Georgia’s new gun allowances, what could go wrong? Nothing, actually

Georgia’s governor just signed into law a bill which broadens the areas in which legal gun owners may carry their firearms, including some schools, bars, and churches. This leaves many on the political left snarkily asking, “what could possibly go wrong?” This attitude belies their misunderstanding of guns and their law-abiding owners.

Let me ask.  What could go wrong?  Not much.  Certainly not much more anyway.  You see, people who take the legal steps to own and carry firearms take measures to follow the law to the letter.  They know their rights and they also know their restrictions.

There isn’t anything about now being able to carry a gun into more places that turns an otherwise non-murderous person into a kill-for-sport human-hunter.  Nothing.  So what if I’d now be able to carry my gun into my daughter’s elementary school when I pick her up and drop her off.  Why would this new liberty be a danger?  Anyone looking to shoot up a school wasn’t waiting for this law to be passed.

So what if I can now carry a gun to church.  What could possibly go wrong?  Is someone now all of a sudden going to start shooting parishioners?

The same is true of bars and airports.  In my state it’s illegal to be intoxicated while carrying a loaded firearm although I can carry in a bar, so why is this now a problem in Georgia?

So what is it?  What is it about being able to carry in new places that makes anything more dangerous?  What could go wrong?  Why are so many on the political left so afraid of legal gun owners?

Comments

  1. paynehollow says:

    Any chance any of you fellas would want to comment on Cliven Bundy (the mildly nutty and greatly dangerous armed stand-off, not the very nutty racist rant)? I’d love to hear some opinions on his actions. Sorry for the off-topic request (although it does touch on Bearing Arms, so not totally off topic). Thanks.

    ~Dan

  2. Because they aren’t intelligent enough to understand the true problem with those who are murderous. Imagine, and this will be really wild, imagine if Jesus was packing under His robes. Would He not still be the Prince of Peace? Or would He be required to deny that title?

    Gun ownership by law-abiding people, people who are generally peaceful, is no different than anyone who is willing to stand up to the common bully. It is the same thing on a different scale. Good people with guns are a deterrent to bad people with guns. This truth has been borne out in those states that did not have restrictive gun control laws. We also know that those who wish to cause havoc do not seek out places where those in attendance are likely to be packing heat. They look for “gun free zones”.

  3. paynehollow says:

    John, I’m not sure if you want answers to these questions, since the subject is off topic, but since you asked, I’ll answer. I would be interested in seeing some of you fellas post about the topic some time.

    John…

    How many people were killed or injured during the greatly dangerous standoff?

    None that I know of. But people were threatened with deadly violence for doing their jobs and that is an atmosphere of violence. Would you want to go to work knowing you had snipers pointing rifles at you?

    What made it dangerous?

    People refusing – with guns at their hands – to heed the law. People refusing – armed to the teeth – to abide by the law and those in authority. People speaking of putting their womenfolk in front as a deadly and cowardly shield.

    I would say that any time you have an armed stand off, you have the potential for great violence.

    And what relevance does race have?

    Well, the “folk hero” Bundy has now had video released of him offering his opinions about “the Negro…” and what’s wrong with them and if wondering if they weren’t better off back in the good ol’ days of slavery! What a buffoon. What a creep. But I was not really wanting to go into that aspect of his evil behavior, but more of the moral and rational problems of refusing to pay your bills and being a wealthy person by living off other people’s tax dollars.

    ~Dan

    • We have Al Sharpton not paying his bill to the federal government (tax evasion, and he’s not the only Dem), and he now has his own TV show and is pals with the prez. What’s different? And he’s shown he’s a racist for sure. I haven’t heard Bundy’s remarks in context, but what I have heard may only be his assessment of the decay of the black family in the last 40-50 years. His use of the term “negro” is not untypical of older people who lived during a time when it was in common usage. The idea that anyone who doesn’t alter his verbiage simply because others demand it does not alone imply racism in the least.

      We have, from Eric Holder, down to attorneys general of various states, to county and municipal clerks refusing to abide the law. They all have weaponry through their law enforcement branches. What’s different?

      We’re often told, by lefties as well if not usually, that no one is obliged to follow or enforce bad law, or at least shouldn’t be obliged. That’s certainly been the case with a certain state’s attorney general when he claimed that that state’s constitution was unconstitutional. What’s the difference?

      It is quite obvious that the presence of guns during the standoff (“armed to the teeth” is fear mongering rhetoric—how many carried multiple weapons? “Armed to the teeth” my ass) was not a danger since there was no one intent on being the first to draw blood. Every person there, as well as passersby, could have been literally “armed to the teeth” and being so would not by itself made the situation dangerous. Guns on one’s person do not make the guns fire by themselves. Guns on one’s person do not compel a person to fire against one’s will. The fact that no shots were fired proves that the presence of guns did not make the situation more dangerous.

