Armed and Safe started the ball rolling.
Then I got into it here.
At which point, everybody's favorite "3-percenter" Mike Vanderboegh weighed in.
The recipients of Brother Mike' pointed wisdom have responded, and Mindful Musings has posted them, along with Mike's intertwined responses to:
Reporter Howard Witt
and
Professor Ben Agger
Go and read both. I'll still be here.
Thing is, part of the good professor's explanation is his quote has been taken out of context. His complete views have not been explained.
It looks like at least one other paper suffers from the same contextual limitations:
Poor guy just can't get fairly represented in the media...Ben Agger said he’s concerned, though, about what is prompting fear in gun owners.
"What is the underlying motivation . . . to buy assault weapons?" asked Agger, a sociology and humanities professor at the University of Texas at Arlington who wrote There Is a Gunman on Campus: Tragedy and Terror at Virginia Tech. "Part of me worries this is an expression of the need for people who disagree with Obama to arm themselves because they entertain the thought that there could be armed conflict or possibly race war."
But in fairness, it's not just racism being cited. There's also a "crisis in masculinity" egged on by "a lot of pro-gun sites that present guns as necessary tokens of hypermasculinity and allow people to buy weapons and ammunition." There's bemoaning about "respond[ing] to violence with violence," and "the fact that in many states there are laws being debated about letting students and teachers carry concealed weapons on campus testifies to the power of the NRA and right-wing gun groups. Rather, we need serious discussions of what causes school shootings and how to deal with potential problems, rather than unleashing an army of would-be Rambos and vigilantes."
Guess who the editor of this "academic journal" is? Hint: He said his views on the Second Amendment might surprise me.
Now to be fair, I've posted guest columns on WarOnGuns I don't completely agree with, so I'd invite the good professor to tell us just what those views are, and in detail--except I've been dismissed and ordered never to darken his inbox again.
Pity. I've always so loved surprises.
[Supporting information via Cris C and Scott W]
9 comments:
Not surprising. It is the modus operandi of the intelligentsia to cut off communication when they realize their argument has been thoroughly debunked by a member of the peasantry.
And the thing that these idiots never quite understand is that the ultimate force of evil in the minds of us Thomas Jefferson types is embodied in the very 'white' Nazi and Bolshevik movements.
Race is nothing more than a red herring and a means of attempting to discredit our argument,
I hope this isn't the wrong time to bring this up, but the NRA likely agrees with the Professor regarding defenselessness zones in schools.
It is actually legal for a Citizen to arrest someone he believes is in the act of committing a crime, where "arrest" means stopping the commission of the crime. Or at least it used to be.
The problems arise when seizing a suspect believed to be a perpetrator of some crime in the past--such as arresting the nearest pistol permit holder instead of the armed, violent criminal who is still murdering people elsewhere on the campus. Or the administration and faculty handing down an extra-legal guilty verdict and punishment in an alleged rape case.
"Part of me worries this is an expression of the need for people who disagree with Obama to arm themselves because they entertain the thought that there could be armed conflict or possibly race war."
ok, but part of me believes in no king but jesus. "part of me worries" makes it sound like a personal problem.
correction: it sounds like a personal problem that can be crafted into a request for funding, to study the "problem" he's worried that everyone else might have.
so where's the science? you go to one or two gun stores and meet one or two racist people? collect more data. starting with an op-ed and attracting MBV is gonna kill your project before it ever started. :)
[quote]
to arm themselves because they entertain the thought that there could be armed conflict or possibly race war."
[/quote]
Mostly if "race war" means the race of "only ones." Others may have different motives, of course.
And, damned straight we are afraid of this war, as any sane person should be. But if that's what it takes to defend ourselves, we will meet them at least half way there.
I think that by arming ourselves, we may actually be reducing the chance of a "race war" (or any other kind of war) beginning. Perhaps those who were counting on a war to implement their agenda are becoming embittered as they see victory snatched from their hands, before the first shot is even fired.
The name on that 'academic list' that got my attention is Doug Kellner, who is a lefty whose activities date back to the Nam era.
I'm sure the whole lot of them is just aching for some Reasoned Discourse.
Having been a citizen of Texas all my life, anytime I hear of a place that begins with "university of Texas at..." I instantly know that we are talking about "only ones" and go on about my busines.
There's bemoaning about "respond[ing] to violence with violence . . . "
I guess responding with tears would be better?
Post a Comment