{"id":33789,"date":"2013-01-25T12:00:35","date_gmt":"2013-01-25T18:00:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=33789"},"modified":"2013-01-25T12:36:47","modified_gmt":"2013-01-25T18:36:47","slug":"frequently-asked-questions-part-viii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=33789","title":{"rendered":"Frequently Asked Questions, Part VIII"},"content":{"rendered":"

“Hey, why don’t you come over to teh\u00a0MinnPost<\/em> to debate?”<\/strong>: \u00a0For the same reason I don’t “debate” at MPR,\u00a0Startribune<\/em>.com or\u00a0on much of any other website or blog. \u00a0 Between my blog, Twitter and, I dunno,\u00a0my freaking day job<\/em>, not to mention trying to maintain a modestly-well-adjusted real life, I gotta draw the line somewhere. \u00a0I’ve given up a lot of online diversions lately .<\/p>\n

And, let’s face it, the\u00a0MinnPost’s<\/em> comment section is about the same as the Strib’s\u00a0<\/em>these days; it’s all noise and no signal. \u00a0Both of them have come to represent the worst of online “discourse”; mostly people who hide behind anonymity to bellow with rage at people who are different than them. \u00a0 Usenet Newsgroups phoned the\u00a0Strib\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0MinnPost\u00a0<\/em>comment sections and told ’em to dial back the crazy.<\/p>\n

Both are a waste of time. \u00a0I try not to waste time.<\/p>\n

“Why do you oppose banning teh automatic weapins?”<\/strong>: \u00a0They’ve been mostly illegal since 1934. \u00a0Seriously – learn the issue before you try to regulate other peoples’ civil rights.<\/p>\n

“You oppose gun control? \u00a0So you think felons should have guns?”<\/strong>: \u00a0Nope. That is a reasonable\u00a0<\/em>“reasonable restriction”.<\/p>\n

“If you debate at teh\u00a0MinnPost\u00a0<\/em>you’ll lose!”<\/strong>: \u00a0In the same way a black guy walking into a Klan rally will “lose”. \u00a0I’ll get shouted down, sure.<\/p>\n

But I won’t lose a “Debate”.<\/p>\n

In fact, I may as well reiterate this; I’ll meet\u00a0any\u00a0<\/em>liberal figure – blogger, talking head, pundit, reporter (oh, snap), politician, what have you – in an actual debate\u00a0<\/em>about anything we mutually care to debate about. \u00a0Guns are the hot topic these days – and on Second Amendment issues in particular, I’ll not only meet the libs in an actual debate, I’ll likely make their argument better than they can, before I destroy it. \u00a0I’m not limited to guns – we can talk education, taxes, transit, whatever. \u00a0I’m pretty solid on all of ’em. \u00a0On Second Amendment issues? \u00a0Let’s just say I’m confident.<\/p>\n

Just saying. \u00a0Try me.<\/p>\n

In a real debate<\/em>, mind you; at a neutral location, with some basic “rules” (they don’t have to be all that formal, but shouting matches bore me) and we can go to town.<\/p>\n

Recursive institutionalized (heh) pissing matches like “newspaper” comment sections don’t really make the cut, thanks.<\/p>\n

“Why are you constantly bagging on the DFL leadership for not supporting gay marriage? \u00a0The effort against the Marriage Amendment wasn’t a referendum on gay marriage, after all.”<\/strong>: \u00a0That’s not the way “Minnesotans United For All\u00a0<\/em>Families” and the rest of the anti-Amendment crowd put it. \u00a0Their rhetoric – “we don’t have popularity contests on civil rights<\/em>!” – wasn’t focused on the procedural battle over what does or doesn’t go into the Constitution. \u00a0It was over Adam and Steve and their picket fence.<\/p>\n

For Tom Bakk and Paul Thissen not to jam a bill through the legislature that they control largely because of the campaign against the Amendment is intensely hypocritical. \u00a0For the people who voted for the DFL based on the Amendment not to demand better of the caucus they elected is a betrayal of Gay Minnesotans. \u00a0Now that the left-leaning PPP poll shows Minnesotans supporting gay marriage<\/a>, there is no reason whatsoever for Bakk and Thissen not to jam this issue down.<\/p>\n

Other than political cowardice and hypocrisy.<\/p>\n

“You oppose gun control? \u00a0So you think felons should have guns?”<\/strong>: \u00a0Asked and answered. \u00a0Nope.<\/p>\n

