The recent QOTD by Mikeb302000 on DGUs stimulated a lot of debate. And more than a few questions about the wisdom of publishing it. As Chief Cook and Bottle Washer for this site, I don’t allow comments about the site’s editorial stance or style underneath an unrelated post. Experience has taught me that these comments inevitably and invariably sidetrack the comments section away from the point raised. Soon all posts become about the site. So I deleted the diversionary comments under the QOTD in question and opened this thread so that our Armed Intelligentsia may debate my decision re: MikeB without restriction. So was I wrong to give the gun-grabber a main post?
I care not what you do. I do not read MikeB’s posts. I decided a long time ago there are no arguments that will convince me to give up my guns.
That’s a funny first comment. I don’t think your alone in that attitude either, Don.
I’d like to express my appreciation to Robert for allowing my comments and an occasional post. In the beginning he said this site was about the TRUTH about guns. I think that includes what I have to say.
I wish more of you would come to visit my site. I think you’d like it since it’s primarily about your favorite subject. But there’s more. I invite you, but that’s not the only reason I come here. I’m as passionate about guns as you guys are, but in my own way. This is the best site I know to revel in that passion. I’ll keep coming as long as I’m welcome.
Except that what you have to say has nothing to do with the truth, merely you making up ever more ludicrous claims to try to justify banning people from being able to defend themselves.
“I wish more of you would come to visit my site.”
I wonder why anyone would want to visit your site. Would it be to get ridiculed and harassed on a daily basis by co-blogger Laci the Dog? Would it be to get legally threatened by co-blogger Dog Gone? Would it be to have personal identifying information, your address, and even pictures of you posted by JadeGold? Maybe if you enjoy all of that you can stay for the hypocrisy of one-sided comment moderation!
This website has it’s issues too, but I believe the bloggers try to treat their commenters evenhandedly and with respect. Why go a blog run seemingly by petulant little children when you can get much better discussion here?
Maybe he found your blahg as boring as I do.
My comment above is floating around in cyberspace. It was a response to a deleted post from our dear friend mikey.
I’ve been watching it jump around too. Thought it was the cold medicine. I’ve developed a fondness for the little tike.
-D
crickets chirping
It’s your site, do what you and your colleagues want to do. You pay your money and you take your chances.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that Mikey and his screeds are pretty small time and generally the same old junk that they’ve been peddling for decades, as are those of most of his fellow travelers. If he or anyone else can bring something new, significant and thought provoking to the debate, then by all means let them speak in this forum. If not, then have them run along. Life’s short, time’s valuable; we all have too much static in our lives. Try to maintain a high signal to noise ratio.
Well said.
I think this right here says it all.
I agree with this post as well. Its ultimately your website and your post and to tell you the truth I think Mikeb302000 is like the friendly other side of the coint sort of speak to what you are trying to do here so he brings in the comments and the arguments which for the most part stay respectable and interesting. Its good to see that gun people are not irrational and actually make great debates towards mikeb’s accusations.
The last post you put up of him seemed like he keep going back and forward with his rational thinking and just like someone else there pointed out just cause he feels he is not inept to carry a gun and the responsibilities that entails it does not mean we can’t as well. So I would say keep posting but keep an eye out for redundant articles from him. Thanks for caring about what your viewers think.
It’s your blog and I have enjoyed reading almost daily. But not every article is interesting to me so I skip some of them. However, there is a common theme in all of them that they are either in relation to current topics in low orbit around firearms AND pro-firearm in most cases.
Mike’s post was strictly an anti-2A opinion with little to no value other than to stir up conversation. If that is your intent then keep him. Thing is, are you giving credibility to him, and his like-minded thinkers, by allowing him to have a voice here? If so, intentional or not, then I think the value of your content is suffering and lost focus.
I’m all about unbiased, reasonable, factually based discussions on the laws, usages and availability of firearms but if I want to be told I’m ‘to irresponsible to own a gun’ then I’ll go to any number of anti-2A, lib wash rags (including Mike’s own blog which I have read some articles) to get that fix.
Ironically, some LEO types might feel the same way about the common message on the militarization of police.
I agree with this part in particular. Some of Mike’s comments and posts have been valuable conversation pieces (the posts about how to handle his son’s interest in guns is one example), but the last post seemed to be nothing but anti-gun propaganda with blanket labeling of most (if not all) CCW folks as people one disagreement short of unjustifiable murder.
This. There’s a fine line between a useful debate, and senseless controversy; Some of mike’s works posted here have been on the former side of the line, whilst others, like that of yesterday, are firmly on the latter.
A QOTD post asking how to handle children with interest in firearms is, generally speaking, a point that can be discussed rationally, and from which can come good healthy debate.
A post implying that all those who regularly carry firearms on or about them as one disagreement shy of state-justified murder is not likely to lead to a healthy discussion or debate.
I’m not saying “don’t put any of mike’s writing up as a main post” — it’s not my blog, I don’t pay the bills, I don’t write material, etc.. What I am saying though, is to think about the tone the comments are likely to take before posting his writing; If it’s going to lead to a good healthy debate (or several) then by all means post it, on the other hand, if it is likely to just lead to a bunch of name-calling and editor-bashing, then it would probably be wiser not to post it. Remember, discretion is the better part of valor.
Nope, I vote to banish the heathens. This is a place to learn about and enjoy our hobby. Mikey and alike greatly diminish the enjoyment of this site. If we want to argue gun control there are plenty of other places to go.
Agreed, maybe he trolls this site because nobody actually reads what he writes on his own blog. I have experienced far more shrill anti 2a types out there however. This entire blog post is doing exactly what he wants however, attention from readers on this site, so i have mixed feelings. This may set a precedent for him to have other anti 2a people come and run their mouths but just as long as this does not become a regular stopping point for brady bunch idiots.
Agreed.
I say let the man have his posts. Seeing how his twisted gun-grabber mind works has helped me have a few good comebacks when faced with anti-gun people in person. Anyway, every good debate needs a counterpoint to keep things interesting.
He ain’t hurting anyone, and our stance is well founded in fact and logic. We can take putting up with one protester without undermining the cause.
If they’re going to post his crap, they can at least put a clearly labeled warning on it that says something along the lines of “Post by Mikey – nothing ov value here. Read only if you truly have nothing better to do with your time” so that those of us who don’t care to hear inane anti-freedom propaganda can easily skip it.
I revoke my statement. I hadn’t read his DGU post. I thought the debate was over whether he can comment on posts (my fault for skimming). The DGU post was rubbish and not worth seeing the light of day. He can put out some lousy comments, but should you post his gun grabber tales under the TTAG name? Hell know. If that was the first and only article I’d read on the site I would have never came back. Leave all comments, but don’t publicize the work of small minds
The stated purpose of the site is “to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.”
Polite debate and disagreement over the topic is healthy and as American as apple pie. I’d rather hear the other viewpoints and read the intelligent responses on this site. I appreciate RF’s commitment to exploration.
I believe Mike is trying to do on TTAG what he cannot achieve on his own site. Like many of us, he made up his mind a long time ago and looks for any arguement to support his stand. Most everyone here knows this is crap. If this Gun Loon has a vote, I’d say let him respond as we all do, but no more main posts.
Yes, you should continue posting MikeB30200’s posts.
If you cant talk about opposing viewpoints you are living in an echo chamber. If you have an opinion about something you should be able to argue for it in an open debate.
