I enjoy blogging. It’s great fun to be able to write about whatever I feel like, when I feel like, in any manner I want. I have no editors asking me to rewrite certain passages, no one questioning how offensive something may be before it is published. I don’t have to worry about being thrown in jail for criticizing the government, or of getting beat down by an angry mob because they don’t like my attitude.
I keep the comments open on my blogs because I welcome feedback. Positive feedback, negative feedback, indifferent feedback… it’s all good. As long as it isn’t spam or has more point than just to string a bunch of expletives together, I’m happy to see it. Over the past few months, I’ve begun to make more and more posts that are inflammatory, calling people “morons”, “idiots” and other such things. My goal is to stir some readers up enough to motivate them to leave a comment or a link to the post. I’ve learned that people are more likely to respond to you when they are angry because of, offended by or passionately supportive of what you say. This was demonstrated quite vividly last week when I posted the fourth installment of my Moron of the Week series.
To give a little back story, I know next to nothing about firearms commonly used in the United States for hunting. Growing up, I knew people who used different rifles for deer hunting. My best friend’s father was a gun collector, but rarely used them (though these days he travels the country for skeet shooting competitions or some such). In the Army, as a medic, I was at different times assigned an M16, an M9 (9mm Beretta) and an ancient .45 caliber pistol that was rumored to have been from the Korean war era (they were replaced with M9s shortly after I came to Korea). I maintained up-to-date ratings on each one, qualifying on the firing range at least once per quarter (IIRC, we were required to qualify biannually). Because I was a medic, I was sometimes tasked out to provide medical coverage for other platoons/companies in my battalion when they were at the firing range. If there was any extra ammo at the end of the day, I’d get invited to fire a few rounds. I got to handle a few different weapons because of that. So that’s the extent of my knowledge about firearms.
Over the years, I had developed an image of “gun-lovers” as tobacco-chawing rednecks (being from the rural/suburban Atlanta, I know the type) who vehemently support their right to carry any sort of gun they want. When I saw the term “assault weapon”, I understood it to mean military-style weapons — machine guns, fully automatic rifles, whatever you want to call them. So I supported initiatives that would ban such weapons. As to the people who claimed their right to own them, I considered them to be dangerously out of their minds. I realize that firearms involved in the majority of criminal cases were illegally obtained, but I was always of the belief that legally allowing civilians to own “assault weapons” was dangerous. Further, I was certain that these crazy “gun lovers” were being selective in their interpretation of the second amendment.
A few days or so before posting Moron #4, I had found, through reddit.com, a write up about the NRA and the second amendment. That particular article didn’t sway me one way or another. It just served to reinforce some of the beliefs I already had. I’ve always believed that the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly linked to the necessity of having a militia. I still believe that was the original intent when the amendment was written. From that, I believed, and still do, that it is ultimately up to the judicial branch to determine what is meant by the word “arms”. Obviously, the weaponry we have today is far beyond anything our forebears could have imagined. By definition, rocket propelled grenades, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons are all “arms”. So at what point do we legally say, this weapon is OK, but that one’s out of bounds? That authority ultimately rests with the courts.
I started the Moron of the Week series because I often found myself reading stories that made my blood boil. The Moron of the Week was, and still is, a way for me to fling some mud at whatever, or whomever, sets me off. When I read about Jim Zumbo’s gaffe, I was a bit piqued. How could so many people be so outraged at such a seemingly well-intentioned statement? How could they raise such a cry as to cause the guy’s career to be ruined? When I read that the NRA was vocally complaining about it, it set me off even more. So I fired up my blog editor and ranted about the morons who cost this guy his job, making it clear that I thought they were also morons for wanting to own assault weapons and for not understanding the Constitution. As it turns out, my goal of motivating people to post succeeded to an extent that I wasn’t expecting.
Kevin Baker, of the blog The Smallest Minority, wasted no time in trying to set me straight. It was obvious very early on that he was more informed on the issue than I. And it wasn’t long before a post he made at his blog brought some like-minded people over to put their two cents in. Some of them nominated me for Moron of the Week #5. In the course of the comments, I learned that my understanding of “assault weapons” was wrong. The weapons I was thinking of, fully automatic rifles, have been restricted since 1934. Also, Kevin showed me quite clearly that my impression of “gun lovers” is a bad stereotype — he’s well-versed in the second amendment and the court cases that have touched upon it.
So now I’ve begun to see the issue in a whole new light. I still hold that it was moronic for Zumbo to lose so much over one comment, but I understand now where the reaction comes from. These guys are fighting the same battle I am, just over a different issue. They get upset when people spread misinformation about something they are very passionate about — firearm ownership rights. For me, I get really agitated about all of the misguided beliefs about and prejudice against atheists. Even Kevin got it wrong in his blog post linked above:
An American expat living in Korea runs a blog called The One With Aldacron. Apparently he’s a “bright” - one of the more militant versions of Athiest (big “A”), and, of course, a Lefty.