      In fact, the presence of guns may have ensured that the situation did not get dangerous. Which ever side fired first would have resulted in a return of fire (most likely). But had no citizens had weapons, law enforcement may have acted more aggressively. The citizens may have acted more aggressively. The presence of guns, like the Arms Race, has a deterrent effect by virtue of the fact that everyone knows the ramifications of that first shot.

    • If its racist to have an opinion about “the negro”, is it racist for all the liberals wgo disagreed with Clarence Thomas to call him the worst Negro in America?

      But aside from that, if those in the stanf off werent heeding the law why werent they arrested? Why havent they been arrested since?

      Merely congregating with firearms isnt dangerous or illegal, and since no shots were fired, the gathering and the participants werent dangerous either. Seems you tgink a person with a gun is just dangerous.

  4. ” Seems you think a person with a gun is just dangerous.”

    And that sentiment wouldn’t be bad from a bad guy in reference to a good guy with a gun, or if that person with a gun was a known bad guy. Otherwise it is either paranoia, or far more likely, fear mongering.

  5. So, it would appear that at least dome on the left would suggest that it is appropriate for the P-BO administration to send in a bunch of Tommy Tactical types with fatigues, flak jackets, M-4’s etc. to deal with a dispute over grazing fees

    I’ve also noticed that those on the left have no problem assuming that someone like Bundy is; A. a conservative, B. that he is some sort of spokesman for the conservative movement, and C. taken seriously by a significant number of people, and therefore all other conservatives must answer for his sins.

    But hey, don;t bring up Fred Phelps, Alec Baldwin, Martin Bashir, Leland Yee, Al Sharpton, etc.

    I do agree with MA that from what I’ve heard of the “racist’ comments, it sounds more like someone from an older generation who was raised in a culture where race was looked at differently. It also sounds like he’s not the most polished public speaker, and probably expressed himself poorly. Am I willing to jump all over him based on sketchy hostile media coverage, no. Am I going to hail him as a hero, no.

  6. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    We have Al Sharpton not paying his bill to the federal government (tax evasion, and he’s not the only Dem), and he now has his own TV show and is pals with the prez. What’s different?

    The difference is (and it is a BIG difference, please note) that Sharpton is not, so far as I know, pointing guns at gov’t employees coming to collect his bill. Now, I don’t know anything about Sharpton or his arrangements re: taxes, but if he has bills to pay, then he has to pay them. And if gov’t employees come to confiscate his car or house or something to collect that payment, then he has to submit to that authority. IF he chooses, instead, to take up guns to back up a refusal to pay, then he’d be a violent law-breaker, just like this Bundy. A petty (or not so petty, given the million dollar price tag of the larceny) thief and a thug, to boot.

    See the difference?

    The thing is, those who support actual Civil Disobedience know and agree to the reality that if you break the law, then you might get arrested or fined… you will have to face the possibility of this. Taking up arms against people who are enforcing the law is not civil disobedience, as it has classically been defined. It’s a violent uprising. It’s a violent crime.

    Tell me, gentlemen: If a marijuana plant grower were confronted by federal/state agents who’d come to chop down HIS harvest, would you sympathize with the marijuana grower if he and his gang confronted the police with weapons, saying that they did not recognize the state’s “right” to tell them they can’t grow marijuana?

    If I had to guess, I’d guess you’d think the police should take that marijuana dealer and his gang down, with violence if met with violence from them.

    If so, how is that different than Bundy’s gang and their violent threats and refusal to comply with the law, pay back OUR money that he’s been taking from us like a little cowboy-hat-wearing welfare queen?

    Craig…

    I’ve also noticed that those on the left have no problem assuming that someone like Bundy is; A. a conservative, B. that he is some sort of spokesman for the conservative movement, and C. taken seriously by a significant number of people, and therefore all other conservatives must answer for his sins.

    Well, not me. It’s why I asked the question… to give you a chance to distance yourselves from his whiny welfare fraud-ism wrapped in a hypocritical cloak of conservatism. I’ve noticed that, at least on the racism thing, even people like Rand Paul are distancing themselves from him, making it clear that such language has no place in Paul’s version of conservatism. I’m not making any assumptions about what you all believe. I’m asking you if you’d be interested in telling us.

    Craig…

    it would appear that at least dome on the left would suggest that it is appropriate for the P-BO administration to send in a bunch of Tommy Tactical types with fatigues, flak jackets, M-4′s etc. to deal with a dispute over grazing fees

    Are you saying that if you have a gang of people – drug dealers or cattle trespassers or whoever – who are
    1. blatantly breaking the law
    2. over years
    3. who’ve received multiple warnings
    4. who not only refuse to abide by the law and settle their account
    5. but who respond with weapons if the police try to enforce the law

    …are you saying such people should be given a pass? Drug dealer or cattle welfare queen?

