Intent of this blog:

Mikeb claims to want to foster an honest debate about gun rights and "gun control." Sadly, though, he has an unpleasant habit of refusing to publish many of the comments that he doesn't like--even those that adhere to his rules about politeness (rules that he himself breaks with monotonous regularity). Silencing his opponents' effective arguments is, apparently, the only way he can "win" debates.

It should be noted that I am not claiming that Mikeb is violating anyone's rights--the First Amendment has nothing to do with what a blogger allows to be posted on his own blog. However, when he accuses people of contemptible behavior, and then silences their retorts, he is
himself engaging in contemptible behavior, and it needs to be exposed.

Friday, February 27, 2015

In response to: Louisiana Man Arrested Immediately for Accidentally Killing 13-Year-old

Mikeb loves to accuse people of "racism," and hates to be troubled with requests for evidence with which to back his charges up. When one expresses doubt about his unsubstantiated "racism" allegations, one can generally expect his accusation that one is denying that racism exists in America at all.

He thinks he supports his charges by pointing to tragic shootings in which a child gets his hands on a gun and shoots himself/herself or another with it, or if the gun owner himself/herself unintentionally shoots someone through clumsiness, stupidity, negligence, etc., with Mikeb claiming that when the gun owner is white, he/she is less likely to be arrested and/or prosecuted for negligence than an African-American or Hispanic gun owner would be (more on that in a minute).

So, in comments responding to Mikeb's "Louisiana Man Arrested Immediately for Accidentally Killing 13-Year-old," pro-rights reader ssgmarkcr left a comment remarking on Mikeb's accusations of "racism" in such cases, for the edification of anti-rights commentator, "Peter":

ssgmarkcr: Peter, Mike often suggests there is a racial factor involved in these immediate arrests. I'm sort of surprised he left that out of this one.

Peter expressed some doubts, and asked for Mikeb himself to clarify. I offered my own suggestion:

Peter: I'd like to hear from Mike about that allegation.

Me: Be sure to ask him about his contention that arresting the black guy who didn't keep his gun where a kid could get to it is "racist," and not arresting the black guy who didn't keep his gun where a kid could get to it is also "racist."

I left that comment two days ago, and he's still hiding it. And I meant it when I said that he accuses cops of racism both when they arrest the black gun owner who doesn't keep his guns out of reach of kids, and when they don't arrest him, as I illustrate in the link I provided in the comment Mikeb is hiding from.

In response to: Guns Won’t Stop Rape on Campus and Will Cause Other Problems

For the first post on this blog, we'll go short and sweet. Mikeb, in defending the remarkable claim (I never said it would be a polite remark) that "guns won't stop rape on campus," Mikeb actually came out and said . . . well, let's just see it--no paraphrase can do it "justice":

Mikeb: The rights of the individual are sacrificed for the greater good and safety of the college.

I obviously couldn't let that abominable mentality go unchallenged, so I left this comment in reply:

Me: Wow--we must sacrifice individual rights for "the greater good and safety." At least you can't be accused of trying to hide your depraved, collectivist, hive insect mentality.

That was two days ago, and it still hasn't showed up, leaving me to conclude that he has no intention of it ever seeing the light of day. Well, now it will.

Actually, that's not the only comment in that discussion that frightens Mikeb into censorship. He also said this:

Mikeb: That's pretty weak, Kurt. You want to do away with laws because of the exceptional cases, however rare they are?

It gets down to the fact that guns do more harm than good. We can't allow the "more harm" for the occasional good.

He apparently didn't like my reply to that, either:

You want to do away with laws because of the exceptional cases, however rare they are?

Me: Yeah, and I've explained why (well, I've pointed to Jeff Snyder's explanation, which is vastly more eloquent than anything I'll ever write).

But actually, that's only part of it. The rest is perhaps most easily summed up with shall not be infringed.

It gets down to the fact that guns do more harm than good.

Me: Says the guy who claims not to blame the guns. Oh--that's right--that's just "metonymy." So, what are you literally saying now, Mikeb?

Why must that be silenced, Mikeb?