This blogger is a classic example of the Reasoned Discourse™ we've come to expect from anti-gun bigots.
I found the link from Snowflakes in Hell and decided to follow it over to see what was going on. Sure enough, another undereducated (when it comes to firearms) blogger was going on about needing more gun laws. Like most anti-rights bloggers, this one "moderates" his comments.
Now, many people moderate comments to prevent nasty trolls or spam. While I prefer erasing them after the fact, to each his own. However, like every other anti out there, this one "moderates" to prevent information damaging to his own claims from showing up.
He rants about how England only has 30 gun murders a year. I posted links showing how this data is wrong. It never showed up. Reading the comments over at Sebastian's, it's clear that many people have tried to comment with no luck. Oddly, sycophantic comments do get displayed along with the blogger's replies of "thank you for commenting".
Can't prove it, but I smell sock-puppetry.
This, by the way, is some of the most pure idiocy available without a prescription
"Debating" with right-wingers has become frustrating for me in recent years---the Kool-Aid drinkers are impossible to reason with: they believe whatever they want and, if the facts don't fit their case, they simply ignore the facts, or make up entirely bogus "facts" to make their arguments.
Coming from a guy who (a) won't debate (b) won't allow comments that disprove his writings and (c) is ignoring everything that goes against what he believes.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. For those of you who are undecided on the gun control issue, read us "gunnies". Read the "antis". On both blog types, leave an anonymous comment that supports us and one that is against us. Watch how both your comments show up on our side's blogs and how only the ones that support the anti's show up on theirs.
Then ask yourself "Why?". Why is it that we gunnies are always so open to having the other side talk yet they can't stand to even publish our comments. Ask yourself why we always come in with links and verifiable facts and all they can do is call us names. And really pay attention to what "facts" each of us claim. I'm confident that what I say can be verified and that what they say can't.
It is because of bloggers like this guy that we're winning. People are waking up to their lies and the more they talk, the more apparent it is to the populace that gun control is failing.
Keep it up Marc, you're a great resource to our side.
Marc: Have you personally waived your option of protection and self defense?Having - I assume - done so yourself, would you withhold that option from others?How many would you find it acceptable to die for lack of the means of protection? Chairman Mao seemed to think that 50 million was a good number, although he frequently tried to improve on that record (Citation: Mao: The Unknown Story is the book's title where you can find the details). In Search of the 2nd Amendment cites a survey that firearms are used defensively - to prevent death an injury four times as many times as they are used offensively.Prior to the now evident turnaround in the state of security in Iraq, the Iraqi government openly called for all of its citizenry to take arms. (Citation: Iraqi politicians call on civilians to arm themselvesPersonally, I do not care that a particular firearm looks like (black, brown, or pink) as long as it can reliably deliver accurate and devastating force downrange.Whatever you may object to about the appearance, or the functionality, of a particular firearm, please keep that in your realm of personal preference. Do not impose your preferences on me.Reading through your comments, I note you raised another point apart from the relevant discussion, that "Real men use their fists to settle disputes (or better yet, they use reason and logic)."That's an interesting way to conclude an argument in reasoned discourse. Your choice; when and where?USCitizenTraction Control