    I’m entirely supportive of the gov’t NOT being heavy-handed in dealing with non-violent criminals (like Bundy, like drug dealers) and finding simpler ways of simply legally seizing their bank accounts or other goods, rather than initiating an armed confrontation, but if the gang (Bundy’s or the drug dealers) respond with the legal request to comply with the law by pointing rifles at the police agency, then the violence is on the law-breaker, not on the police agency.

    Do you disagree?

    As to the racism stuff, Bundy is about the age of some of my brothers. He was raised in the Civil Rights age. He is of an age where he should know that those comments he’s made are racist. Now, I’m sympathetic to the whole “recognizing the culture someone was raised in…” I have older family members (of my parents and grandparents’ generation) who would say frankly racist stuff and they honestly didn’t mean anything horrible about it (well, actually, some probably did, but not all of them). But that they didn’t intend it to be horrible does not make the statement any less racist.

    His comments are racist and patronizing. He’s talking about “the negro” and “those people” as if they were all, as a group, as a race, inferior and incapable of making right decisions without a benevolent massa there to supervise them. That is, by definition, racist.

    Even folk like Paul recognize that. I have to imagine that you all can, too.

    Yes, maybe out of context somewhat (maybe), maybe he meant no harm by it. But it remains, by definition, racist.

    Respectfully,

    ~Dan

  7. paynehollow says:

    “Fox News host Sean Hannity, who had vociferously championed Bundy as a hero, kicked off his Thursday show by slamming Bundy for his “ignorant, racist, repugnant, despicable” remarks.”

    ~quoted from Mother Jones

    “Republican Sens. Rand Paul and Dean Heller on Thursday both denounced as “offensive” and “racist” Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s recent comments about African-Americans.”

    ~quoted from Politico

    • Still trying to figure out how Bundy being a racist has anything to do with this discussion except to try and paint gun owners and second amendment supporters as hillbilly racists. Which of course is dishonest to this discussion as you well know that that’s how liberals operate

  8. paynehollow says:

    John…

    Seems you tgink a person with a gun is just dangerous.

    Absolutely not.

    But, I do think that, if the police have come to arrest you or confiscate something of yours for legal, legitimate reasons – even if you disagree with those reasons – and you respond with a gang armed with guns and pointing them AT the police, THAT is irresponsible and creating a dangerous situation.

    Further, suggesting that you’d put your women in front of you to use as a human shield, to garner sympathy, that is cowardly, despicable behavior. I think this is true when terrorists do it and I think it is true when “patriots” (ie, millionaire welfare queens) suggest doing it.

    I’m consistent that way.

    ~Dan

  9. paynehollow says:

    Preventing law enforcement authorities from doing their duty. Threatening violence, it seems to me, obstructing justice. They weren’t arrested, I presume, because the police felt threatened and decided the wiser course was not to confront these armed people who were preventing the police from doing their job and not letting things escalate. Almost certainly (hopefully), they will eventually return to the problem of Bundy’s million dollar debt he’s refusing to pay back to we tax payers.

    Again, John, a simple question: If a drug dealer had 100 of his friends over to his land, armed with shotguns, when the police came to chop down his marijuana, and stood there, implying a threat if they proceeded with their job, would you support that as harmless? Or would you call that an armed threat?

    Obviously, it is an armed threat. I may not agree with the anti-marijuana laws, but that doesn’t mean I’d support a gang of marijuana growers holding rifles pointed at police officers (even if they didn’t fire, even if they were only there because they wanted to support the land owner, who disagreed with the law about marijuana). There is a threat of violence and that is wrong. I don’t know where the law stands on such implied threats, but it clearly is wrong. I suspect you’d agree in the case of the marijuana grower, I just can’t believe law-abiding citizens would disagree simply because it’s a conservative doing what they would otherwise disagree with.

    ~Dan

  10. paynehollow says:

    John…

    why wasn’t anyone subsequently arrested if they were breaking the law and what they were doing was illegal?

    Just to clarify: I have not said what the armed supporters were doing was illegal – I don’t know the legalities of implied threats like that. But what Bundy has done – taken food off public property and refusing to pay for it – that is wrong, that is where the law has been broken. You can’t refuse to pay bills, simply because you disagree with it.

    ~Dan

  11. paynehollow says:

    John…

    What was the threat? Who made it?

    Bundy.

    Bundy posted a statement on the Bundy Ranch website on Sunday night saying: “They have my cattle and now they have one of my boys. Range War begins tomorrow.”

    Bundy’s son.

    “We have always said, we will do whatever it takes [to get and keep their cattle, which was in the process of being confiscated by the state…]”

    They’re out there making comments like that, not cooperating with authorities and showing up with many guns. There is an implied threat. “DON’T TAKE OUR CATTLE OR WE’LL DO WHAT IT TAKES TO KEEP THEM…”

    Again, I ask you, if you substitute out “White conservative cattle man” with “urban marijuana grower” – both of whom say they don’t recognize the federal laws they’re breaking, would you still support the armed drug gang?