I think Mr. Mike is wrong, and I feel it is our duty to debate him. He’s not a bad person, he is not the enemy. He is someone with a different point of view.
By the way, I kind of like the term “Gun Loon”. I am picturing a logo with a Loon wearing a cowboy hat, boots, and a holster. Could be fun.
Any site that stealth-edits critical comments can never be anything but an “echo chamber”.
http://www.exurbanleague.com/misfires/Home/tabid/59/EntryId/1451/The-Good-the-Bad-and-the-TTAG.aspx
I hate to say it, but just about all media in this country is biased. Usually not as an institution, but each reporter definitely biases their reporting to fit their world view. It’s hard not to and paying for your news with advertising dollars only makes it worse. I haven’t agreed with a single thing that Mike has ever said. But I’ll defend his right to say it.
exactly – As the 7th circuit ruled in Ezell, the 2nd Amendment is on par with the 1st Amendment. Unlike Mikeb’s brethren, who will not even entertain the notion that guns have any place in society, I will defend his right to speak his mind, no matter what I may believe about his (lack of) intelligence, veracity or ability to make relevant points.
I would not let him monopolize the forum, but an occaisional “guest column” probably cannot hurt. I would like to see him man up and put his personal info out there for the world and see if his non violent bullshit is practiced when someone kicks in his front door at 2 am and the police operator put him on hold for 10 min.
Yes. Having opposing viewpoints regularly discussed does two things:
1. Adds credibility to the site in terms of balanced content.
2. Helps us to better prepare to discuss the issues relating to gun control with our friends and family.
If the site is homogeneous in terms of content, we will soon be unable to declare the Truth About Guns in a way that can reach our neighbors, because we would soon lose sight of where they are coming from.
Except almost all of Mike’s posts aren’t “opposing views”, they’re factless attacks on freedom and childish insults. If he has something WORTHWHILE to say, then I could understand your comment – but that is a very, very rare moment that Mike has something worth hearing and discussing.
It’s your blog, you can do whatever you want.
I just find it tedious to listen to gun banners re-hash the same, tired arguments that have been pretty conclusively debunked over the last 15 years. If you want to hop into the way-back machine and go back to 1995, that’s your business.
It is always a good thing to know what your opponents are saying or thinking.Even if they are spouting the same thing over and over, that is what we are up against.The occasional post by an anti gun person is a way to reminder us what the public outside of the “gun nut club” is like.I vote to let him speak.After all that is the American way we are trying to defend.
To some of the points made earlier regarding banishing Mikey and his ilk from this site, let me say this; there is a certain (if not easily quantifiable) value to allowing the “enemy” (no offense Mikey, Jade, Dennis, Josh, et al) to voice their views if for no other reason than to gain tactical intelligence from their camp. In addition, they expose their irrational, anti-human rights, anti-civil rights positions for all to see; sunlight being the best disinfectant. As the Armed Intelligentsia in this country and abroad grows, these people will be pushed further to the margins and they are aiding in their own demise; give a man enough rope, etc. Besides, they sometimes provide good fodder for our mill and many a good and amusing turn of phrase has resulted.
The fact of the matter is that Mikeb302000 is just like all the other Anti-Gun activists out there. They have their opinions just like we have ours. To have both side is fine. But if it get’s into personal attacks then that is where I would draw the line. We’re all adults here let’s act accordingly and be respectful of each other even if we don’t agree. I personally like my rights to keep and bare arms. As a former Marine nothing thrills me more than the recoil of my Bull Barrel Remington 700 SPS .308 with Schmidt & Bender optics. With it I’m like AT&T. Reach out and touch someone. (That is a Joke Mikeb just to be clear). Don’t misconstrue my remarks.Semper Fi, Mike
You call this site “The TRUTH About Guns” (emphasis added by me). As we all know, the truth has many sides which are based as much in interpretation as in fact and often clouded by such elements as judgement and opinion; all of which combine to form “reality”. If you want the perfect example of this just watch the movie Rashomon sometime.
While I hold views that are diametrically opposed to Mike’s, I’ve always found it a credit to this site that you are willing to give him a platform here. It is that voice of dissension, that representation of an alternate reality from that experienced by the majority here, that lends an air of truth to this site that is ostensibly tasked with uncovering it. Last time I checked it isn’t called “The CONSENSUS About Guns.”But that’s just me…
If Mikeb wasn’t so cynical and didn’t put forth unproven assumptions as fact I’d give him more credibility. Instead he comes across as robot without all the facts who is advocating for bad policy which is largely irreversible.
This site is called The Truth about Guns, not The Semi-Truth about Guns.
Keep on posting em, if the cry babies cant handle it then they can skip the article. Just wondering but what is his present citizenship, his blog said he was just outside of Rome. Rome, Italy, or is it a city in the US? If his is of a European view and up bringing, it might help to mention that in the article.
The postings of MikeB and any other “anti’s” should be not just welcomed, but encouraged. For them to win, we must be silenced. For us to win, though, we just have to keep them talking.
I for one appreciate that you allow an occasional anti-gunner post. Without it, we’d become blind to reality. I am a firm believer in guns, but I think we need tonne aware of other viewpoints. My only suggestion would be to splice in a short tidbit about types of comments that will be deleted at the end of each of his posts just as a reminder. Let’s keep it classy guys.
I think it’s important to avoid an echo chamber. Mike may say things I disagree with and he may use forms of logic I am unfamiliar with, but it’s important we allow for dissenting positions in any honest dialogue.
If Mike is the best representative for his position, let him play.
I’m all in favor of letting mikey post as many comments as he wants. It gives me something to make fun of, since most of his comments reveal that in a battle of wits, mikey is unarmed. Allowing him to post an article is another kettle of fish because it makes common cause with the enemy and damages the reputation of this blog with the gun community, as you well know.
While allowing such posts might stimulate conversation in the short term, in the long run nothing good can come of it. Running mikey’s screeds has already cost The Truth About Guns far too much in terms of credibility. Enough is enough.
If and only if you can get him to write an article that is fact based, rather than fantasy; if and only if you can get him to use logic rather than arguments based on emotional appeal only; if and only if you can get him to acknowledge error in his purportedly factual but actually quite imaginary background data, then keep him.
In other words, not just “NO” but “HELL NO!” to keeping him.
Reading his posts detracts from the sum of knowledge in the world. We are stupider for attempting to engage him. He has Peterson Syndrome. Fire him.
If you disallow contrary opinions then this site becomes The Half-Truth About Guns. Left unchecked, the discourse here would quickly become as intellectually inbred as the so-called “great thoughts” that are pronounced by gaggles of PhDs cloistered in university ivory towers. Pro-gun arguments would become as weak as the plot of an Ayn Rand novel.
I know it might come as a surprise to some of you, but in the real world there exist actual thinking and well intentioned people that oppose gun rights. Lots of ‘em. And they vote. In order for TTAG to be a credible persuasive voice in the fight to preserve individual unalienable rights, all sides of the debate must be presented.
So The Jewish Press should publish article by neo-Nazis so that all sides of the debate can be presented? I call bullshit.
Uh, we’re not talking about a handful of skinheads kooks committed to an ideology that is manifestly contrary to the moral values of the mainstream of the country. We’re talking about beliefs held by enough people to be considered mainstream. A January 2011 poll commissioned by CBS New/New York Times (random telephone survey of 1,036 people, 27% Republican, 34% Democrat, 38% Independent) found:
Should gun control laws be…?