He’s right on all counts except the bit about the brights. Sure, call me militant as I think that religion does more harm than good and we’d all be better off without it. But the brights are far from being militant. Their only goal is to get equal opportunity for atheists and to clear up the misconceptions and misinformation about us, nothing more. They have no policy to take away religion or anything at all threatening toward it. In reality, not all brights are true atheists. Some are agnostics, who believe in the possibility that a god exists. Others call themselves freethinkers or rationalists. Regardless of how they are labeled, the common thread that brings the brights together is that we don’t follow any particular religion. We all have a naturalistic view of the world.
Everyone has causes about which they care deeply. Kevin Baker is obviously quite passionate about his. I applaud his efforts to clear up the misinformation and misconceptions about firearms. But let’s not forget that freedom of speech is what this is all about. While I write frequently about topics with which I am more familiar (I have two other blogs related to programming, something I love dearly), I’m not going to stop commenting on things about which I know nothing. I’m not a journalist, required to fact-check everything I write about. I can say what I want. That’s the price of Free Speech, just because we are free to say something doesn’t make it true. But the fact remains — had I not made that post, Kevin and his fellow gun supporters could not have shown me where I was wrong. Therein lies the beauty of internet discussion forums, be they blogs, IRC chats, message boards, or newsgroups. And that’s one of the reasons I’m blogging.
As a side effect, though, that post generated its own bit of misinformation. One of the categories on Kevin’s blog post about mine is “Gun bigots”. On another blog, I’m called a “gun grabber”. More comments and link backs have been trickling in. In this message board, and this one, and this one too, I’m branded an “Anti-gun blogger”. I expressed in the comments of the Moron #4, explicitly, that I am not anti-gun. What I am against is the idea that its OK to own automatic rifles (my misunderstanding of “assault weapons”), which I have now learned are restricted anyway. I do question the intent of the second amendment and how it is interpreted today, but the bottom line is that I support ownership of “arms” as long as the boundaries are reasonably set forth by law (I wouldn’t want to see my old neighbor sitting outside with an RPG in his lap). The ball is rolling and I’m sure more sites will link to the same post, calling me an “Anti-gun blogger” (which is sort of amusing, since I’ve never posted anything about guns until that one).
No matter, though. Regardless of what I type here or in the comments of the other post, people will take away what they want to take away from it. Which is really the point of this rant. We are all influenced by our environment and the information we take in, be it from professional media, amateur bloggers, or friends and family. We all process that information in different ways. Some of us do try to research the topics we find important, but we can’t verify everything we read. Some things we either dismiss offhand as pure nonsense, or nod our heads and say, “Hmmm,” filing the information away in the recesses of our brains. Over time, our opinions are formed from those scattered tidbits about topics of which we know very little, be they on target or off, and we stand behind them. Some people are too stupid to recognize that they are off the mark. Some of us aren’t ashamed to admit when we are.
With that said, I admit my understanding of the peripherals of my Moron #4 post were wrong. I’ve been corrected. But I don’t apologize for the post, nor the language I used. When I posted it, that’s what I felt. My blog is a snapshot in time. If I’m still blogging ten years from now, I’ll be able to go back and see how my opinions have changed. And our opinions do change, consciously or not. Who knows? By then I might be a card-carrying member of the NRA, a devout Catholic, and a registered Republican (OK, the last two are highly unlikely — there’s a world of difference between opinion and conviction, but I am always open to new evidence). Regardless, I’ll continue to write what I feel and say what I think. Just like Jim Zumbo did. And just like all of the people who complained did — voicing their complaints was their right. My reaction, calling them morons, was my right. And those who left the comments in my blogs, both the informative and the not-so-informative, also had the same right. That’s supposed to be what Freedom is all about.
Technorati Tags: freedom, rants, misinformation, guns, United States, Consitution, Second Amendment, Jim Zumbo
{ 4 } Comments
Just like Jim Zumbo did. And just like all of the people who complained did — voicing their complaints was their right.
Zumbo made a mistake owned up to it, but the problem is that the actual text of the apology indicates he doesn’t see the problem. What will probably, unfortunately, get his attention is the lastest Brady Banners action to take on ‘high tech sniper rifles’ (their definition is a 30-30, designed in 1894, and no I didn’t get dyslexia with that date). Thier definition is anything over 100 yards. Zumbo’s comments indicate he has bought into the incremental acceptance, where today “assault weapons”, which most people MISTAKENLY assume to be assault rifles as you did, are acceptable to be banned. Next, it will be ’sniper rifles’, then ‘assault pistols’, and eventually we’ll be like Australia making long knives illegal, while watching the crime rates climb. The incremental taking away of rights from people is the proverbial frog in boiling water, and we don’t see it. What we put up with as acceptable to outlaw would horrify two generations ago, what will my great grandchildren have to put up with, I wonder?
