Sharp as a Marble - The Force is strong with this one

<< Journalist’s Guide to Firearms Part III | Home | I did not know that Oreck made self defense weaponry >>

Gun banners

Just got a call from a neutron star. It wants it’s title of “Densest Object in the Known Universe” back. Alas, japete has that award sewn up.

japete argued that MLK was a complete pacifist and would never have approved of guns. When showed proof of the Deacons of Defense, her response is

I am just amazed that you guys are trying to rewrite commonly held American views on what happened during the awful period with the KKK and civil rights. It is disconcerting that you actually believe this stuff and you are not in the majority. You can keep trying to send me things and convince me otherwise, but I would suggest you stop. It will do no good.

Let’s look at that first phrase. Trying to rewrite a commonly held view. Not trying to rewrite reality, but simply rewriting how people feel something happened.

To this dimwit, the views she holds, even if they do not mesh with the facts, are reality. And it’s clear that nothing you can do will change her mind on that.

That kind of willful ignorance is scary. In fact, I’d go so far as to argue Joanne Peterson has clear indicators of a mental disorder.

posted @ 1/19/2011 9:02:35 AM

Incoming Links

Listener’s ARs – 130 on 1/21/2011 9:02:38 AM

quote of the day | walls of the city on 1/22/2011 6:15:58 PM

Comments

ZerCool says:

on 1/19/2011 9:11:39 AM

I’d go so far as to argue Joanne Peterson has clear indicators of a mental disorder.

You mean one like Denial?

"Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence."

Freiheit says:

on 1/19/2011 9:13:07 AM

"Joanne Peterson has clear indicators of a mental disorder."

That must mean it's legally mandated that she owns a high-powered, laser-guided, Glock&Wesson, fully-semi-automatic, assault-weapon, with a high-capacity clip!

Tirno says:

on 1/19/2011 9:48:59 AM

Oooo! Oooo! Go show her this: MLK and his guns. His guns, not just the Deacons'. He was trying to get a concealed carry license, and he met all criteria of the law, but the may-issue laws at the time allowed the police to deny his application for no other reason than he was black. Finding no legal way to carry for his own defense, MLK went all Ghandhi as his second choice.

At the Huffington Post, no less, written by a UCLA Law Professor.

wfgodbold says:

on 1/19/2011 9:56:40 AM

For that matter, I imagine Ghandi only went all Ghandi as his second choice:

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.

Hypnagogue says:

on 1/19/2011 10:43:41 AM

There is a logic to "non-violence" when protesting injustice. It proves quite simply that the aggressor is the other guy. You can't do that with a gun in your hand.

It took guts for him to get rid of his guns and walk those streets unarmed, being pelted with bottles, rocks, and bricks. I don't agree with his economic policies, but I'll applaud his political strategy and his bravery. It was courageous, and it was successful.

Robb Allen says:

on 1/19/2011 11:02:24 AM

It proves quite simply that the aggressor is the other guy

Only in the mind of the non-violent person.

And I disagree. I carry a gun every day. Never am I the aggressor. My actions and history prove my innocence, not the absence of a tool.

Eck! says:

on 1/19/2011 11:12:16 AM

"Go show her this: MLK and his guns"

Bet a penny her response is:
"Where is your evidence for such a statement?"
"What are you saying here? I am becoming increasingly alarmed by your comments."
Or the catchall "Nonsense! or Ridiculous!"

MLK didn't get rid of his guns, he could not bring them, understand the difference. At that time if you were black anything that could be used against you was including false charges. Self defense by a black man especially if the victim was white usually meant a court trial by a white jury or a beating lynching at night.

Hype..:
The only thing left was to march peacefully avoiding anything criminal so that when the oppressors go over the top like they did all those cameras and journalists would see
it and report. they took some head bashings, serious injuries maybe worse but people noticed and the bad guy also noticed they didn't look so good. But It took a whole lot of people taking big lumps to do that. In the end we was shot by someone when he was defenseless.

Eck!

Hypnagogue says:

on 1/19/2011 11:31:43 AM

Robb, I'm not calling you an aggressor. There is the question of how a total stranger would perceive your actions. If you go fishing with a gun on your hip, and nothing happens, then you make a small positive impression on the general public. Over time, this is progress.

Now, consider this (unlikely scenario): you are attacked by a mob leaving the pier, and you defend yourself against that mob. Blood is spilled, people die, but you are 100% in the right. But what will the public see? What is the perception? Will they identify with the mob, or with Robb?

For MLK, that scenario was not unlikely. The reality of the 1960's South was that any armed black man was perceived as the aggressor by the general public. As a result, they had to lay down arms to reveal what was really going on.

drobviousso says:

on 1/19/2011 11:33:13 AM

"Only in the mind of the non-violent person"
But that's the whole point. Non-violence for him is a propaganda tool in the most benign sense of the word. It's an emotionally loaded signal, just like a hunger strike or self immolation.

MLK wasn't right because he preached non-violent dissent. He was right because he was right. Non-violence was a way to bring attention to his commitment.

I personally feel that it's too bad that non-violence gets as much focus as it does, as there are many more important points that the man made. Most of those, sadly, seem to have been lost.

Hypnagogue says:

on 1/19/2011 11:49:22 AM

Eck, the reports that I've read say that MLK was well armed in the 50's and purposefully unarmed in the 60's.

Perhaps we've got conflicting information. Cite?

Sean D Sorrentino says:

on 1/19/2011 12:29:23 PM

As I understand it, the point of the weapons was to force the local police to do their jobs. The klan dirtbags would ride by a house and see the rifle toting blacks, and complain to the police. The police would put up a cordon around the house and keep the night riders away.

When only the occasional black man got lynched, the cops did nothing. When a bunch of white men were in danger of getting ventilated for bad behavior, the cops got involved.

Thanks for the link

Stretch says:

on 1/19/2011 1:13:32 PM

Pls. forward the lady's address as I have some wonderful deals for her re.
A bridge in NYC.
Water cures for cancer.
The latest on sparkly vampyres.

DirtCrashr says:

on 1/19/2011 1:41:40 PM

Her "reality" depends on a consensus of 1.

Patrick says:

on 1/19/2011 3:51:02 PM