    I don’t believe you would, but you tell me.

    ~Dan

  12. Here is the full version of Bundy’s comments, in full context. Doesn’t sound racist to me. Using the word “negro” isn’t racist. Race-baiters merely want it to be. And to say “those people” or “them people” when speaking of a specific group is only racist to idiots. It is an appropriate phrase as Bundy used it. Or must he constantly say “our African-American brethren” in order to avoid offending irrationally sensitive leftists?

    Now, it is my understanding, that Bundy wasn’t stealing food, but allowing his cattle to graze on the same land his family’s cattle has grazed for years and years. His complaint, as I understand it, was the gov’t wasn’t doing it’s job as regards that land and he didn’t feel he should be paying for what he was not getting as regards that land he always had used for grazing. As he withheld his payments, the gov’t decided to take his cattle. THAT is when people came to his defense and THAT makes bringing weapons to persuade the cops that taking the cattle, or blocking their movement, or however they intended to interfere with Bundy’s usual business somewhat justified. I could be wrong about these details, but that’s how I understand the issue.

    And of course, no one was arrested. No one was shot.

  13. “Well, not me,”

    Of course not, you’d never dodge the inconvenient things said by folks on your side.

    “…to give you a chance to distance yourselves …”

    Except we never embraced him in the real world. Why should anyone have to distance themselves from someone they’ve not supported. You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between individuals and groups. Just like you’ve insisted that I must make supporting arguments for things others have said, you now assume that those of us here are even aware enough of Bundy to somehow defend him. Yet you have no grounds, except your own prejudice, to make the assumption.

    “…are you saying such people should be given a pass? Drug dealer or cattle welfare queen?”

    No.

    “Do you disagree?”

    No. But, I don’t think that anyone but you would consider equating some guy disputing grazing fees with some drug cartel. Because we all know that drug cartels and dealers would never ever use violence. Just one more false equivalency. I don’t know specifically, but in some western states open carry of firearms is completely legal, so it seems entirely possible that these folks could have been armed and have been within the law. I do know that out west, many farmers and ranchers habitually go around their own property armed in order to protect either themselves or their live stock from predators. So, again it seems possible that these folks being armed, just might be something that someone who is ignorant of the laws and culture in western states might blow out of proportion. Again, I have paid so little attention to this, and don’t care enough to check, I’m just suggesting scenarios that might be the case.

    “But it remains, by definition, racist.”

    Just like the Rev Wright, or the MI discrimination law that SCOTUS just struck down. I guess you just have problems with racism when it’s from “conservatives”.

    Still trying to understand why you would think that because ONE talk show host and ONE of your senators somehow indicate some general mass adoption of this guy by the conservative movement. Even still, as conservatives almost invariably do, they backed off as they had more information about him. I still see lefty’s defending rev Wright, and Al Sharpton. I guess, the right just might not be as accepting of things as the left. You seem to be trying to tar these folks for doing exactly what you think they should have done. Yet you criticize those of us here, because we didn’t address some 15minutes of fame sideshow. Inconsistent much.

    “…confiscate something of yours for legal, legitimate reasons…”

    You seem to have jumped on this and have information that the rest of us just don’t care enough to find out.

    But, was/has Bundy actually been convicted or a crime? Has he been indicted? Has he been charged? Did he actually point a weapon at a LE officer? If so, why hasn’t he been arrested? Where are you getting your information?

  14. paynehollow says:

    Marshall, this has been going on for 20 YEARS. The gov’t has been working with him trying to get him to cooperate like EVERY OTHER RANCHER. He owes we, the people, $1 million. He refused to pay it. So, the gov’t had the legal and moral right to confiscate the property. Instead of acknowledging reality, he claims that the gov’t has no authority over him and that he doesn’t owe us all this money.

    Now, he doesn’t have to LIKE the law, but it IS the law. His cattle have been getting free food for years and years. The gov’t simply came to collect what he refused to pay.

    And his response was an armed refusal and the threat of violence towards gov’t employees who were simply doing their job.

    That a person may THINK that, “You know, it is MY BELIEF that this cherry red corvette in the car lot belongs to me, so I’m going to take it…” does not meant that the police have no right to stop this person. If you don’t like a law, work to change it. If you don’t want to have your crap confiscated, keep it off OUR land.

    What if Bundy decided it was okay to let his cattle graze and poop in your yard for 20 years, are you going to say to that neighbor, “No problem, I don’t care…”? Or are you going to reasonably enforce the law?

    This is just crazy town stuff. His later, out of touch with reality comments about race, just verify that this guy is not in touch with reality.

    Even the Rand Paul’s and Sean Hannity’s of the world are recognizing this ugliness and calling him on it, if not the initial crazy actions.

    ~Dan

  15. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    Still trying to understand why you would think that because ONE talk show host and ONE of your senators somehow indicate some general mass adoption of this guy by the conservative movement.

    The week before his crazy racist statements, this guy was being held up by many conservatives as a new American patriot. Now many of those same people are distancing themselves. It was all in the news, perhaps you missed it?

    I’m not saying that every conservative was supporting him, but I was noting that many conservatives in the media and in politics were supporting him and I could not believe that this guy and his illegal fraudulent behavior was actually being lauded by conservatives in general, which is WHY I asked those of you here to offer your opinions. BECAUSE I could not believe his behavior and actions and attitudes would be accepted by anyone, because they were so nutty and immoral.

    And so, I ASKED, what are you guys thinking about this guy?

    Give you a chance to make your case. Your case, Craig, appears to be, “Well, I may not laud him as a hero or role model, but he doesn’t seem so bad…” The others here still seem to be supportive not only of his fraud and armed resistance to paying his bills, but to his racist comments. I guess that answers my question, unless you’d all care to clarify further.

    Thanks.

    Craig…

    But, was/has Bundy actually been convicted or a crime?

    HE owes $1 million. He has refused to pay his bills that he owes for putting his cattle on OUR gov’t land and letting them freeload off the tax payer. I don’t know the legalities of it all, but it sounds clearly illegal to me. But rather than jailing him, the feds were trying to work with him and, after 20 YEARS, they chose to just confiscate his cattle, which is legal to do when you DON’T PAY your bills. And when they came to confiscate his cattle ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, Bundy and his supporters showed up with guns in hand, implying threats of violence.

    Again, most people out here, I am sure, don’t get what there is to this? He’s not paid his bills to we, the taxpayers. When the taxman came to collect, he responded with hints of violence towards our workers collecting on our behalf.

    What is there to support in any of this? Or, if you don’t support it, you can just say so. That’s all I was asking.

    Again, I would respond with my still unanswered comparison: If it was a drug dealer who was growing pot on HIS OWN LAND, and the police came to chop down the pot (which they do regularly) and he and his gang of friends (I said nothing about a violent drug cartel – just a gang of armed supporters, you know, like Bundy has) came out and implied violence to the police for doing their job, you ALMOST CERTAINLY would disagree with the pot growers.

    What is the difference? You can’t simply ignore laws that you don’t like, choose to not pay bills you don’t like and not be called on it. To think that some people (conservative ranchers, for instance) are above the law is just childish and hypocritical.

    ~Dan

  16. I have to admit, I’, incredibly impressed. John wrote a thread about some actual reasonably important news story and Dan comes in and hijacks the thread. Seriously, this Bundy thing is one guy out in the middle of nowhere, and somehow Dan’s presumption that all conservatives must support anyone who claims to be conservative has him thinking that we’re all defending this guy. I can only speak for myself, but I just don’t really care about Bundy. But to listen to Dan, this is some big deal. Some pro gun control democrat politician gets arrested for running guns, we hear nothing from Dan, but some redneck gets in a grazing rights dispute and every single conservative must be 100% supportive of this guy. Honestly if I cared enough to spend the time researching this, I might agree with Bundy in principle. However, juts because I might agree in principle doesn’t mean I agree with how he’s going about dealing with the situation. Personally I think that sending tac teams in after a guy who (according to Dan) hasn’t actually broken a law (or at least been charged or convicted of a crime), seems a bit excessive. But, it fits the left’s narrative (or at least Dan’s narrative) so, if all else fails hijack an unrelated blog thread.

    The worst thing about this little tactic, is that we’re all guilty of falling for it and abetting his nonsense.

  17. paynehollow says:

    Okay, Craig, I am trying to be patient and I don’t know if you’re just not reading and you’re missing what I’ve actually said or if you’re trying to deliberately be a jerk (to put it nicely), but here are the facts about what you are twisting…

    1. I politely asked a question at the start of this post, acknowledging it was off topic here.
    2. I politely asked if any of you would want to offer your opinions about this Bundy matter. I did NOT take the thread over, I asked if some of you would like to create a post about it and offer your opinions.
    3. YOU ALL are the ones who decided to comment on it here and I (tentatively at first, acknowledging once again that it was off topic, but stating that I would answer John’s questions, since he asked) just responded to your comments here. John appears to have been fine with it, since he’s the one that started addressing the topic here (as opposed to just politely asking if you would want to create a separate post about it, as I did).
    4. Further, I did not say that all conservatives support Bundy. What I DID was to ask if you’d offer your opinions, as I could not believe that conservatives would actually support this freeloading thief.

    So, the facts are what the facts are, Craig. Don’t be a jerk, don’t make stuff up. If you don’t understand, then ask, but don’t make repeated false accusations when they are so easily dismissed with facts.

