other people. Anyone who takes lightly the significance of bringing a piece into the public square has a piece missing, no pun intended.

If you had followed this thread, you would have realized that your problem is just that you are just having emotional reactions to the simple idea that these people feel like they need to carry their 1st aid kits with them. That you would attach any other importance to their need to feel secure by having their 1st aid kits with them, is just simply unreasonable histrionics. If you would do the proper research, you’d realize just how unreasonable and irrational your fear is. I mean what’s to fear from a 1st aid kit in the hands of such an obviously rational individual? After all, research shows that virtually all carriers of 1st aid kits, unreasonably paranoid though they may be, only do so should they need an emergency bandage. They have no intention of inflicting 1st aid on anyone else. And we all know that generally, the safest place to be in a crowd is near one of these carriers, just in case you need a band-aid too. wink

[ Edited: 12 August 2009 03:21 PM by eucaryote]
 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 August 2009 03:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
eucaryote - 12 August 2009 06:07 PM
SkepticX - 12 August 2009 10:19 AM

Sure would be nice if we didn’t mostly emote over such issues rather than dealing with them rationally, like adults.

We know that you think you’re the only rational one, you and Mr. Kostric.

Not at all, but you have demonstrated quite definitively you’re not very rational about this issue.

eucaryote - 12 August 2009 06:07 PM

After all, you two read the right books with all the important, unintuitive data.

Anyone who disagrees with you is just being emotional and not honestly studying the selected sociological data.

That was a tendency you very clearly and repeatedly demonstrated. Why would you presume I think it applies to everyone else who disagrees with me?

I have stated that it’s a very common failing among many or even most who get into this issue, and that it inflicts most advocates on both sides of the matter. The public “discourse” on guns is characterized by ignorance, irrational fear and loathing from both sides. It’s very much like two camps of opposed fundamentalists raging at each other. In fact that’s exactly what it is.

eucaryote - 12 August 2009 06:07 PM

He’s your kind of guy.

I was just calling the guy “Mr. Wizard” and explaining why he’s a dumbass. You have quite an impressive capacity for selective perception!

eucaryote - 12 August 2009 06:07 PM

He was promoting a book called “more guns - less crime”. He referred to his sidearm as a “defensive tool”, (I’m surprised that he didn’t call it his first aid kit that he brought to show the President). He even claimed to have casually carried the gun because he was afraid of losing his rights.

More selective perception. You seem to have forgotten the context under which I mentioned More Guns, Less Crime, if it ever registered with you to begin with (it’s certainly not that I was remotely ambiguous about it), and you also seem to have forgotten what I’ve said about my position on the 2nd Amendment ... again, if it ever registered with you to begin with.

eucaryote - 12 August 2009 06:07 PM

The sign he was holding combined with the gun on his hip was an obvious threat. So we know he is a political right wing wacko, and we have to note that he was by standing on the grounds of “his” church. Gee I hate to unfairly sterotype this guy, after all the deep research shows that he is actually extremely unlikely to be who he appears to be.

You’re filling in details yourself, inaccurately, demonstrating your emotions are again hijacking your intellect. Still, I started out presuming some of the same things (seems I’m not immune to a touch of hoplophobic thinking myself). The difference is that I had no problem accepting I’d done so, and dropping my inaccurate presumptions. I still think the guy’s a civil Libertarian fundamentalist (arguably a nut case), and I certainly can’t say I approve of his methods or his agenda, but I accept that I was pigeonholing him inaccurately, and that he’s not as easily dismissed as the birthers and the other standard issue Palinite EEG flatlining hard right winger types that you have him equated with despite the crystal clear evidence to the contrary.

It seems that you’re eager to lump me in with Kostric in spite of there being no reason to do so and plenty not to.

You don’t seem to be terribly interested in the evidence at all, just like fundamentalist believers who don’t really care what’s real and true, just what their dogma and emotions tell them.

eucaryote - 12 August 2009 06:07 PM

We should all be perfectly comfortable around this beady eyed nutcase with his weapon and his (politico/religious) agenda walking into our homes and places of business.

Not at all. Once again, as I made crystal clear to you in our previous “discussion”, I understand the fear and I don’t blame those who feel it, but we should be more restrained about making harsh, judgmental presumptions about others.

eucaryote - 12 August 2009 06:07 PM

Yes, I’m afraid of characters like this. No reason to trust them, his intent was not to be peaceful, but to deliberately threaten. From the Matthew interview…

Mr. Kostric - 12 August 2009 10:19 AM

Sometimes when people get mired in their positions, you can try to pull them out of it a little bit but sometimes if you show the other end of it, you can pull them a little bit in your direction…..I’m not advocating violence….I’m advocating an armed society….a polite society

So he states that he’s not interested in violence, but since you perceive the contrary ... so your perceptions are more credible than his statement regarding his motives?

Curious.

Maybe you should re-read that ... ?

eucaryote - 12 August 2009 06:07 PM

Meanwhile over at the Southern Poverty Law Center….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/officials-see-rise-in-mil_n_257128.html

Are you alleging Kostric is a militia member? What group? If not, what’s the militia got to do with him?

I certainly won’t be surprised if we discover Kostric is a militia group type, but I haven’t pegged him as such because there’s not sufficient evidence for doing so.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 24
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed