search
top

New Anti-Gun Blog

It’s called Armed with Reason, and it actually looks like they might not yet have discovered Reasoned DiscourseTM, meaning when the argument turns against them, they squash dissenting viewpoints.

I’d head on over there and start making good and reasonable arguments. If none of them get approved, we can declare them as closed-minded as other pretenders to the throne of Reasoned Discourse.

22 Responses to “New Anti-Gun Blog”

  1. Tango says:

    I guess we’ll see how they go! Thanks for the heads up:

    During the Supreme Court case Snyder v. Phelps, a justice is quoted as saying (paraphrased) that ‘The First Amendment is not there to protect speech we agree with, but that which we find most offensive.’ This statement alone shows that that Bill of Rights protects disagreeable actions, ensuring they remain free. It very specifically does not grant a ‘right’ to be free from offense. The opposite can only be true: The First Amendment is there to guarantee that someone, somewhere WILL be offended. Nobody has the RIGHT to be unoffended. The Second Amendment does not guarantee the RIGHT to be free from fear. The Second Amendment very literally means that someone is going to be afraid. The gangbanger that breaks down the wrong door. The child molester that sneaks into the wrong home. The drugged-out meth user that wants to fuel their fix by forcing you to the ATM in the middle of the night. The Second Amendment guarantees that they will be afraid. There is no ‘right’ to be free from fear. There is a RIGHT, as espoused in the Bill of Rights, to have an effective means of self-defense: arms.

    • Arnie says:

      Love this!!!! Thank you!!! I am bookmarking this for future reference! Again, thank you!!!
      – Arnie

  2. Archer says:

    They “moderate” their comments, so basically they’re reserving the right to enforce Reasoned Discourse at any time.

    I’ve left a comment on an older article. We’ll see if they let it stand.

  3. Andy B. says:

    ” If none of them get approved, we can declare them as closed-minded as other pretenders . . .”

    That will really be a major blow to them.

    • Sebastian says:

      Heh… yeah, I know… but sometimes I think it’s worth just a little effort to call them on their BS about wanting “a conversation.”

  4. Thirdpower says:

    They’ve noticed the attention:
    Oh, and you can tell the rest of pagunblog that as you long as you adhere to the criteria set out in the first comment on each post, we have no problem with dissenting view points (we set the bar really low btw). However, if y’all start swarming the the comment section in an attempt to railroad others trying to express their views, we will become much less lenient.

    Yeah. They don’t have a predetermined stereotype of gun owners. Wonder who they’re paid by.

  5. Sebastian says:

    Their blog is almost as tiresome as Joan Peterson’s, in the sense that it just rambles on and on and on. It would be great material to cure anyone’s insomnia. As much as I hate insulting them by comparing them to Joan Peterson, they likewise just drone on, without any ability to stay on point. But unlike Joan, who is generally just acting out frustration over not being able to write or articulate thoughts in any organized manner, they are disabled by an overwhelming desire to bowl everyone else over with their “brilliance.” That, of course, takes time. You must be properly impressed. Wait… we’re not finished with you yet. Surely you’re impressed by now? Let’s throw a few more high minded sounding things your way. Impressed yet?

    *yawn*

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      That… And it looks like two guys writing back and forth. Who else is drawn to sites like this for genuine education when they can already read the all stars from the Brady bunch and Joan Peterson?

    • Patrick H says:

      Yeah they just keep going and going. And they don’t really understand the studies they cite. Correlation is not causation.

    • Thirdpower says:

      Not only the rambling but they change wording when it suits them and make lots of assumptions on what ‘might’ happen or what they want things to mean.

      They’re going to have a fan base of Brady-ites who read the first couple of lines, nod their heads then go back to other things.

    • Robb Allen says:

      Yup. It’s word salad. Lengthy, less insane sounding word salad, but a jumble of ideas and concepts that are just thrown together in hopes of something mentally palatable.

      There isn’t just circular references, there are circular references to the circular references that would have given Benoît Mandelbrot a migraine.

      I’ll keep an eye on them, but I expect full on Reasoned Discourse soon as they find themselves swamped with data that disproves their theories which will be derided as ‘attacks’ and ‘bullying’.

