Fingers in ears
In an update to this post, I see commenters have set about correcting the mistakes. And the host there responds with:
Geeeez, you people remind me of those nerds that write letters to the editor of Superman Comics pointing out little unimportant errors–“On page 3 of edition #789 in panel number two, Clark Kent’s suit is orange, but on the very next page, in panel number 4, it’s green–What gives?
I dunno but maybe someone who is advocating laws should educate themselves about those laws. See, misrepresenting assault weapons, machine guns, armor piercing ammo, and kits that make machine guns are not unimportant errors. They’re pretty substantial errors.
Update: Boy, check out the hysteria from that guy in the comments. It gets better. We jerk off to gun mags and we’re idiots and extremists. Funny how correcting errors makes you an extremist. Also, he’s addressing comments that aren’t there so I assume he’s moderating comments. Seems to me that everyone there left reasonable and sensible retorts to Mark’s misconceptions about guns (and only one person violated my rule on scaring white people with the tyranny talk). And he’s telling people to leave. Fine, I won’t bother you again even though this is the most traffic your blog has ever seen. Quite amusing given the header quote.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:41 am
Dunno if my comment will be approved, but I pointed out that those “little unimportant details” are the elements of felonies that were put on the books by people who have only the vaguest idea what they are banning. Far from being little and unimportant, they have been a source of great injustice against the gun owners of this country.
It has nothing to do with crime prevention or any other compelling governmental purpose- these laws were simply an embodiment of legislative animus towards gun ownership. As the sponsors of the original assault weapon ban have publicly admitted, it was an attempt to restrict solely for the purpose of getting gun owners accustomed to the idea of arbitrary restrictions.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:52 am
He’s getting mad now.
His definition of “out of context” must be “repeating what I say back to me and correcting the falsehoods”.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:53 am
Hardly a surprising response: When faced with their own ignorance, the ad-hominem attack is Libtard SOP.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:54 am
Rust:
Apparently so. I replied, for what it’s worth (and saved it).
He wants to talk about distasteful, having someone as emotionally unstable as him on “our side”.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
So did I, Jedi.
I’m writing up a post on this….
January 31st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
LOL! His site claims to have won a “Thinking Blogger Award”(whatever that is) . . . .
January 31st, 2008 at 2:06 pm
OK, who turned the rock over and let this maroon loose?
January 31st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I love it! A “thinking Blogger Award” site that deletes posts he doesn’t agree with.
Real class act.