“Hahahaha, Merg! \u00a0You won’t come to teh MinnPost<\/em>\u00a0to debate! You are teh coward!”<\/strong>: \u00a0Real debate. \u00a0Say when, where, and agree on the rules. \u00a0If you’ve got the cojones<\/em>. \u00a0We all know what an “if” that is.<\/p>\n

“But Mitch? \u00a0There’s a court case in Henco that’ll basically end in legalize gay marriage sooner or later. \u00a0Bakk and Thissen needn’t lift a finger”<\/strong>: \u00a0Well, there’s a profile in courage for you!<\/p>\n

“You oppose gun control? \u00a0So you think felons should have guns?”<\/strong>: \u00a0<\/strong>Er, I answered this twice already. \u00a0No.<\/p>\n

“Mark G***eson says you’re like teh Lord Haw Haw?”<\/strong>: \u00a0I get called ugly things by people sitting at the back of the bus that also bark at the moon and have tinfoil wrapped around their heads. \u00a0I give ’em about the same weight.
\n“Hey, Merg! \u00a0The Second Amendment refers to “Militia”! \u00a0Are you in the National Guard?”<\/strong>: \u00a0I’m sorry – were you in treatment for the past five years or something? \u00a0The SCOTUS in\u00a0Heller\u00a0<\/em>said “right of the people” means “people” – not government. \u00a0We – every able-bodied adult – are the militia. \u00a0That means you, me, and everyone around you that doesn’t have a disqualifying criminal record.<\/p>\n

\u00a0“You oppose gun control? \u00a0So you think felons should have guns?”<\/strong>: \u00a0Er, no.<\/p>\n

“I’m sick of your arguments. \u00a0It’s time to re-consider what “reasonable restrictions” are!”<\/strong>: \u00a0Well, at face value, I’m with you. \u00a0Most of the restrictions that exist today – gun bans like in Chicago, bans on weapons based on cosmetic features – are utterly useless. \u00a0Let’s reconsider them!<\/p>\n

But that’s not what you’re talking about, is it? \u00a0This is sort of like the “new conversation about guns” from a few weeks back, which involved your side talking and my side shutting up.<\/p>\n

You want to eliminate the Second Amendment, because you think that civilians shouldn’t have guns. \u00a0It disturbs your idea of the natural relationship between people and government, with citizens toiling away and a benevolent government protecting us, like a dutiful parent. \u00a0I believe that’s a noxious and repugnant idea of what government is supposed to be, and the Second Amendment helps keep it that way.<\/p>\n

“Why don’t you write more about music and history?”<\/strong>: \u00a0Oh, I meant to over this past two months, trust me. \u00a0Real life – doing my little bit to defend a vital civil right – got in the way. \u00a0But there’s more to come.<\/p>\n

“You oppose gun control? \u00a0So you think felons should have guns?”<\/strong>: \u00a0Er…<\/p>\n

“You oppose gun control? \u00a0So you think felons should have guns?”<\/strong>: \u00a0It’s cold out, isn’t it?<\/p>\n

“You oppose gun control? \u00a0So you think felons should have guns?”<\/strong>: \u00a0There are no bones in ice cream.<\/p>\n

“You oppose gun control? \u00a0So you think felons should have guns?”<\/strong>: \u00a0That surely is a writing implement of immense magnitude.<\/p>\n

“Why do you always show your opponents in these pieces to be addled, defective or not-so-bright? \u00a0Isn’t that a rather demeaning fiction?”<\/strong>: \u00a0You’ve never met my “critics”, have you?<\/p>\n

“You oppose gun control? \u00a0So you think felons should have guns?”<\/strong>: Um…<\/p>\n

“You oppose gun control? \u00a0So you think felons should have guns?”<\/strong>: …<\/p>\n

“You oppose gun control? \u00a0So you think felons should have guns?”<\/strong>: (facepalm)<\/p>\n

“You oppose gun control? \u00a0So you think felons should have guns?”<\/strong>: …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Hey, why don’t you come over to teh\u00a0MinnPost to debate?”: \u00a0For the same reason I don’t “debate” at MPR,\u00a0Startribune.com or\u00a0on much of any other website or blog. \u00a0 Between my blog, Twitter and, I dunno,\u00a0my freaking day job, not to mention trying to maintain a modestly-well-adjusted real life, I gotta draw the line somewhere. \u00a0I’ve […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,22],"tags":[222],"class_list":["post-33789","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-mitch","category-victim-disarmament","tag-faq"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33789","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=33789"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33789\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33839,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33789\/revisions\/33839"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=33789"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=33789"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=33789"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}