There are times when stupidity has its uses. I can’t think of them right now, but there must be times. This is to alert you that stupid can also be abused. Take the example of (now) presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg. Here is something from 2014:
I think having a gun at home when you have children is really dumb. Kids —, we all went and tried to figure out what was in the top shelf of their parents closet. And we looked in mommy’s handbag. Under the bed. Kids are inquisitive.
That did not go over very well in a number of respects. First of all, if you want people to vote for you you don’t start out calling them stupid. Obviously candidate Bloomberg was not thinking very far ahead five years ago. Now he needs to. That notwithstanding, it is stupid to have a gun in the house. However, do not attempt to convince some of my conservative Facebook friends. Cody posted the above meme, and a lively discussion ensued. Here are some excerpts. Names have been abbreviated.
November 30 at 4:26 PM ·
Says a man with armed body guards and all the money in the world. I have nothing against, other than disagreeing on policy, with any of the Democratic candidates… with one exception. This man is a terrifying ego manic. (yes, prepare for the standard anti- Trump statements).
Goodness you could not pay me a million dollars to vote for this man. (Maybe 3 million would do it though…
Jerry: It sounds like Bloomberg is the one who’s pretty stupid.
Rob: Ironic isn’t it
Cody: It’s as if the Democratic Party said… Hold My Beer, we can find a bigger a hole.
It’s starting to appear there is not a Democrat in the bunch. We are about to see some archetypal gun rights rhetoric.
John: I’m definitely smarter than *YOU* are, Michael! And you aren’t getting my guns, either!
It’s at this point I added a snarky comment:
John Blanton It’s so nice to have a gun around the house.
The linked post features a graph based on some gun violence statistics.
Apparently this elicited this response from Cody.
Cody: Be honest and remove suicide and life isn’t safe, never has been, never will be. But in the interest of safety, we must surrender to the wiser among us, correct? Finally, the use of arms is why you exist today, hunting and killing of other creatures, to keep warm and to eat. In other words, manly pursuits that were…wait for it… dangerous.
The graph clearly shows gun violence in the United States is way out of line with other first world countries. Cody’s explanation is “life isn’t safe.” He seems to ignore that elsewhere life is safe. Why not here?
Now the conversation gets really interesting.
James: Cody, also you can’t give up guns. If we have a Civil War, the food chains to the supermarket may get cut off. People will need to hunt for their own food.
The logic is inescapable. If you give up your guns, then what do you do if there is a civil war? I swear, in my questioning the logic behind free access to guns, I never thought about what we would do in case of civil war. And the need to hunt for our own food. Without guns we are all going to starve. Something is being abused here, and there does not appear to be a lot of intelligence is going to waste.
There is additional comment, and I began to think the conversation needed to be brought back on track.
John Blanton The chart shows countries with strict gun laws and free societies. And not so many children killing children. We need to get over the notion having a gun at home will make us safer.
This is what candidate Bloomberg is shown saying, in his maladroit way. Cody responds.
Cody: John Blanton again. Remove suicide. But that would require honest discussion versus hyperbole and wanting to spin. The method of death doesn’t matter but the result. The major underlying cause of death of young people in US is drug and drug use. Also death rates among whites are consistent with Europe. We have a problem with gangs and drugs that is mainly in the black community. But again you just want to preach… So peace out.
It’s becoming apparent nothing I can say is going to restore sanity to this conversation. A followup response is breathtaking.
James: John Blanton, a gun at home does make you safer. When guys [guns] are taken away, criminals will have free rain to invade your home.
It is hard to argue with logic like that. Yes, criminals will have free reign to invade my home, except it is against the law for them to do that, and they will be prosecuted and put in jail if they do it. It is not against the law for any jakeleg who thinks he needs a gun to have one. The result is children are dying.
The brilliance of this argument rises to new heights.
Randy: And most of those free countries in that chart are free still because we in the U.S. have guns and a demonstrated willingness to use them.
The kid brother is safe from the bullies because of the reputation of the older brother.
See, it goes like this. Because Americans have guns in their homes, people in Japan are safe, because criminals in Japan will not invade their homes, because they know that somebody several thousands of miles away has a gun in his home.
Actually, it is possible Randy means something else. Japan (and France and England) have no fear from a resurgent Russia, because America’s enormous defense establishment is ready to knock down any invaders, and possibly receive thanks in return. However, the discussion is supposed to be about whether it is safer or not to have guns in the home. We see logic bending under the weight.
I attempt to get the discussion back in the groove.
John Blanton Once again, the discussion is about guns in the home. I post one of these every week, and there are several more each week I do not post, because this is a one incident a week posting. It’s not about police killing bad guys. It’s about good guys (even children) killing people. And to tamp down the traffic I only post about experiences involving handguns.
I am preparing to post a story about a person who killed somebody to protect his property. You should not feel good about this. Somebody died who did not need to die.
Lots of stories I post do not involve anybody dying. These are about times when a person wishes he had not had a gun. Loss of job. Arrested by the police. Embarrassed himself. When do we get to see the benefit of the proliferation of private gun ownership?
I am not against guns. I received pistol training from the government. I worked arming aircraft in the Navy Reserve. All right, rockets and bombs but not guns.
Here I am attempting to deflect by pointing out I have nothing against guns, they being made out of metal and having no intent to do me harm. My lame excuse about being a weapons specialist (Aviation Ordnanceman in the Navy Reserve) falls a little flat, since I and most of my shipmates did not actually deal with guns.
Vincent thinks he has a good argument.
Vincent: The moment you illegally enter a home with nefarious intent, you’re right to live has been forfeited. If they didn’t need to die, they also didn’t need to do something to cause it.
Yeah, Dude. You come at me, and I have my gun, and you’re going to be history. And you are five years old, and you find my gun, and now all bets are off. Let’s get back to the substance of the conversation.