More strict: 46%
Less strict: 13%
Keep as now: 38%
Ban on sale of all handguns?
Favor: 32%
Oppose: 65%
Nationwide ban on assault weapons?
Favor: 63% (note: even a majority of gun-owning households favor this (54%, 44% oppose))
Oppose: 34%
Ban on high capacity gun magazines?
Favor: 63%
Oppose: 34%
If you want to climb into an ideological bunker and form a circle with a bunch of guys that think the same way you do and pleasure yourself, be my guest. I would rather live in the real world.
So you’re saying that if a lot of people become Nazis, then and only then the Jewish Press should publish their articles. I call bullshit squared.
There ain’t no “bunker” here. Since you are a long-time reader and contributor, you know that for every two TTAG-ers, there are three opinions and they rarely converge. The fact that you and I, both 2A supporters, are having a heated disagreement makes my point for me.
What you perceive as my bunker mentality is merely my intolerance for lies and stupidity. As the rabbi has preached on more than one occasion, I try to stay away from stupid people saying stupid sh!t. But just so you know, I am absolutely NOT talking about you.
Peace, brother.
I think a just-as-important question would be: Why is there a Jewish Press at all?
And the more salient follow up:
Why is it OK for some special interest groups (in this example, Jews) to have platforms from which they can espouse their views, but not OK for other special interests (again, in this example, Neo Nazis) to disseminate their views?
C ‘mon Ralph, I know I don’t need to tell you the difference between neo-Nazis and [misguided] mainstream Americans who sincerely believe that gun control is a matter public safety.
Furthermore, “You like red guns and I like blue guns” is hardly wide diversity of opinion.
You won’t find a more conservative editorial page than that Investor’s Business Daily (www.investors.com/IBDEditorials), yet every day they post one ‘On The Left’ column where they feature such leftist luminaries as Richard Cohen (who I took to task on TTAG last year).
Reading opposing beliefs prevents wide-eyed, narrow-minded thinking. It’s good to have… even if it is nothing more than the fertilizer that causes your own beautiful ideas to bloom.
William, you can’t possibly think that our personal divide has anything to do with “blue gun/ red gun.” This is a fundamental issue. Besides, I was able to think critically when I was a preteen and I don’t need the proverbial turd in the punchbowl to hone my sense of taste.
I see no problem in publishing Mike’s responses, nor do I see an issue with publishing an article of his, but it must be coherent. Let’s face it, most arguments about guns are based, at least initially, on gut feelings, then there are certainly facts that come into play when making a case for a particular point. So, we should not look at it like the pro-gun side is immune from logical leaps. That said, RF, you must act as the editor, much like the editorial staff of a peer-reviewed journal, to assure that Mike’s article is worthy of discussion.
Nazis are a anachronism like the Klan, Neo-Nazis generally arent Nazis but white supremacists. But if they want to maintain the moral high ground, they should for the Palestinians.
You guys are passionate, but you do not persuade. All that talk about my arguments not making sense and all that, c’mon, it just ain’t true.
Truth being independent from demonstrable facts and reasoned analysis. In your opinion.
Reasoned analysis? MikeB? Coffee all over the place. Dammit, Robert! You owe me a keyboard.
mikey, you wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you on the . . . nose.
Wow, I almost said a bad thing about your nuts.
Mike,
I think that they make sense for someone making up one’s own mind about whether or not to carry a weapon or not. You don’t state, however, what you believe about my right to come to that conclusion myself for my own situation.
jbyrne, I think you’re nuts to own a gun and especially to carry one. But I don’t propose total civilian disarmament as a solution. I propose strict gun control laws which would certainly disqualify many who now have guns, but that’s a far cry from “banning all guns.”
I recognize that you have the right to own and even carry guns, “right” in the simple sense. Same way you have the right to own a TV. It’s a free country.
…the constitution doesn’t protect your right to own a television. It does, however, protect your right to own a gun.
And “bear”. Mikeb203000: “I think you’re nuts to [have opinions] and especially to [express] one. I propose strict [speech] laws which would disqualify [you or any that] now have [thoughts], but that’s a far cry from ‘banning all [opinions].”
Just doesn’t work, Mikey, does it?
LOL… what is particularly great about this is that opinions and ideas are pretty much the root of ALL violence and discrimination in the world… they must be dangerous!
“I propose strict gun control laws which would certainly disqualify many who now have guns, but that’s a far cry from “banning all guns.””
—–
EHHHHHNT! Bullshit. Remember this little gem?
“All right, I was exaggerating. If you guys suddenly cooperated with the common sense gun control laws that we propose and saw a tremendous decrease in gun violence, we would naturally want stricter laws in order to lower even more the remaining gun violence. Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go.”
That quote is the gift that keeps on giving.
Indeed. Perhaps Robert could find a way to have it attached to every post and submission made by MikeB.
Except that there is no correlation except possibly a negative one between lax gun control and violent crimes.
Your use of the colloquial term ‘nuts’ apparently means that you think it’s not rational to
own and carry guns. Not rational on what grounds?
– safety? Assuming you don’t decide to commit suicide, guns are quite safe. Just look at the latest stats from the NSSF and the associated TTAG article.
– Probability of needing it is low? That is a cost-benefit analysis everybody needs to make. Again, the fire extinguisher
analogy fits well here.
– Afraid you’ll use it when you shouldn’t? Well, do you have a pattern of using other weapons when you shouldn’t? Do you
routinely run down people with your car? Do you get in a lot of fist fights? If so then maybe you shouldn’t carry a gun.
From things you said, you sound a lot more violent than me, and I carry a gun.
You mention having been in many ‘unsavory’ places. These were decisions that I consider nuts. Tijuana? I’d never visit a
place like that. How is carrying a gun when I most likely won’t need it nuts but you going to dangerous places armed or
not is sane? Maybe you don’t consider yourself sane?
Does TTAG need to ape the MSM in order to maintain credibility? No.
Were you “wrong” to post opposing views? No.
Does Mikeb30200 sway? No.
Is it interesting to read yet another “reasonable man” anti-gun screed? No.
I think you should allow him to post. Various viewpoints and debate is what makes
this site unique and I believe successful. There are plenty of sites to go to if you just
want to be among the choir.
At least with Mike you have a guy that puts his opinions and himself out there on
a gun site where he knows he’s going to get ridiculed. How many of us debate gun
issues on gun-control sites? I disagree with him on a cellular level but I still hold
him in higher regard that someone that hides behind a curtain.
I made it quite clear at the time why I was leaving. A link in one of my posts was changed to something I most certainly did not link to. That example of how you treat your commenters is the straw that broke this camel’s back.
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
Sun-tzu
Chinese general & military strategist (~400 BC)
Not that Mikeb302000 is my enemy; he just has opinions which disagree with mine. What’s wrong with that? Nothing. The Armed Intelligentsia should read the postings of postings of people who disagree with them so that they can see the emotions which drive their arguments early enough to disarm them.
Sun-tzu wanted to keep his enemies close so he could kill them with greater efficiency, so the quote is inapposite.
Here’s a quote that I think is more appropriate: Lie down with dogs, rise up with fleas.
The answer to bad free speech is more free speech.
I don’t mind Mikeb302000 making his statements and comments. I respectfully disagree with him, but in doing so I celebrate our freedom in action.
While it would be nice if all citizens respected all enumerated rights, IMHO Mikeb302000 forces us to hone our message and makes us better prepared to face the same in public.