    Respectfully,

    Dan

    • Here’s a thought: do all this on your own blog. Just like Craig, I have not paid attention to this story, so I am not up on all the details. As it pertains to this post, it is crystal clear that the presence of weapons in the hands of citizens who came to defend Bundy did not result in any death, injury or mere shots fired. Regardless of the details of this story, these people are ordinary citizens, not gang-bangers or members of organized crime or convicted felons or mental patients. Even if their intention was to show force, to intimidate law enforcement charged with confiscation of private property, no harm was inflicted upon anyone simply due to the presence of guns.

      In the meantime, perhaps you can explain what is racist or crazy about his remarks. Go back to my comment with the link to his COMPLETE comments and view the whole thing, not just the out of context portion that compelled so many to recoil.

    • To be fair, Dan did acknowledge his question was off topic when he asked it. However, he did know it would take the whole thing over though.

  18. paynehollow says:

    Listened to his whole thing, Marshall. It doesn’t help his case. Here, do this: Ask your black friends if these comments are outrageously stupid and racist and patronizing and just sheer goofy. Let me know what they say.

    If you had no opinion about his case, that’s fine. I wasn’t really wanting anyone to offer opinions about some topic they had no opinion. I was simply asking if you all had opinions about the case. If your answer is No, then No will suffice.

    You don’t appear satisfied with “No,” and instead appear intent on defending him when, apparently, you aren’t even familiar with the story. Why would you do that?

    ~Dan

    • Initially, we were defending the notion that the presence of guns in that situation, since you brought it up, did not present added danger merely by virtue of the presence of those guns, and supported by the fact that no one was killed, injured or shooting their weapons.

      As to the video, I didn’t ask if you thought it helped or hurt his case. I asked you to point out specifically what was either crazy or racist about his remarks. I am already aware of at least one black person who has found no fault with the man’s comments aside from his amateurish delivery. Indeed, he found Bundy rather accurate despite it.

  19. John,
    Bo question that Dan acknowledged that his post was off topic. However, my opinion is unchanged. If this was truly a major issue for him he could have written a post at his blog and invited comments there, he could have asked that you address it in a separate post, yet he chose to take the course he did.

    For someone who, when it suits him, is very concerned about going off topic, this seems like strange behavior.

    As I said, we’ve completely enabled him to hijack the thread.

    Dan,

    You say the following.

    “Give you a chance to make your case. Your case, Craig, appears to be,…”

    I wonder how you could make this statement. I’ve never actually made a “case”. I offered some possible circumstances that might explain why he said things the way that he did, as well as to offer the possibility that open carry could be legal in certain locales, but certainly did not “make a case’. I did ask for some indication that a crime had been committed, and it seems as though the answer is no. It does seem odd that a committed pacifist type would be cheering for this type of tactical response against someone who has engaged in no acts of violence. It;s also odd that, in the past, you’ve been quite accepting of people breaking the law when you don;t agree with the law in question. I’m pretty sure you’ve suggested that you have no problem with theft as long as the thief is poor. It’s just interesting and convenient that you’ve gotten all law and order in this case. Oh, you’ve also never explained the false equivalence you’ve drawn between Bundy and a drug cartel.

  20. paynehollow says:

    Craig, I was wondering what you all thought, so I asked you all, hoping you’d make a post about the topic, if you were so inclined. That you all decided to discuss it here is on you, not me.

    I had said…

    “Give you a chance to make your case. Your case, Craig, appears to be,…”

    Craig responded…

    I wonder how you could make this statement. I’ve never actually made a “case”.

    I repeat what I actually said was “Your case, Craig, APPEARS TO BE…” I read your words where you did not denounce the fella and seemed to make excuses for his criminal behavior and stated what YOU APPEARED to be suggesting. But I don’t know that is what you were stating, which is why people use phrases like “IT APPEARS…” to tell people what we’re hearing you say so you can acknowledge or clarify.

    English communication really works well when used correctly.

    Craig…

    I’m pretty sure you’ve suggested that you have no problem with theft as long as the thief is poor.

    Don’t know that I’ve ever said this. Don’t know that I think it, exactly. What I do think is that, IF someone is starving and their children are starving and IF they have no recourse but stealing a loaf of bread, to me, that is not as big a deal. I’m not saying it’s legal, I’m not saying there should be no consequences, just that it’s understandable.

    Do you disagree? Would you chop off the starving thief’s hand or some such penalty for trying to feed his children?

    Craig…

    It’s just interesting and convenient that you’ve gotten all law and order in this case.

    On the other hand (ha! see how clever a segue that was!?), we have a MILLIONAIRE rancher who has money who is, regardless of his wealth, taking public goods and refusing – with the threat of violence – to pay his bills. That is theft, Craig. It is illegal, it is immoral. It is EXACTLY the sort of thing where you find the Rich being condemned in the Bible.

