Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Finally, Back to Blogging!

You may have noticed I haven't been blogging much in the last few months.  I have finally crawled out from under a very lengthy scholarly article for my job, which turned out to be around thirty-thousand words long -- nearly a small book!  Once a co-author finishes a small section, I'll finally be able to send it off to the publisher (I had been invited to write for).  That, combined with family issues, seriously restricted the amount of time I had for blogging.  Too bad I'm not paid to do the gun control activism!  There have been SO many issues related to gun violence it has been almost painful to keep from spending my time bringing them to you.  Barring unforeseen events, I should be able to get back to it now.

I haven't been idle, though.  A small part of my time has been spent planning an event for this weekend, for Ceasefire Oregon, which will coincide with the Eugene Celebration, a yearly festival in downtown Eugene, Oregon, where I live.  More on that this weekend.

Every once in a while I peruse the pro-gun blogs to see what they're writing about, so I've done a little of that.   It's the usual stuff about how great guns are, how horrible our liberal leaders are, and the usual nonsense about how the government and us "anti-gun cultists" are out to get them.  One blogger posted a racist joke, likening Michelle Obama to Cheeta the chimpanzee from Tarzan.  Of course I called him out on it, and he tried to deny the connection, as obvious as it is. 

Another few bloggers attacked an article about the ASK program (a program which advocates for parents to ask about guns and other dangers where their children play).  They belittled the commentator who had advocated for ASK, suggesting that she wasn't concerned about other dangers, like heroin usage in the home (!?) or sex abuse (!),  that it's unnecessary because kids will avoid guns just because you tell them to, and actually advocating that you lie to the parents and tell them that you don't have a gun in the home if you really do!  I left a comment refuting the ignorance of this blogger.  Within a few hours (at 3:30AM!) I get an email from him trying to lure me into a debate about it and warning me that if I didn't do so he would label me a "troll" and bar me from his site.  When I finally got around to his site a couple days later, he had posted about me, making fun of my name, suggesting I was fat, belittling my family's training in kung fu (which I had commented on at another site), and labeled me a "troll" because I hadn't gotten back to him, then saying he'd barred me from commenting (even though he's the one who's trolling around at all hours).  Well, all I can say is that there's a name for someone who tries to  intimidate people, calls them names, makes fun of their names and weight, and makes arrogant and belittling remarks:  BULLY.  Gee, I wonder why no one posts comments on his site other than his extremist pals?


  1. Of course no citations of anything that anybody said that was untrue. (well except for that poor-taste Obama joke. Any consolation he probably gets less traffic than even you)

    Also I didn't make fun of your name, I just question if your parents named you after a lesser figure from Norse Mythos, or the Extended Marvel Universe, that's all.

    Lastly I emailed you at 6:30am EST. You are aware there are these things called "Time Zones" right? I tend to wake around 4:30-5:30 AM, so I had probably been awake for at least an hour.

    Make sure to post more pictures of your arts-and-crafts project poster for the Joyce Foundation!

    Take care, and be safe!

  2. Baldr,

    Apparently you can't tell the difference between a suggestion and an observation.

    It was your picture that lead not only one blogger but many others to see that you have a weight issue.
    Now I'm not throwing stones at people because of their weight. I am also over weight.
    I recognize that fact and it was part of my decision regarding getting my carry permit.

    You can not deny the reality that our physical condition and conditioning makes hand to hand combat more burdensome on us.

    To do so would be to deny reality.

  3. Snide as always, Weer'd. Quite the morning person, too.

  4. As you know, I have had some pretty awful comments on my blog. Early on, I asked Weer'd and Bob to quit commenting on my blog because they were harassing and inane, along with sometimes offensive. As you can tell, they are quite quick to lob attacks and insults at those of us blogging for common sense. They are trolling our blogs looking for something they can use on their own or to play "gotcha". I can see on my blog at what time of the day they are looking at my blog. It is often in the "wee" hours of the morning when most normal people are sleeping. And that accounts for the time difference. Keep up the good work, Baldr. Physical appearance has nothing to do with anything but these guys like to get into your head and play games because they can't refute what you write about. Snide, rude, offensive and more are the adjectives I have used to describe these folks. Just remember that a lot of reasonable people are reading our blogs. That is who we are blogging for. If we can change some minds and change the culture, it's maybe worth the verbal abuse we take from the gun guys.

  5. "Physical appearance has nothing to do with anything but these guys like to get into your head and play games because they can't refute what you write about. "

    Spoken by somebody who has never read anything that wasn't Joyce approved.

    Keep on taking things out of context, certainly makes you look quite "Rational" and "Common Sense"

    There was a time I was looking to debate the issues with people who supported the ideals of my unenlightened youth (I used to be a supporter of gun control, then I looked at the hard not "studies" by the VPC)

    I have since learned that discussion is the last thing a supporter of Gun Control wants to do.

    As for trolling, pot meet kettle. Baldr linked my blog with all sorts of evidence. I appreciate that, thanks!

  6. Joan,

    Early on you asked me to stop commenting on your blog -under my own brand.

    How ever, I commented frequently on your blog as anonymous. Even you admitted that.
    So apparently it wasn't what I was saying or how I was saying it that made a difference.

    It was your prejudice against comments from me.