I accept that Mike may never change, but that is his choice. When I teach, I offer the paradigm shift. It is up to the student to make the change on their own.
I understand why you post anti articles from mainstream or well-known figures; they have the potential to influence more people and cause more damage, and thus are best to be familiar with and counter. And more times than not, they’re decently well-written and at least TRY to put in facts or stats, no matter how doctored or irrelevant they are.
But I don’t understand why, out of all the low-rent, intellectually bankrupt dime-a-dozen internet antis with no facts and no opinion more complicated than “I’m right because I said so,” you choose to publish mikey. There’s simply no point. It’s a waste of time and serves no one; he won’t be convinced, we won’t be convinced, and both sides end up preaching to their respective choirs.
TTAG should by no means stop publishing anti articles; one must know the enemy if one is to fight him. But there’s a difference between ignoring the enemy and choosing the right battles. Publish articles that at least attempt to be on the same factual, intellectual, and integrity level as this site.
Let Mike comment, and publish an occasional article from him as well. It’s all good. I think debate is healthy for the mind.
When you post editorials from a known anti-gunner without notifying the reader, you are misleading them.
In a debate the audience is made aware of what side each speaker is on. There is no such notification on Mike’s posts. As it stands his posts look like any other post on TTAG and people have already mistook his posts as a legitimate.
Why would you want to give Mike a platform here? He has a blog, there is no justification beyond a desire of Robert to generate traffic.
Robert, I’m sure you know what other gun bloggers are saying about you (summary: you and TTAG are a fraud). Shit like this does not make what they are saying look any less true.
(This comment will likely be deleted because it’s critical of TTAG adn Robert)
Adam, we’re cool. You’re free to call it like you see it about TTAG in this post.
If he follows the rules and presents arguments and actually discusses/debates about things then I would absolutely let him post, (i.e. not censor him). We have seen what purely nonconstructive posts look like from others. If his posts/comments initiate useful/real/interesting debate then they are constructive.
Also, I get absolutely sick of the same gun forum echo chamber crap. I’m sick of decades old in-bred opinions and debates and points of view repeated like dogma. The world is always changing, so why wouldn’t our ideas, our likes, our dislikes? The gun community is not a monolith, but the entire public debate seems to be dominated by a loud, stale, and singular line of thinking.
Tangent:
For example something I feel can be discussed candidly here and not elsewhere is the whole 2nd amendment thing… it seems the major interpretation we are supposed to believe in “the community” is that the 2nd is proclaiming a god given right to guns? I think that is ridiculous and frankly an under-compelling interpretation. It’s also pretty impossible to defend logically.
There is no such thing as a natural right other than if I’m stronger than you and can dominate you I guess I have a right to whatever I can take and hold against being taken…
In a civil and intelligent society we collectively AGREED that this animal kingdom crap is not in our best interest and unfair overall, and to remove it from our existence we collectively AGREED that we would not prevent people from using our ingenuity to create and acquire force equalizers.
2nd amendment is something we agreed on to remove discrimination in our society based on natural born size and strength. If I am born small I have the right to adequate defense against domination by someone bigger, which means a force equalizing technology.
Also with the second amendment we tend to ONLY talk about guns. I think that is ridiculous too. Arms are ANY weapon, and if employed defensively should be protected by the 2nd, but look at all of the bans on other decently effective arms… switchblades, billy clubs, daggers, etc (curiously all of the affordable arms and ones culturally preferred by whatever the current immigrant group was in town when the state and local laws were made…)
-D
I think mike’s post aren’t strong enough to merit posting, as even a mouth breathing 2nd amendment advocate could trash his arguments in short order.
Maybe find an anti-gun blogger who has even a small measure of intelligence, who could come up with points actually worth debating.
I think it’s consistent with the pursuit of “the truth” to air opposing viewpoints. In support of that goal, and to maintain editorial clarity, I suggest creating a separate category with which to tag such posts, maybe “Opposing Views” or simply “Anti.” Doing so might help mitigate some of the confusion and criticism that you’ll always invite by giving voice to the other side of the debate.
I don’t have time to read 70 comments, but I’m sure my opinions on this issue were posted by someone else above. So I won’t bother stating them again. I’ll just say that I’m on Mike’s side in this issue. (That’s probably the only issue I can agree with him about.) I’ll just add my votes to the ones above.
Should TTAG Post MikeB30200′s Writing? Yes.
So was I wrong to give the gun-grabber a main post? No
Iron sharpens iron. I think every once and a while stirring up the shit is a good thing. I am not offended that Robert tosses up the occasional Anti-Screed. I say “Hey, Free Pinata!”
I think there is great value in making solid pro-2nd amendment arguments. Having an Anti-Gunner show up for a sparring match strengthens the skills. I think we would be better off looking at it as an opportunity rather than an insult.
The problem is that by giving an anti-gunner the ability to post articles unabated by notification to the reader TTAG is legitimizing the anti-gunners views.
Furthermore, by letting Mike post editorials on TTAG the editors of TTAG, specifically Robert, have given their support (intended or not) to Mike and his views.
I don’t think TTAG can be categorized as a strictly pro-gun blog anymore. Clearly, based on Mike’s postings and on some of Robert’s comments in the past – TTAG’s editorial views are not completely pro-gun. Rather they occupy some murky space in the middle…
Speaking for myself, I don’t need someone to put shiny warning labels on blog posts telling me in what context to consider it.
The comment “can’t be categorized as a strictly pro-gun blog” is curious and ironic… Is there a difference between “pro-gun” and “strictly pro-gun”. If so, what is the distinction? What AUTHORITY or REGULATING body maintains these standard definitions that gun bloggers are apparently OBLIGATED to follow?
Is there some set of views one is obligated to have in order to be considered “pro-gun”? Must the “pro-gun” camp be homogenous in their views? Must the “anti-gun” camp be equal and opposite? More importantly, who gets to say who’s in or who’s out? Who are the LEADERS of the pro and anti camps?
These are (should be) ridiculous questions because that isn’t the way the real world is. If it was it would be a choice between one form of tyranny and another.
What we have here is much simpler. We have a bunch of folks with different opinions pissing at each other on the internet (which is fun, otherwise no one would do it). Worse, lots of them are all trying to be the pope and want to set the dogma according to their own personal opinions. Worse, they think if they get a bunch of people to agree with them then the minority doesn’t have a right to their own opinions or to call themselves whatever they want. Worse, they think they are doing it in the name of liberty and freedom.
Heinlein weeps,
-D
@Don
“Strictly” in the sense that while TTAG may support some traditionally pro-gun ideals, through their support of people like Mike they seemingly also support traditionally anti-gun ideals.
I know who Mike is, I know his shtick, but others may not. My suggestion of a notice that posts written by him (an other anti-gun people) is to help those who may not know and might find themselves confused by a site and editors who support concealed carry (for example) in one post that and then denounce it in another.
There are lots of reasons for giving someone the floor which have nothing to do with supporting their opinions, for example, stimulating debate, learning other points of view, etc. There is merit in interaction alone. In the past MikeB has even found common ground with us “gun nuts” which hopefully demonstrates something really important to him, that everyone has common ground and that his enemies aren’t the faceless monsters he was told we were. None of that means you need to agree with his point of view.
Regarding reading comprehension, each post has a little by-line. Each author has different tastes and views. I say it is the individual reader’s responsibility to figure out what is what. Readers don’t need someone to nanny for them. If they can’t figure out what is going on then that’s on them.