    Do you wish to defend that? Yes or no? Or do you wish to simply say, “I have no opinion on it…”? All of these are options. Your half-defending him without wanting to commit to it seems sort of wishy-washy.

    Craig…

    Oh, you’ve also never explained the false equivalence you’ve drawn between Bundy and a drug cartel.

    No false equivalence. Follow closely:

    Bundy says, “I don’t recognize the state’s authority to say I have to pay to let my cattle graze on public property. Therefore I won’t pay and I’ll threaten with violence any state employees who try to make me pay!”

    The marijuana grower (I’ve mentioned no drug cartel) says, “I don’t recognize the state’s authority to say I can’t grow this marijuana. Therefore, I’ll threaten with violence and stand in the way of any state employees trying to stop me or trying to chop down my crop.”

    No. False. Equivalence. It is an apt comparison.

    Now that I’ve explained how exactly it matches, perhaps you’ll clear up and say why you APPEAR to be defending the white wealthy rancher while you APPEAR to be opposed to the marijuana grower.

    Respectfully,

    Dan

    • It is a false equivalence. Bundy’s grazing routine was legal without a bill for doing so, and then it was, for what I understand is an incredibly lame reason. Pot has been illegal for quite a long time, longer than Bundy had been taxed for doing what he had always done. A better analogy would have involved any who had been in the business of hemp production had any of them ignored the change in the laws the rendered weed illegal. I’m unaware of any.

      However, given the circumstances surrounding the outlawing of Mary Jane, your analogy is weaker than you would like. There wasn’t a whole lot of honesty involved in the outlawing of doobage, so an armed resistance by a spleef farmer would have been more easily justified.

  21. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    I asked you to point out specifically what was either crazy or racist about his remarks.

    You know, I never know how to respond to such a comment. Here we have a fella who has made a CLEARLY nutty sounding suggestion (ie, MAYBE “the negro” was better off as a slave…) and you’re appearing to be flummoxed by those who would identify that clearly crazy suggestion as clearly crazy.

    As Jon Stewart noted (paraphrasing), “Ah, Bundy poses a good question: Would ‘the negro’ be better off as a slave? Well, I guess we’ll have to let history decide… OH WAIT. History HAS decided. NO. NO. No, of course ANY people are not better off as slaves… WTF!!???”

    Come on, really, Marshall? I don’t know what to say. If you don’t recognize clearly immoral, clearly insane questions like that as clearly immoral and clearly insane, nothing I can say will help, I fear.

    ~Dan

    • “You know, I never know how to respond to such a comment.”

      An honest, thoughtful and reasoned response would be a good start. Again, you appeal to what you insist is “CLEARLY nutty sounding”. But honorable people do not deal in the superficial. This guy is not a professional speaker, not an acclaimed debater, not a public official. I would wager that from amongst your salt of the earth brethren who are alleged victims of some unknown force that pressed them into poverty, a host of CLEARLY nutty sounding statements have flowed like Niagra without such biased, ungracious and unChristian judgment from you. Shame on you for your hypocrisy.

      So yet again, I am not concerned with the exact words he used, but the position he was really quite clear in putting forth.

      I would also caution you against relying on Stewart here. He, too, takes an even smaller bit of Bundy’s words out of context in order to mock him. He didn’t merely ask if blacks would be better off as a slave. He was making a clear comparison that was clearly hyperbole. That would be, that they are no more free now as recipients of gov’t handouts than they were recipients of the slave owner’s food and shelter. In short, his comments are FAR from racist or insanity.

      So man up and make YOUR case. If it’s so crystal clear, it should be quite simple to explain.

  22. Dan,
    Perhaps I haven’t been quite clear enough. If a law has been broken then we have a legal system who’s job it is to deal with that. I’m quite content to let the system work. I see no need to demonize, name call, or blow this out of proportion. In short I just don’t care enough to get as worked up as you seem to want. But given that folks here in the U S are innocent until proven guilty, I’ll wait for a conviction if one is forthcoming.

    Personally, I think y’all just get so excited when anyone says anything about race so y’all have the chance to point and yell “racist”.

  23. paynehollow says:

    I was specifically and literally NOT wanting to talk about the race part of the story. I remind you of my literal words:

    Any chance any of you fellas would want to comment on Cliven Bundy (the mildly nutty and greatly dangerous armed stand-off, NOT the very nutty racist rant)?

    I was wondering if any of you would create a post offering your opinions about the armed stand off, as was my simple request/comment right at the front. If you have no opinions, then a simple “I have no opinion” would suffice.

    Myself, on the story itself, I had no great opinion. I was mildly amused at how nutty it was to see conservative TV and radio hosts pointing to this horse-back-riding, flag-raising guy as some kind of hero. But, on the story itself, I was and am content to let the gov’t prosecute him for his crimes (although I am wondering why they’ve let it continue for 20 years!). No, on the story itself, I had no great questions. My simple question was about how I could not believe that conservatives in general would actually support this sort of behavior, even if it was from a rich white conservative dude. I don’t think conservatives, in general, are that petty and partisan. But I had not noticed any of the regular conservative bloggers I visit comment on it. SO, I asked a simple straightforward question, hoping to see some opinions offered in a post on the topic.

