Can't wait to get me one of those full-autos available without background checks!
A retired criminology professor has put out his own press release announcing his anti-gun blog. While there's nothing noteworthy about that, his hawking a self-published book caught my eye.
Go to the Amazon link and then click on the "Look Inside" option. If you read the first few pages, it's obvious he has a "gunman" shooting up a thinly-disguised NRA headquarters, replete with Wayne LaPierre clone "William LaPlante."
Naturally, the gunman sprays "automatic gunfire" from an AK-47, and naturally, the intrepid hero is an "Authorized Journalist" who asks LaPlante:
Now that you've seen first hand the terrible damage from assault rifles, aren't you willing to back legislation to ban them?"In other words, this author is either ignorant or a liar. And he published a book that's based on a demonstrably false premise.
Then there's this whole business about shooting up NRA HQ while innocents soil themselves--and the author justifies it using a hospital massacre to blame NRA, or what it ostensibly represents--you know, you and me.
Pretty warped fantasy, but pretty revealing about what makes this guy tick.
Say, do you think if I take his lead and write a similar fictitious piece about somebody violently raiding, say, Grady Campaign headquarters with a machete--to prove that if they'd had guns they could have repelled him--that it might get some folks upset? Not that I would. That doesn't have near the dramatic potential of taking a steamroller to one of those anti-gun "Lie-Ins"...
Hey, he started it...
8 comments:
Yes, the "documentary novel" as the author calls it, is a clear case of projection, about as clear as I've seen in some time.
Further, the guy is a professor of sociology, the other non-science at most universities today, the other being departments of education.
A useless professor writes a childish book that tells us what he'd like to do. Shoot up property and dance in the blood of the victims of crime.
The guy needs help, first to come to grips with his worthless profession, and second, to curb his tendency towards violence against others.
Wrote a review. I was nice; I only called Green "clueless" and explained why.
From Green's Blogsite:
"His point of view matured from forty years of teaching his subject. What he knows about guns also comes from his experience of five years in the United States Marine Corps in World WW II."
Apparently Green spent his forty years in the classroom. On the other hand, my forty plus years of on-the-street work in the criminal justice arena developed my point of view in a totally opposite direction.
[W3]
His Marine background does not reflect the Corps. I take great pride that my uncle, a retired Marine col. who is interred at Arlington and was a Navy Cross recipient for his heroism at Guadalcanal, used to send me news clippings in his later years to help with my work. My Dad was a USMC captain on Guam who turned 21 on Pearl Harbor day. My older brother is a retired USMC colonel.
We should recall that one of the biggest enemies of rkba was "Republican" John Chaffee, USMC, Korea, Lee Harvey Oswald was also a Marine, and another great war hero before he turned to the dark side was a guy by the name of Benedict Arnold. The Corps has produced great men we owe an unpayable debt to, but no human institution produces perfection across the board.
"Guns on Trial" is Marxist propaganda that rationalizes criminal violence and the destruction of freedom.
I wonder who those blowjob reviews came from?
Because it is apparent to me that nobody, ever, has ever read this shit.
I left the following comment on his blog in response to his article "The Right To Bear Arms" but noticed it was "awaiting moderation" so I am posting it here just in case my comment doesn't survive moderation.
http://gungimmickry.com/2010/12/the-right-to-bear-arms/
My Comment:
The right being enumerated in the Second Amendment is the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” not some vague idea about a militia or its necessity to ensure a free state. A State where only the Military (militia) and only the police (a form of militia) have a right to arms, all under the control of the state oligarchy, is not a free state, though because such a State reserves exclusively for itself the use of arms it would certainly be “free” to do as it pleased regarding its “citizens.” The whole idea behind the U. S. Constitution and the attached amendments, the Bill of Rights, is that the PEOPLE would be a FREE PEOPLE, not a people subject to the whims of a government even if that government arose out of the bedrock of the Constitution.
As I suspected might happen, my comment left in response to Edward Green's article "The Right To Bear Arms" on his blog GunGimmickry.com has failed to survive "moderation" which should indicate to all that Edward Green brooks no dissent.
Post a Comment