Also, “traditional” doesn’t necessarily mean good or right. What is most often considered “traditional” is the majority view from the past. Tyranny of the mob, except this time tyranny of a chronologically earlier mob. Arguing something is correct based on tradition is an argument from authority fallacy where the “earlier mob” is the purported authority. To invoke tradition as justification in an argument you would have to first empirically prove that “tradition” exists in the form that you have defined it as, and then why your “tradition” should be taken as an authority. Traditional views can inform your reasoning, you can espouse traditional views, but you can’t really use “traditional” as an argument to support a point in debate.
-D
@Don
Mike’s posts have no such byline. Just a link to his other posts and to his site.
Yes, there is a responsibility on the reader but there is also an editorial responsibility not to mislead readers.
False.
MikeB’s posts have bylines:
“Question of the Day [via Mikeb30200]: How Does a Gun Control Advocate Teach His Kid About Guns?
Posted on September 29, 2011 by Mikeb30200″
See:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/mikeb30200/question-of-the-day-can-the-average-ccw-holder-cope-with-a-dgu/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/09/mikeb30200/question-of-the-day-via-mikeb30200-how-does-a-gun-control-advocate-teach-his-kid-about-guns/
And at the end of his articles there is this statement/link:
[Click here for mikeb302000’s gun control blog]
Unless you have a really low opinion of the intelligence of your fellow gun enthusiasts, you must admit anyone who can read and has an index finger to click with can figure all of this out without parental guidance.
TTAG is a blog, all the information you need to form a judgement for yourself is linked on the article page. That’s the extent of editorial responsibility. Hand holding is not, and I wouldn’t expect most people on such a blog in the first place to want it to be.
-D
@Don
Point of clarification – Mike’s posts do not have the same author bio that is present on the bottom of every other authors post’s.
Why do you feel the need to defend this guy… you friends?
Only the regular contributors have a bio. At the bottom of MikeB’s TWO posts is this:
[Click here for mikeb302000’s gun control blog]
That is not hard to interpret.
I’m not defending him. I’m refuting your invalid arguments and false claims solely because I have a Penn and Teller like compulsion to do so.
MikeB seems like the controlled opposition with bipolar tendencies. One moment he wants to disarm us, the next he wants parenting advice.
If the guy wants to comment he will. But giving him publicity? Something smells fishy. I can understand defending unpopular viewpoints form a 1st Amendment perspective. Using him as a piñata to verbally beat is also amusing. But he is so easily refuted. Almost a straw man.
At the very least it’s a sales gimmick. Others think some shady shit happens here. Personally I think it’s both.
+10
I think he should be posted here. It is always interesting to see what the other side feels. He is probably a very good representation of the other side in that he doesn’t really know why he hates guns, he has no facts to support hi views, so he makes them up, it is all just a gut feeling. He reminds me of a few anti gun folks I have dealt with that say I hate guns nobody should have them. When I ask why they say ” I don’t know they just scare me” when I ask why again it’s “I don’t know they are just bad.” so they have no logic at all and can’t support their views. At least in Mikes case he uses some made up logic. I think it is very useful to hear the hair brained made up logic of these types of people in order to understand their thought process so we can tailor our argument to point out the holes in their logic. While you will never be able to change Mikes views or probably most of his kind’s, but knowing their argument may help us change a few. “The enemy you know is better than the one you don’t.”
One of the more appealing principles of your country is freedom of expression. The posts by somebody who doesn’t agree with your views on gun rights should be accepted as part of this fundamental freedom. Yes he should be allowed on this site.
I agree with Jim, just because we dont agree with what he has said doesnt mean that its no less important. He lives in this great nation of ours and he is allowed to speak his mind about the political and social issues currently going on in our country with out any fear of repercussion. Just because its not in line with what we believe doesnt mean that he needs to be thrown out, in fact I think he needs to stay for that reason alone. Who else is better to help us learn why the left and far left does what it does than someone speaking from the left? Guys if you dont like what someone is saying there is a very novel thing you can do these days, you can close the web page. The more you get caught up in it the more fuel you add to the fire. I say let him stay. If you loose a few users because of it, I am sure you will get a few more simply because you are allowing someone that has a different view than yourself voice his opinion.
@Ross and @Jim
Both of you are very confused. The First Amendment protects against government intrusions on free speech. It does not mean that anyone has let someone voice their opinion on a privately owned site.
Sure, “in the spirit of free speech,” “in the spirit of the debate” are all nice excuses bu the way TTAG is doing it smacks of other motives.
So what you are saying is because you disagree with him he should not have a voice in this? The owners of this site knew that he was leaning in a different direction. I think its good for people to look at other views, it allows people to be at least open minded.
Oh, for pete’s sake – he [Mike] has his own website, he was allowed to comment here (which I have no issue with). One thing Mike is not lacking is his “own voice” in this.
Again, I don’t necessarily have an issue with TTAG letting him post editorials here. I do have an issue with the way it’s being done.
Besides – Mike is a former (illegal) gun owner, and an admitted criminal, who has stated that he wants the complete and total disarmament of civilians. He wanders pro-gun blogs to spew his (often schizophrenic) views.
There is not much I want to hear from him.
I’ve been trying to figure why intelligent-sounding people react so strongly to me and my writing. It suddenly hit me that out a a couple hundred comments on this post and the DGU one, very few guys have offered their own experiences with whether they’ve ever needed to use their gun to save the day.
This must be terribly embarrassing to some of you, the result being some nastiness of comment. I call it nasty, even though I appreciate that Robert keeps you guys on a short leash. You conceal your hostility behind a thin veneer of gentility, “Mike doesn’t write well,” or “Mike has poor logic,” or “I wouldn’t mind if you’d only get an anti-gunner who could present the argument better.”
I say those of you who have been making those remarks are full of it. You’re the ones who are so insecure that what I write shakes you up because you see there’s something to it.
That’s a remarkably soft-headed analysis, even by your standards, Mike. Talk about hiding hostilities. Somebody might get offended…if they could stop giggling at the silliness of it all…
JSG
(second time trying this post, first one dropped down the black hole, hope it doesn’t show back up and render me redundant)
Obviously, Mike’s first amendment rights do not imply any kind of a duty on the part of TTAG to provide him with a forum. That would be absurd.
However, to allowing him to contribute *does* indicate to any fence-sitters who stumble across the site that TTAG values the first amendment as much as the second. It also indicates that we are willing to be friendly to people who disagree with us.
Moreover, allowing him to contribute educates *us*. It allows us to see how we are perceived by people who are not like us.
We have guns. That makes us -potentially- very frightening to people who do not have guns. It is very important for us to understand what they think about us, and it is important for them to understand that we harbor no hostility toward them or anyone else.
Amen to that: “It is very important for us to understand what they think about us, and it is important for them to understand that we harbor no hostility toward them or anyone else.”
Following that logic, there shouldnt be any posts here about private establishments which ban guns. But I don’t see you complaining about those posts.
Recurrent through this article’s comments is a sideways accusation that there is some ulterior motive, shady business, or grand design to this blog. I am legitimately curious, could someone:
1) flatly STATE what they think this ulterior motive, shady business or grand design IS,
2) justify it with a reasonable argument and maybe even
3) point to some evidence of it…
(Pending some big connect-the-dots moment I have been content to assume that the purpose of this blog is so people can write read articles about gun stuff, internet-argue about related trifles in comments, and make some money off of banner advertising for the owner… i.e. standard blog stuff…)
Occam’s Razor?
