tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872332091394163002.post3013451338466898339..comments2023-11-02T07:38:01.474-07:00Comments on Salt City Sinner: Talking Points Before The Blood Has DriedCharles R. Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03226524627534395443noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872332091394163002.post-32055556523320670732012-07-20T15:27:39.183-07:002012-07-20T15:27:39.183-07:00Well most of the "everyone should carry"...Well most of the "everyone should carry" folks probably know enough about guns to realise the futility of an "upstanding citizen" trying to aim at the right target in a dark, crowded theater through a cloud of tear gas. Otherwise they'd be all over this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872332091394163002.post-51478511892821896562012-07-20T10:16:43.933-07:002012-07-20T10:16:43.933-07:00I didn't go into nuance because I liked the su...I didn't go into nuance because I liked the succinct clarity of my comment. But I'll be more detailed:<br /><br />There's not a strong case that your post comes from an intent to advance a political agenda or use this incident to add emotional punch to some sort of argument one way or the other as far as guns go. It's pretty clear that the intent and gist of the post is that utilizing tragedy to advance a political agenda within hours of the tragedy happening is pretty tasteless and inappropriate.<br /><br />So perhaps it's too strong to say you violated the principle you established in the first issue. But your argument about the efficacy/relevance of gun control takes the stance that gun control would not be effective in this instance and is possibly even irrelevant. To take such a stance when so much is still unknown, whatever your intent, reads as very political and as using the circumstances of this case to support the agenda that gun control reforms wouldn't prevent such tragedies.<br /><br />So, yes, to say you violated your principle is too strong. But the penultimate paragraph of this post is a political statement that is not relevant to the argument you are making and serves to weaken the entire piece.Adamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872332091394163002.post-85336667477184727462012-07-20T09:13:30.891-07:002012-07-20T09:13:30.891-07:00@Anonymous - not sure I follow your logic ("P...@Anonymous - not sure I follow your logic ("Pot/Kettle")... when did I make the claim that right-wingers don't do this? in this instance, Gohmert (who has already proven himself perhaps the dumbest son of a bitch in Congress, which is *saying something*) is acting like a tool. <br /><br />the slap-fighting on partisan lines - Maddow pointing out Republican stupidity, NewsMax reporting Democratic stupidity, etc. - is incredibly disappointing, but in this one instance, I think the bleats are louder from the left than the right.Charles R. Bernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03226524627534395443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872332091394163002.post-63353072579926271522012-07-20T09:08:33.246-07:002012-07-20T09:08:33.246-07:00Pot/Kettle. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...Pot/Kettle. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12856827-how-not-to-respond-to-a-tragedy?liteAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872332091394163002.post-53334798735598886032012-07-20T09:06:18.405-07:002012-07-20T09:06:18.405-07:00Seems consistent to me as well.Seems consistent to me as well.ViewFinderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072906317014906577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872332091394163002.post-57869127304808009802012-07-20T08:58:59.801-07:002012-07-20T08:58:59.801-07:00Adam, DeBone, I disagree. His first point is that...Adam, DeBone, I disagree. His first point is that it is morally wrong to exploit victims of tragedy for political gain. His second point is that it is also nonsensical to do so based on the facts in the case. Seems consistent to me. I had the same reaction when I read about what happened this morning and saw the spin doctors already at work.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14339955209270766796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872332091394163002.post-29953394045949280562012-07-20T08:49:53.612-07:002012-07-20T08:49:53.612-07:00I'm not using the events in Colorado to make a...I'm not using the events in Colorado to make an emotional appeal one way or the other on the issue.<br /><br />If I were raising a second issue that violated my stance on the first one, it might sound like "obviously if more people conceal-carried, this wouldn't have happened - an upstanding citizen could have taken this guy out" (which is a claim I'm starting to hear from the right and in Libertarian circles now)Charles R. Bernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03226524627534395443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872332091394163002.post-53854462791408494312012-07-20T08:44:56.837-07:002012-07-20T08:44:56.837-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Charles R. Bernardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03226524627534395443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872332091394163002.post-57537812971451901172012-07-20T08:28:39.430-07:002012-07-20T08:28:39.430-07:00Adam hit that one out of the park.Adam hit that one out of the park.BeDonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11694571973442654162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3872332091394163002.post-17201544669803128992012-07-20T08:04:03.766-07:002012-07-20T08:04:03.766-07:00The second issue you raise violates your stance on...The second issue you raise violates your stance on the first issue you raise.Adamnoreply@blogger.com