Edward posts a link to suicide in Japan. Relevance, please.
A substantial factor driving the narrative of those advocating for copious ownership is this argument.
- Peter: It’s amazing how so many are willing to subjugate themselves to a central government in search of “safety.” I use it in quotes because the opposite is the historically accurate outcome.
Yes, this is that lovable anti-government sentiment. I think back longingly to the CSA.
Peter: These same people are the ones that say we can’t trust police. Anyone else see the irony?
See where this is going?
Jeff: Typical, elitist, judgemental attitude of leftist Democrats.
I was getting the idea Tim is a police officer.
Tim: Only one thing to say about someone wanting my guns….come take them. I will put up a fight…I may die…but guarantee someone will go with me if I do die.
My response was that likely if somebody came to take Tim’s guns he would not resist. That did not go over well.
Cody: John Blanton you don’t know [Tim]. Seriously arrogant attitude Mr. Blanton especially for someone so needing protection that you need a government to protect you. By the way Tim is a policeman and ex military. One of those you think will do your bidding.
Cody: Here’s the best part. John Blanton judges men like us [Dan and Tim] by his own standards. I faced down a DA that was a tough character to say the least. Was nearly killed. I didnt run asking for government and help. Real men don’t seek protection, they are the protectors.
What I liked most about that part is the way Cody was able to peer into my mind, and I remarked on this amazing ability he alleges to have. I need to find where I said that.
Ah! Here it is.
John Blanton Cody Knotts says I judge men… That I make such a judgement is an amazing presumption. The ability to peer into the minds of others would be priceless, were it real.
Tim: Mr. Blanton….Cody said nothing about you being able to read minds…he said you judge men. A judgement is not reading minds…its an assumption. You write like you’re an educated man. Im not super educated and wont ever claim to be. However…for you to comment as you did to my comment is a hell of an assumption to think that I will not fight for my rights if it comes to that. I see you are from Texas…according to your facebook page. A long time ago y’all had a battle cry over there….Remember the Alamo. Well…heres one for you…Remember Ruby Ridge.
I’m sure Tim misunderstands. Cody did not say anything about being able to read minds, but he presumed to know what is in my mind, which implies such an ability. And the conversation gets further from the original posting—is it stupid to have a gun in the house?
This is the moment when Cody decides he needs to scorch me. It is fun to watch.
Cody: John Blanton you did make a judgment. Like so many of your background and class, you play semantics games. Always twisting and turning, spinning and implying, then saying that is not what you said. It all feeds your ego and vanity. I worked 29 years in politics and I met this personality over and over again as I did many. In that time I never once saw that type accomplish anything politically. I have helped elected over 20 officials, removed a corrupt DA and other numerous corrupt officials of both parties, helped get 3 men wrongly accused of murder out of prison, and ran a homeless shelter and a halfway house, my eagle project led to scouting for food. I state all of this not to brag but to make the larger point about constantly making points versus action. You want attention for your supposed positions but what you really seem to want is to lord your alleged intellect over others. You do not openly engage and consider the other position as Eric Weinstein and others I engage with here and on twitter. They regularly disagree and I learn from their position. You seek to enflame discreetly which is about your ego. Its old and tiresome and when you insult my friends personal honor and their manhood, you will be called out as you should. In the 19th century it would be called pompous. I rarely make this responses personal but you are deserving of this response.
Please, Cody and any others who seek to insult me. You are way out of your league. The United States government used to pay a trained specialist to belittle and insult me on a daily basis. You need to take lessons.
Tim picks up on the slant. More power to these people.
Tim: Cody..hes just another one that will type insults on a keyboard but if we were ever to meet in person…he would be a little…well you get the point.
Insult somebody? Me? In your dreams.
Anyhow, I figured it wouldn’t hurt to get to something of sustanceb.
John Blanton Cody Good point, Cody. Perhaps I am arrogant in believing a person who has sworn to uphold the law will obey the law when asked to do so.
There is another matter. Who is there to protect. me. I am guessing those prepared to protect me will include:
1. The multitude of people who have shot family members to death.
2. The children who have shot other children and also adults.
3. Any number of the wack jobs who are able to get their hands on firearms due to this county’s notoriously lax standards of ownership.
Remember, the theme of this thread is supposed to be about whether it is foolish to have a gun in the house. It is not about the Second Amendment. You may have the right to have a gun in the house, but is it wise to have one? Many think it is wise. Many are dying. Others are merely having regrets.
If it’s comment I want, it’s going to be comments I get. Here are some:
Cody: John Blanton spin. Semantics and games. You insulted a person and you spin rather to defend. Old tiring and dishonorable.
Once again—I insulted someone? Were ever someone to insult me so. What a glad day that would be.
Finally this, which made my day.
Tim: Mr. Blanton….I will uphold laws when they are constitutional. When they become unconstitutional…I will turn in my badge. As for if its wise or not to have a gun in the home….who are YOU or ANYONE to determine what is wise for someone else? IF you depend on firearms owned by anyone to protect you…as Cody says you do….you are a hypocrite for criticizing ANYONE for having a gun in the house. But I gues if you’re a politician as Cody says…I shouldn’t expect anything else. Oh and if you are under the assumption that tougher laws are going to keep guns out of the hands if…the wack jobs…as you call them…YOU are not as intelligent as I was giving you credit for. You have no idea the amount of firearms that are sold or traded in back allys. You probably should stop talking about things you obviously have no clue about.
Jesus! If I had known. I need only obey the laws I consider to be constitutional. Forget judges. I am the one who decides whether a law is constitutional and should be obeyed. Oh the money I wasted paying taxes and driving in the slow lane. I’m telling you, readers, dealing with the American heartland broadens one’s horizons. Try it sometime.