-D
@Don
There is some speculation that Robert – the originator of TTAG – is not truly pro-gun, but rather pro-gun because it’s convenient and potentially profitable for him to be.
The evidence for this is circumstantial but as I see it it’s this:
He [Robert] publishes vehemently anti-gun posts under the guise of satire; at least one of these posts has been mistaken as truly anti-gun and used by an anti-gun blogger.
Robert has published wavering opinions on the issue of training and whether it should be required to own a gun/cc.
Robert has stated that you are an irresponsible gun owner if you do not keep your guns locked in a fort knox grade safe. He has further stated (or at lest eluded to the idea) that if someone steals your guns and commits a crime with them, you are responsible for the criminals actions.
His IGO of the day posts are often misplaced and often have an anti-slant to them.
Robert/TTAG have had issues with borrowing content from other gun blogs without permission. In at least one case Robert used a graphic from wallsofthecity.net which he misrepresented.
Some have speculated that Mike and Robert are one-in-the-same, or at least in cahoots.
Some (me included) have had comments critical of Robert/TTAG deleted with little explanation as to why (other than “because I can”). This is fine, it’s Robert’s site, but when you run under the banner of truth and openness it feels a little slimy when you see legitimate issues being deleted.
There is more too.
I’m not saying any of this is true, certainly some of it is and easy to verify. Also take a look at wallsofthecity.net where several incidences related to TTAG and Robert have been documented/linked to.
(this comment will probably be deleted)
Adam, I said you free to rip me/us a new asshole in this post and I meant it. To answer your points . . .
1. I can’t help it if some readers don’t “get” satire. Other than not writing it or putting the word SATIRE nearby, both of which spoil the fun.
2. My opinion on training has remained consistent: I believe armed citizens should get as much [high quality] training as possible. I believe no American should have to receive training to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. No mandatory training. Period.
3. IMHO a gun belongs in a safe or on your hip. A Fort Knox grade safe is great, but if you cannot afford one or if it’s inconvenient (a Browning box isn’t the best bedside companion), a small gun safe is fine. In fact, I’ve reviewed several, one in glowing terms.
4. We should all take responsibility for our actions as gun owners. If you leave your gun somewhere where it can be easily stolen, you’re at least partially morally responsible for what happens afterwards. Of course, criminals are ultimately, legally responsible for their own actions.
5. Our Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day posts are what they are. If we as gun right advocates do not advocate for safe gun handling by pointing out mistakes, if we pretend that they do not occur, it hurts our credibility. YMMV.
6. We don’t “borrow” content. We blog it under Fair Use provisions. This includes graphics, photos, charts and text. We credit content back to its originator and restrict the amount of material republished. In one case, a TTAG writer scraped an entire article by another blogger. That was wrong. We apologize and fixed the post.
7. I am not Mike. Mike is not me. We do not share the same views on gun rights or gun control. At all.
8. I edit comments and delete them as well. In most cases, I email the author. In some I don’t. I edit for flaming and radical digressions (one of which inspired this post). I do not edit based on a writer’s views and/or bias. I do the best I can to create a safe place for vigorous debate and I respond to emails ([email protected]).
Fair enough?
Regarding point #8: I think it’s generally accepted practice to edit or delete comments that violate user policies, however I think it is better handled when attribution is included. For instance, the simple tag [this comment edited for flaming; explicative; racial epithet; whatever-admin] or [deleted for policy violation-admin] would allow you full control of comment policy while keeping editorial actions above board. Particularly editing a comment for content without attribution strikes many as disingenuous and censoring.
JSG
Agreed. That’s what I’ll do from now on. The only potential problem: commentators can continue to edit their comment after I edit it. For a while. So they can repost and edit my edit.
I feel like there may be some web programming solution to this. I don’t know much abut web programming, but there should be some way for you to lock a comment after you edit it?
-D
True, but editing to get around site policies would be a violation of site policies, yes? And you could then take the discussion offline via email to sort the situation. Users only have 15 minutes to edit, so there’s a limited amount of damage they can do. And I think the value of above board comment moderation trumps the 15 minute hassle window.
Also, maybe Don’s right and there’s a software function available.
Either way, thanks for considering an alternate solution, I think it might help.
JSG
Good thing I’m home with a fever today. I think for each point you bring up there is a much more logical explanation/reason than some nefarious anti-gun plot.
“There is some speculation that Robert – the originator of TTAG – is not truly pro-gun, but rather pro-gun because it’s convenient and potentially profitable for him to be.”
If the articles are entertaining and informative, his motive is irrelevant to me.
“The evidence for this is circumstantial but as I see it it’s this:”
Already off to a bad start.
“He [Robert] publishes vehemently anti-gun posts under the guise of satire; at least one of these posts has been mistaken as truly anti-gun and used by an anti-gun blogger.”
Or maybe it is satire. Again if someone can’t click around and figure out what is what that’s their personal failing.
“Robert has published wavering opinions on the issue of training and whether it should be required to own a gun/cc.”
Maybe he has a wavering/changing opinion on this. I have wavering/changing opinions on this. I know lots of people at my club who have wavering/changing opinions on this.
“Robert has stated that you are an irresponsible gun owner if you do not keep your guns locked in a fort knox grade safe. He has further stated (or at lest eluded to the idea) that if someone steals your guns and commits a crime with them, you are responsible for the criminals actions.”
On the first point, if you don’t try to keep your stuff from getting stolen you are irresponsible, gun owner or not. “fort knox grade safe” sounds like an exaggeration of his claims. Second point, “eluded” is interpretative and as I am essentially going through the exercise of refuting wild conspiracy theories, I don’t know if I believe your interpretation. Even if this is his view, that if your stuff gets stolen and is used in a crime bla bla, I don’t care. I disagree, but I don’t really care that much what all of the blog owner’s particular views are and I don’t have to agree with them to read the site or even enjoy it.
“His IGO of the day posts are often misplaced and often have an anti-slant to them.”
Some gun owners are idiots. Roughly in the same proportion as non gun owner idiots. Some PEOPLE are idiots. These posts would have an anti-gun slant only if you think it is valid to generalize all gun owners based on the actions of a few. If anyone used these posts as anti-gun arguments it should be very simple for any pro-gunner to refute the false generalization. Actually, I think the IGOTD has a gun safety slant, which is what the debate is always about in the comment section afterwards.
“Robert/TTAG have had issues with borrowing content from other gun blogs without permission. In at least one case Robert used a graphic from wallsofthecity.net which he misrepresented.”
This has nothing to do with a nefarious sheep in wolf’s clothing plot against guns. This has to do with not liking the author… which is what I think this is all really about. Also, people stealing content on the internet… oh no. If it was more than “in at least one case” then it would suggest something about him. If it was in one case, or even a few, it may mean he forgot to link before he clicked his post button.
“Some have speculated that Mike and Robert are one-in-the-same, or at least in cahoots.”
This is hilarious. If they were one in the same or in cahoots, look at the quality of MikeB’s blog and then look at this one? If true the MikeB persona would easily be the straw man, and if that was the case, that would be in pro-gun interests.
“Some (me included) have had comments critical of Robert/TTAG deleted with little explanation as to why (other than “because I can”). This is fine, it’s Robert’s site, but when you run under the banner of truth and openness it feels a little slimy when you see legitimate issues being deleted.”