    As you can tell, they are quite quick to lob attacks and insults at those of us blogging for common sense.

    Once again you aren't quiet telling the truth. We don't insult you for blogging about common sense. We insult the preposterous suggestions you make in the guise of common sense.

    The fact that you can't tell the difference is your problem, not ours.

    Baldr. Physical appearance has nothing to do with anything

    Once again you completely miss the point. Physical appearance does have things to do with self defense. A person appearing 20 to 50 pounds overweight is in reality going to have a harder time defending himself/herself from an attacker.

    To deny that fact is to deny reality.

    That is all Weer'd was pointing out. I am also over weight. A trend toward a more sedentary lifestyle --accompanied (caused)medical problem and I'm overweight.

    Baldr's preferred method of self defense is Kung Fu. Most power to him. I hope that he submits to a background check, is fingerprinted and photographed and is charged about $200 a year for exercising his right to defend himself in that fashion.

    Because that is what I'm charged and have to go through to defend myself.

    Snide, rude, offensive and more are the adjectives I have used to describe these folks.

    And here I thought you were supposed to be polite. Wouldn't that comment not be approved if it came as a comment on your own blog. Shame on you.

    Just remember that a lot of reasonable people are reading our blogs.

    You are right. They are called pro-rights advocates or gun bloggers.

    Show me an item that I or someone else hasn't refuted and I will do so quickly.

    The fact of the matter is simple. Not everyone is in shape to defend themselves using hand to hand combat. The suggestions and laws proposed by you and Baldr would end up causing many people do try just that.

    Exactly how is that common sense?

  7. Well, thank goodness they do "troll" your site. Someone has to come around and read, otherwise you might get lonely.

  8. "As you can tell, they are quite quick to lob attacks and insults at those of us blogging for common sense."

    I haven't seen any pro-gun people have problems with truly sensible suggestions. They do, however, take it quite harshly when irresponsible restrictions are falsely advertised as "common sense".

    And rightly so.

    Take for example, your previous article on your own blog. You start off talking about the "truth" against the pro-gun side, the first example of which refers to "large-capacity magazines".

    The problem with this is that your arguments have usually referred to over 10 rounds as "Large/High" capacity, when for most firearms that is indeed their standard capacity. The simple and undeniable fact is that by repeating that title, you are stating something that is *not* true.

    This is not meant as an insult - but it is a fact, an irrefutable one at that.

    Common sense is that misuse never comes before proper use. A sensible, *responsible* law designed to prevent criminals from getting firearms or "dangerous" accessories will never, not *ever* stop a law-abiding gun owner from owning or transferring the exact same item.

    That's all the gun owners want - sensible, responsible laws. There's nothing extreme about it, in fact there is more common sense than any of the anti-gun advocates' positions.

  9. Baldr, You do a great job wrihting for common sense gun control. Being banned by Weer'd is something to be proud of. If you keep it up, you'll one day be banned aslo by Bob S. and Mike W, like I am.

    The ostensible reasons are, with Weer'd, that I don't comment fast enough, and with Bob, that I won't tell him about my "criminal past," and with Mike W., I forget.

    The real reason is these guys know they're losing the debate. They're not capable of keeping it up without resorting to name calling, insults, bullying and finally banning.

    Now, I ask you, if they really were right, why would they resort to all that?

  10. Mike has been banned from my blog for the same behavior you exhibited, Baldr, just Mike has a little more exuberance than you do.

    Again, if you want to start a discussion, start one, don't troll. Both of you were asked to follow-up with comments you made, you both rudely, and blatantly refused.

    You got what you wanted. Why pretend to be sad about it?

  11. MikeB302000,

    You are not banned at my place. You just have to answer the same types and extent of questions you've asked people at your place.

    When you say you are banned at my blog, you are lying.

    You have repeatedly stated you are willing to answer the questions....only to turn around and change your mind and not answer them.

    You - who insists people abide by your commenting policy -- aren't willing to follow my commenting policy. You want to be able to comment then if and when you chose answer the questions you've asked of us.

    They're not capable of keeping it up without resorting to name calling, insults, bullying and finally banning.

    Given that gun bloggers resort to banning, can I ask how you are able to comment on some many gun blogs?
    Snowflakes in Hell, View from North Central Idaho are two that come to mind off hand. I know I see you on many others.

    You do a great job writing (corrected your typing error for you) for common sense gun control.

    I agree. Baldr does write about common sense gun control

    Gun control that does not solve the crime problem.
    Gun control that does not affect criminals more than the law abiding (crazy definition of gun control but I'll go with it).

    I think Tam said it best

    *Incidentally, this is one of my biggest gripes about wading into fact- and data-laden poo-flinging arguments with anti-gunners about crime rates and murders-per-100k and so forth. The correct answer is "Where the hell do you get off thinking you can tell me I can't own a gun? I don't care if every other gun owner on the planet went out and murdered somebody last night. I didn't. So piss off."

    Seeing how you probably own a camera and a computer MikeB302000...should we implement "common sense camera/computer" control to address the horrendous crime of child porn?

    Do your rights to own a camera depend on the misuse of cameras by others?

  12. @ Weer'd: "Pretend to be sad about it?" Who said I was sad about it? Annoyed, yes, but it really doesn't affect me otherwise.