I tend to share your views on religion being damaging, though I would term myself more agnostic than athiest. I agree it’s your right to fully insert foot in mouth, as it is anyone’s. I would say that to refer to people who do feel the temperature rising when you don’t as “morons” is probably not warranted. They wouldn’t feel the temperature rising if you made pregame prayer mandatory in school sports, you would, I would’t say that brands you as a moron.
I would think it would be a much better thing to pursue deeper understanding to judge for yourself. You’re getting there, now you understand the campaign of misinformation, but you don’t understand the depth of it yet. Keep studying.
FYI, followed a link from ProGun Progressive’s site. He does get a bit heavyhanded at times in my opin in the way he states things, but pay attention to the ‘what’ and bypass the ‘how’, and you might see more.
Heavy handed my ass.
One man’s “heavy handed” is another man’s “yup, you’re right…no sense being nice to people who are willfully ignorant.” =)
Aldacron (or are just the One with he/she/it?):
Good piece. Two points: With reference to the “brights,” it’s been my experience that people who lable themselves as somehow superior to the rest of humanity (supposedly the “dims” who are Believers) feel a little militant about their denial of faith.
And I’m an avowed atheist myself.
Second, the “gun bigot” tag on my post about your piece was, in the main, to tie it to the rest of the Jim Zumbo related posts, though you were a gun bigot (and to some extent may well remain one). You said it yourself: “Over the years, I had developed an image of “gun-lovers†as tobacco-chawing rednecks (being from the rural/suburban Atlanta, I know the type) who vehemently support their right to carry any sort of gun they want.” That’s bigotry.
Bigot: n. a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
Bigotry is amenable to education. You got an education. Now you need to meet some of the literally tens of thousands of people who own full-auto weapons legally in the U.S. If you’re ever in Arizona, I’ll be glad to introduce you to a few.
With regard to Mr. Zumbo, you might want to read his letter to the Citzens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I’d be interested in your reaction to it.
With reference to the “brights,†it’s been my experience that people who lable themselves as somehow superior to the rest of humanity (supposedly the “dims†who are Believers) feel a little militant about their denial of faith.
And this is where some people think that the founders of the group should have chosen a better word. They intent is not to say that we are “bright” as in “intelligent”. Remember, bright refers to the radiance of light as well. The goal is to redefine the word as a noun. Just as “gay” the adjective means “happy”, but was later redefined as a noun to mean “homosexual”, the goal of the brights it to redefine “bright” to mean “possessing a worldview that is naturalistic.”
“Bright” is a positive word, whereas “atheist” is a negative word, often associated with scorn. In conversations with theists, as soon as you mention you are an atheist the mood usually changes immediately and they write you off as a hopeless sinner, the tool of Satan. When you say that you are a bright, they instead say, “A bright? What’s that?” I’ve read several comments by some atheists who think it’s the wrong way to go, or who insist that we are saying that we’re smart and theists aren’t. Anyone who wants to learn more can read the Brights’ Net FAQ and the blurb about the word itself.
You said it yourself: “Over the years, I had developed an image of “gun-lovers†as tobacco-chawing rednecks (being from the rural/suburban Atlanta, I know the type) who vehemently support their right to carry any sort of gun they want.†That’s bigotry.
Back home, I often heard people say things like “blacks love fried chicken.” In Korea, they say that “Americans love hamburgers.” I hear it all the time and have seen parodies on television. Are either of those bigotry? I know many African Americans would say yes about the former — in a culture where they have to deal with it on a daily basis it’s hard not to see bigotry in a statement like that (when coming from a white person anyway). But would anyone say the same about the latter? I don’t. But there is also a stereotype in Korea that foreigners often pass on counterfeit money. When a new clerk at a DVD shop I used to frequent asked his superviser if it was OK to accept large bills from foreigners, I did see it as bigotry and haven’t been back to that store since.
That’s just a long-winded way of saying that I see your point. Sometimes, stereotyping is just stereotyping, but from a different point of view it could be viewed as bigotry even when others don’t see it. Perspective is reality.
With regard to Mr. Zumbo, you might want to read his letter to the Citzens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I’d be interested in your reaction to it.
He’s certainly more eloquent than I. I particularly like this line:
This ridiculous image, formed in the blink of an eye, exerts an unconscious effect on all decisions that follow.
That sums up the issue, both his and mine, quite nicely. While I still think he shouldn’t have lost his job, it appears that something positive has come out of it. I would hope that his television show gets reinstated from its “on hiatus” status and the magazine lets him come back.
{ 1 } Trackback
[…] the person I apparently mistook for a “gun grabber”, and he writes to set the record straight here. Sort […]
Post a Comment