My observation is he deletes comments complaining about him or the blog when they are on regular articles that aren’t related to the topic of “the blog”. He lets everyone bash away on posts like this which are about “the blog”. I’ve seen several of your posts that end with something like “Robert will delete this”… emphasis on “I’ve seen” as in “they’re not deleted. Also, I’ve had comment’s deleted. Someone was talking about seeing a banner add which was sexual in nature (cookie issue) and I posted a link to software which hides banner ads. He deleted that one, and you know how I feel about that? If I had advertisers I’d delete it too. So who cares.
“There is more too.”
Show us.
“I’m not saying any of this is true, certainly some of it is and easy to verify. Also take a look at wallsofthecity.net where several incidences related to TTAG and Robert have been documented/linked to.”
If you aren’t saying any of this is true then why are you saying it?
“(this comment will probably be deleted)”
Probably not.
@Robert @Don
Just so it’s clear – Don asked what the speculation was. While I agree that publishing the work of an anti-gun loon without notice looks bad, I do not necessarily agree with the points of controversy I listed. I was simply relaying what I know of the controversy surrounding Robert/TTAG.
Robert can run the site how he sees fit, as I run my site how I see fit. That said, some things that occur do look… bad. Just sayin’.
I do not think that it is necessary to give Mike a platform here. He has a blog – if there is something that Mike writes that is worth noting here than one of TTAG’s editors can write a post referencing, giving relevant commentary.
Again, to give Mike (or anyone) a platform, the way it has been done, only servers to legitimize his views.
Besides – Mike is also not all that interesting. His arguments are old, easily refuted, and he’s hostel. His unreferenced, unverifiable, anecdotal writing is not up to the standards that TTAG has set; in my opinion. If you want an opposing view, fine, but get someone who’s better at it.
Since you do not NECESSARILY agree with the points of controversy you listed that could mean you agree with none of them, all of them, or some of them.
I think you do agree with the controversy stuff regarding the sheep in wolf’s clothing issue based on:
“I don’t think TTAG can be categorized as a strictly pro-gun blog anymore. Clearly, based on Mike’s postings and on some of Robert’s comments in the past – TTAG’s editorial views are not completely pro-gun. Rather they occupy some murky space in the middle…”
“Sure, “in the spirit of free speech,” “in the spirit of the debate” are all nice excuses but the way TTAG is doing it smacks of other motives.”
Also you seem to agree with the controversy around the way the blog comments are run:
“(This comment will likely be deleted because it’s critical of TTAG and Robert)”
“(this comment will probably be deleted)”
I think that first one suggests something about what you believe Robert’s character to be like…
Your other major complaint is editorial responsibilities (we’ve already discussed in these comments) that MikeB’s posts should have a by-line (alas, they do) and that since he is a dissenting view some indication of such should be made (alas, there is, as there is a note and link referring to his gun control blog at the end of both his articles)
So that covers… all of them…
Am I leaping to conclusions here? If so, which of the points of controversy you listed do you believe and which are you just relaying?
Also,
Your remaining concern is that MikeB’s posting here somehow legitimizes his view… (we have discussed this topic in these comments as well). There are lots of reasons for giving someone the floor which have nothing to do with supporting their opinions, for example, stimulating debate, learning other points of view, counterexample, etc.
The argument that that giving forum to a view is equal to legitimizing the view is a false equivalency fallacy. There are many times when you give the floor to a view for illustrative purposes, as counterexample, which is what I think is the most likely reason for MikeB getting posted.
-D
@Don
I’m not the enemy, so I’m confused as to why you feel the need to pick apart my comments.
That said my verbiage (my use of the word “necessarily”) might mean that I find some points I listed before valid, or it may not.
At the very least, as I’ve already said, some of the things that are done here, look bad and do help to validate some of the points I listed.
As far as editorial responsibility – I pointed out that Mike does not have a author bio on the end of his posts as other authors here do… maybe Robert just hasn’t gotten to it (I’ve noticed some new authors don’t have one either, so…).
As for TTAG being a pro-gun site – if they allow people like Mike to write here without denouncing his views before hand (“the views of this author do not necessarily reflect the opinions of TTAG”) then yes, it makes it, at least look like, TTAG supports his views.
If TTAG supports the views of someone like Mike – who I would say is at the extreme end of anti-gun – then TTAG cannot be seen as a pro-gun site. At best it can be seen as an aggregator of opinions on guns. That, might very well be Robert’s intention… I don’t know.
1. Because from your blog and other comments it seems that you are on most other topics an unusually rational dude who is extremely apt at logical reasoning. However that comes with the issue that sound logic can stem from false initial assumptions, which leads to false results which look like they have logical support. Convincing sounding false results is more damaging than ridiculous false results in that they can (and do) inflate controversy to absurd levels much faster. These particular controversies being inflated to absurd levels would damage this website that I like to read, and therefore it is in my selfish best interest to try to dismantle logical sounding but false theories.
2. Yes. Necessarily. All, some, or none. My guess is you already know all about everything in 1 due to the aptness at logical reasoning, so I think if you didn’t truly believe all or most you wouldn’t have even mentioned them.
3. Some things look bad but aren’t. Everyone always assumes malice as the motivation behind every event, but in reality there is usually a more mundane reason for the event. Usually a mistake. I’m pretty sure social psychologists study this phenomenon. People whose opinion is worth anything rate people on how they fix mistakes or how they move forward having learned something, not based on the mistake itself. If a person sees something that looks bad and doesn’t care to determine if it actually is malice or mistake, then their opinions to me at least aren’t worth anything … i.e. I don’t care what they think. They don’t matter.
4. Covered. Except it’s not just new authors. Infrequent authors do not have bios either.
5. The “the views of this author do not necessarily reflect the opinions of TTAG” is lawyer CYA stuff that entities like CBS with super diverse and mass audiences use because they are afraid of people who can’t think for themselves, leap to inane conclusions, or can’t figure out what goes with what without a nanny to help them. It also means nothing because “necessarily”. That is why it is good lawyer CYA stuff. I don’t think this market needs that. MikeB’s posts both have message about his “gun control blog” at the end. This is all the labeling and denouncement that is needed or appropriate. More would be the editor pre-flaming an author. That would be irresponsible and small… a bad editor. I once was helping with technology for blind people. The Secretary of the National Institute for the Blind told me that sometimes good technology that will help 90% of people never gets adopted because there will be some person out there that it doesn’t help, and people take that as proof that it’s not good enough technology. He told me “No matter what enabling technology you create, I can find you someone so disabled that they can’t use it.” I’d like to invoke that idea here. “No matter how obvious you make something there will be some blog reader so disabled they can’t interpret it.”
6. You do (should) know. Robert has stated explicitly where he stands. Even if he didn’t you could easily figure it out from the context of all of the blog posts on here. If someone else doesn’t get it and can’t get it… well “No matter how obvious you make something there will be some blog reader so disabled they can’t interpret it.”
@Don
I gave you the list of issues because *you asked for them*.
Do I find some of them to be valid – yes; *on the surface* some of them *seem* to hold water because of things that have been done here.
Key words/phrases in the previous sentence: some, on the surface
Everything else is just a matter of opinion.
Also, the notice example I gave was just that *an example*. You could phrase it a hundred different ways.
Has anyone been to Mikes blog? Have you noticed that your comments are not allowed until they are approved by him? I am glad we here are free to post until the post is deemed unworthy unlike Mike you are only free to post if your post is deemed worthy. It is also interesting to not that he has far more detractors on his sight than than there are here. If you thought his posts here were comical and not well thought out I would highly recommend his blog for some more mind blowing backwords logic.