  6. tincankilla says:

    the name of the blog reminds me of the joke about how atheists start arguments at parties: “You seem like a reasonable person…”

  7. wizardpc says:

    Looks like the guy that runs the site graduated college last year.

    So there’s that.

  8. Jeff O says:

    I posted two responses, but reading some previous discussions their arguments are poor and circular. A well educated gentlemen named Anthony completely discounts some of their statistics on gun running, numerous times. Their response in the end is essentially if our numbers are wrong than yours are too…

    Reminds me of a 3 year old, “I know you are but what am I”…

  9. AntiCitizenOne says:

    From the facebook page: “The Armed Socialist”
    ——————————————————-

    The “Freedom From” Myth

    This is a direct response to Armed With Reason’s article which can be found here: http://www.armedwithreason.com/how-gun-advocates-blind-focus-on-freedom-to-is-destroying-lives-by-ignoring-our-right-to-freedom-from/

    This is going to be a real simple refutation, because I don’t need pages upon pages going point by point to explain why you’re wrong. The only “freedom from” that you have is the “freedom from the elimination of choice.” What that means is someone is forcing you to take part in an act which you have no escape from or choice to take part in. When they talk about “freedom from religion” that means the State can’t force you to partake in a particular religion’s practice by force. A teacher praying before class is not an infringement on your rights, but a teacher punishing you for not praying with her is.

    Taking FDR’s comment about the Freedom From Fear of governments making the decision to go to war with undo haste to mean freedom from fear as a whole is disingenuous and a stretch. Especially using it as a means to disarm people because you’re afraid of guns when his own wife told the Secret Service to stay home while she and a friend went to Tennessee under threat of death by the KKK armed with a revolver. Eleanor was a true liberal. She genuinely cared about the impoverished in our country, and she had the, pardon the expression, balls to fight back with violence if need be.

    The truth is, you don’t have the freedom from fear, because there’s no telling what you’re afraid of. “I’m afraid of spiders, why isn’t the state spending money on the elimination of spiders?! It’s my right not to live in fear of spiders!” No, it’s your right to deal with spiders as you see fit. Just like its your right to deal with gun violence as you see fit. If that means staying locked up in your home 24/7 under a ballistic blanket in a safe room, by all means, but that does NOT give you the right to tell me what I can and can’t do. If my actions have caused you grievance then you can take me to court, but you do not get to tell me what to do to make you comfortable, period.

    You have the freedom of choice, you do not get to eliminate that freedom just because it scares or bothers you.

    • Alpheus says:

      The thing that gets me about those who justify the banning of guns by resorting to “Freedom of Fear”, is this idea that only guns can be used to invoke fear.

      Anyone who is /only/ afraid of guns, has a /very/ limited imagination on what can be used to cause harm!

  10. Don Layne says:

    They want to be free from things that scare them and/or things they find offensive. No matter that I find their interpretation of the Contstitution scary, and I find their attempt to take away my freedoms offensive. Their fears and sense of propriety apparently trump mine, because GUNS!

  11. tkdkerry says:

    “… that would have given Benoît Mandelbrot a migraine.”

    Good one.

  12. Toastrider says:

    You’re getting a bill for the aspirin I’m going to need after trying to read this guy’s ‘debating’ style. My head hurts :(

    Gotta give Jeff O credit, he was punching back and hard. Tip of the hat to you, sir.

  13. Andy B. says:

    Aren’t we all imbuing this blog with a lot more importance than it really has? You’ll have the majority of participants preaching to their own choir; a few pro-gun trolls coming in now and then to throw stink-bombs; and if we field our best arguments in such a venue (and they get through) all we will have done is give them practice in anticipating them and dealing with them, some time when it’s important. It only seems worth the energy if it really amuses you.

    • Sebastian says:

      I kind of figure sending them more traffic than they’ve likely ever seen won’t hurt to remind them where the energy is in this issue. I don’t have the time or the energy to pay much attention to them beyond this.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » A new anti-gun blog - […] Sebastian who notes that Reasoned Discoursetm hasn’t broken out yet. Oh but it […]
top