The Reverend Nancy Nord Bence: Lying Now, Lying Then, Lying Always

If you only take one message away from this blog, it should be…

Well, it should be “Freedom is good and must be defended without reset, since tyranny never sleeps”. 

But if you take another message from this blog, it’s…

…well, Berg’s Seventh Law. 

But if you get three messages from this blog, number three should be “The Reverend Nancy Nord Bence and “Protect” Minnedsota have never, not once, made a statement about guns, gun rights, gun laws, gun crime, gun crime stats, gun rights groups, or the history, construction or meaning of the 2nd Amendment that is simultaneously substantial, original and true.  

As such, it’s almost pointless to “fact-check: the Lying Reverend:  it’s like looking for damp spots in an aquarium. 

But this particular social media excrescence deserves attention for its special level of depravity:

Take a moment to enjoy the battle between racism and illogic – if one is “never” safer with a gun (statistically untrue, but work with me here), how can some state be “Especially” never?  Infantilizing black people much?  And it’s not the gun that makes black carry permittees unsafe; in this case, it was the panicky cop.  

Worse?  To the “Reverend” Nord Bence, while people with carry permits are hapless delusional morons, if they’re black, they are apparently even less competent.  

But take your leave of that bit of frivolity for a moment, and note the record show that the MInnesota Gun Owners Caucus neither “remained silent” nor “defended” Officer Yanez – the Caucus was on the record and on TV defending our fellow law-abiding citizen before the “Reverend” Nord Bence knew the name of the guy she was stereotyping:

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/11/16/philando-permit/

Castile did not say he had a permit, but he did say he had a gun. In general, that is what firearms instructors teach, according to Rob Doar, a leader of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and a firearms safety instructor…“I recommend that you turn the car off, you turn the lights on in the vehicle, you keep your hands on the wheel,” Doar said. “I do believe that Philando Castile acted as a responsible permit holder.”

If is a given that if the “Reverend” Nord Bence says it, and it’s about anything to do with guns, presume it’s contemptuous bull***t.

The casual racism – while predicable from the lily-white turnout and lily-whiter locations of all “P”M events – s new.

2 thoughts on “The Reverend Nancy Nord Bence: Lying Now, Lying Then, Lying Always

  1. Well, right. She’s wrong, and she’s ignorant, and she constructs this perspective and strawman argument from her biases.

    The carry community has not ‘abandoned’ Castile wrongly out of some racial hypocrisy. What’s been necessary to say on the matter has been said.

    The blue lives people have been fairly obnoxious in their defense of Yanez and victim blaming of Castile, but this is a different argument by a different set of people.

  2. I’m confused. Protect Minnesota appears to be devoted to ridding Minnesota of privately owned firearms on the theory that if no civilian has a gun, nobody will get shot, so Minnesota will be a safer place to live.

    If guns were banned, Castile wouldn’t have had a permit to carry a gun, the cop couldn’t have mistaken reaching for his ID as reaching for his gun (because he wouldn’t have a gun, them being banned), so the cop wouldn’t have shot him.

    We know this is the logical conclusions, because once guns are banned, nobody will carry one. Why, that would be illegal! The cops can safely assume a driver reaching for his hip is reaching for his ID only. Banning privately held firearms will end police shootings, thereby making black men safer since they’re the ones cops shoot. Oooookay, I can see how you got there, but I’m not sure all the links in that chain of reasoning are sound.

    Did Black Lives Matter merge with Protect Minnesota and forget to mention it? This seems a stretch from the original mission to take away private firearms.

    But this guy wasn’t shot by a civilian using a privately owned firearm. He was shot by one of the elite, trained, and vetted law enforcement professionals who are the only people that ought to be allowed to carry guns. So this example does nothing to advance the argument.

    It’s like saying we should ban homeschooling because parents aren’t certified teachers, and using the example of a kid sexually abused by a certified teacher.

    Truly, I’m confused by the tweet.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.