I tried commenting and was berated, condescended to and told to “F*ck of and go shoot myself”. I’m happy that this is a rational and civilized forum where discussion and debate can take place.
I’m going to fall down on the side of “Mike doesn’t say anything interesting enough to waste my time with” although I support the idea of posting intelligent and critical contrasting views. Mike simply doesn’t meet the standard, so I generally ignore him.
The more disturbing thing to me: The number of incidents of user comments being edited or changed by the site staff. This is showing up in a number of other places in the gun blogosphere and it has seriously tarnished this site’s reputation. There are other complaints out there, some of them about editorial decisions some of them about etiquette. These are to be expected, I suppose, any new endeavor is going to stumble now and again, and you’ll never get everyone to agree on how you handle original content. But editing user comments (and doing so without attribution is particularly egregious) is abusive of the trust users place in the site. And damaging. I hope you’ll reconsider these actions and stop.
JSG
I find that debating issues with reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-informed people is a terrific way to hone your debating skills, your arguments and your thoughts on the subject, even if the person you are debating with is manifestly incorrect (which if they are taking a position opposed to mine they obviously are :P).
Mikey and Magoo makes asses of themselves, and by proxy all anti gunners, every time they post. Like with Mikes last post. Did anyone here read that and go “Ya know, he makes a really good point. I’m gonna stop carrying now.” No. He made a complete moron of himself and everyone who read that baseless rant had their beliefs reaffirmed that anti gunners are over emotional ‘utopia’ seekers whose ideals aren’t based in reality. With displays like that, Mikey and his ilk do a lot more to help our cause than they do to hurt it. I suspect that’s why they’re encouraged to post. I say let em stay.
No. Don’t. Feed. The. Troll.
Maybe if he wrote something that merited posting, but he doesn’t. He doesn’t use logic, he does not welcome debate as evidenced on his own blog, he delves into antagonism, lacks respect for those who disagree with him, and isn’t an engaging writer. There should be standards to posts, and they shouldn’t be dropped just to have differing opinions. Having him up here is a sick twisted kind of affirmative action.
I support the First Amendment so Mike is okay to blog here. I did not say I agree with him. I just defend his right to free speech.
@Tom
This is not a free speech issue.
it is
yeah, check out this link about internet censorship:
http://awaitinginspiration.com/2011/11/stop-internet-censorship/
A little agitation makes for a more flavorful stew.
If someone crapped in the stew, it would still add a flavor.
I didn’t say it had to taste good. And who knows maybe logic may breach his emotional shields and he’ll actually come over to the dark side.
I say welcome to comment, not to post. He has his own site and if his work is put up here, it is only advertising for him. I’ve checked out his site and he is plenty busy there. No need for it here.
If you really want to give voice to anti-gun views, you should find someone who can make an intelligent argument. I hope you wouldn’t allow your “staff” to post things as ill-thought-out as what Mike posts. Why do you allow him to bring your brand down?
You find me someone with an intelligent anti-gun argument.
I’m for Mikey posting comments.
I am against him writing articles. I am against it for a few reasons:
He has made such an ass out of himself as a trollish commentator (obviously my opinion – YMMV) that he couldn’t make a decent point here because no one wants to listen.
It does lend credence to his views and could be confusing to people who are actually looking for the truth about guns
I think the random and disjointed rambling was obvious to all.
I am not for the echo chamber thing people keep posting about. To avoid this, I think articles could be solicited or posted with permission from anti-gunners that can write a decent article and have something besides made up stats that he has never supported that I have seen.
Relegate Mikey to the comments. If opposing views are needed, get them from someone that writes well.
I don’t routinely comment on articles, but I do visit TTAG regularly. I have to say that on this subject I tend to agree with Don. One of the first times I visited TTAG was when MikeB’s post on teaching his kid was up front. That caused me to follow the link to his blog, thinking that I might find some thoughtful discourse. Once there, I was disappointed to find the same tired stereotypes and gratuitous anti-gun owner bigotry; but that in and of itself was a worthwhile learning experience.
Part of what I like about TTAG is that it does cover a fairly broad spectrum of attitudes and isn’t just a virtual group of folks who all think the same way sitting around in a circle telling each other how smart they are and how foolish anyone who disagrees with them is. A diversity of viewpoints is more challenging and interesting. I’m with Don on this one.
Guys –
This is Mikey’s way of getting his jollies. It is his homo-erotic fantasy and he is probably sitting in front of his screen with a bag of Cheetos, giggling to the reactions he gets out jerking your chain.
Yes he has his own little blog. But he is on the losing side of the issue. Just like the mad ravings of Joan and Bladr, they are fighting a retreating action towards a cliff.
• We prevailed in two SCOTUS cases enshrining the Right to keep and bear arms as an individual right.
• Obama has largely abandon the issue and is left nibbling around the edges. And when he does, we pass a approp rider killing off the new EO or reg.
• Obama is looking to be a one termer and with his defeat, will cement the RKBA as an individual right.
• We are winning the hearts and minds of the public. Gallop and PEW polling show this. The other side is whining about it. And so they have to resort to ad hominem attacks against NRA board members, and gun owner’s mentality in general of gun owners and their ability to handle a DGU etc.
• A clear majority of the US Senate will not pass his beloved UN small arms treaty.
So from his little perch across the pond, he can write, whine and cast insults, because that is all he has. And for his mental masturbation amusement, he tries to goad our side into all kinds of keyboard time for his witless jousts.
Should he be allowed to post here? That is up to Robert. I think it’s fun to read his screeds just to see the absolute frustration with the global gun banners not getting their way and being frustrated by it. Being even more frustrated that we are unbending and Obama can’t get up the sack to take up their cause.
They can’t argue the Consitutional implications, so they have to try and argue the regulatory side of things. Then it goes to since not every gun owner/CCW permitee is 100% pure we therefore need to do XX and they can’t be trusted to make decisions under stress in a DGU. And then proceed to try and psychoanalyze the average gun owner as a way of showing why we should just submit to the government taking care of us that we mere mortals are incapable.
And to answer your question Mike, yes I have used a gun for self defense. Like most cases, I have not had to shoot someone. It goes to the nature of the cowards that try to prey upon people. They try to take on people who they perceive to be weaker. Either by their strength in numbers or that they have a weapon and think they are prepared to do violence to achieve their means.
But to me, my firearms are like a fire extinguisher on my house or an insurance policy on my car. I hope I don’t need them, but they are there in case I do.
I do not subscribe to the European notion of self defense, http://www.pagunblog.com/2011/12/07/european-notions-of-self-defense/.
I will be responsible for my and my family’s safety, from attackers or natural disasters, I am not going to rely on the government to protect me or keep me and my family safe at all times, unless it is from 80 year old woman trying to board an airplane.
I don’t mind MikeB posting comments or having an article posted. From past experience, I know to just move on past it. I have enough stress in my life I don’t need for him to add to that.
I don’t mind the occasional post by Mike – the ones about parenting are a great addition to the site. An occasional anti post if well reasoned and somewhat new isn’t bad either as it allows an insight into the current strategy of the opposition.
That being said, if I ever see anything from Laci the Dog or Dog Gone I will never return.
Let him post some more, it’s good to know what we’re up against.
Of course it’s a good idea. Only mental cowards can’t handle having someone challenging their positions from time to time.
Comments are closed.