    That, or hear, “No, I have no great opinion about it…” That would be helpful, too.

    But this apparent half-way defense of a person whose story you don’t appear to even be informed about seems odd.

    Like this…

    I see no need to demonize, name call, or blow this out of proportion.

    This guy has defied the gov’t for 20 years, refusing to pay a bill he has knowingly incurred to the tune of one million dollars. When gov’t responded and did prosecute, Bundy and his supporters responded with threats of armed violence. That is a serious offense and would be a horrible model to say, “This is okay…” because it is a call for anarchy and hedonism. “Whatever I THINK is moral, IS moral and I don’t have to heed anyone else’s opinion and if the People DO disagree with me and try to hold me accountable for my offenses, I will respond with threats of violence to them!”

    What an ANTI-conservative, ANTI-moral, ANTI-Christian, anti-adult view to hold to.

    But, whatevs.

    Thanks for the responses.

    ~Dan

    • It went on as long as it had due to his many attempts to battle it out in court. Apparently you have taken no time to investigate the story on which you want us to comment.

      Personally, it seems to me that conservatives who hailed this guy weren’t necessarily up on the details, either. OR, they saw his 20 year legal battle as worthy of acclaim and his efforts to prevent the confiscation of his cattle as merely another chapter in that war. Other conservatives, like his rancher neighbors who just paid the tax/fee/whatever, saw his refusal as justifying the confiscation. From my perspective, I don’t see a refusal to pay as all that big a deal while legal battles are ongoing. Maybe if he had gotten more support for his position when it all started, the fee for grazing might have been eliminated 19 years ago. That he’s the lone rebel here does not make him either wrong or nutty, just stubborn. Let’s take his stuff.

    • Despite your eagerness to solicit commentary on something not important enough for you to either investigate fully on your own, nor offer your blog to discuss it, I find this bit:
      “NOT the very nutty racist rant”
      …to be far more telling. It is a slander of the sort that typically riles you if such a comment was directed in your direction. And while you chastised me for daring to question your conferring of sainthood status on Nelson Mandela, nothing I said about a dead guy ever rose to this level of character assassination. Apparently, not everyone regards Bundy as either racist or nutty. Some seem to be quite fond of the man.
      And really, I find most of your commentary to more than qualify for “very nutty” status.

  24. It’s probably presumptuous to expect Dan to decry the rich liberal rancher folk who suck up millions in what are essentially federal welfare payments, or the nutty liberal millionaire NBA owner and his racism, or the anti gun liberal legislator arrested for his part in a gun running

  25. Does anyone actually know where Bundy falls politically? It seems as though everyone assumes he’s conservative , but I haven’t seen anything definitive.

  26. paynehollow says:

    Get serious.

    • I believe I heard today that the Clippers owner is a registered Republican, but I haven’t heard about Bundy. Dan says, “Get serious”, but I’m sure he was saying the same with regards to Fred Phelps, but Phelps ran for office as a Dem. It isn’t a slam dunk that anyone is anything simply because of one issue. How judgmental! Rather lacking in grace, I’d say.

      • The clippers owner has been a democrat donor for some time.

        • There are those who donate to both sides for various reasons depending on the candidate and the specifics of their individual platforms.

        • It does appear that the clippers owner is a registered republican, although a CA republican is probably going to less conservative than other republicans. It does appear that he did donate heavily to liberal democrats so, one could reasonably infer that he is not necessarily a conservative.

          As to Phelps, he was a democrat and I’m not sure that it is reasonable to label him a conservative based on only one aspect of his beliefs. Of course one also wonders why someone so conservative would be quite so close to Al Gore (most defiantly not a conservative). One might also wonder why Phelps would run for office as a democrat is a state that tend to vote republican, if he was a conservative. I realize people sometimes act counter-intiutively , but he would have had a much better chance to win in KS as a republican, even as a liberal republican.

          • As to Phelps, you would also have to claim that a third of kansas democrats are also closeted conservatives since he got upwards of a third of democrat votrs in the primaries he was in.

  27. paynehollow says:

    There is, of course, a difference between “liberal” and “democrat.” Phelps was a democrat who was not a liberal, but who espoused conservative views. I’m not saying folk like Phelps or Bundy are typical conservatives, but clearly, they are people who embrace conservative values – anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-big gov’t, etc, etc.

    Again, get serious.

    ~Dan

    • Dan, how would you describe me if I said the great thing about President Obama was that he was light skinned and didn’t have a Negro dialect unless he wanted one?

    • Really. Why would anyone vote Dem or run as a Dem with so many conservative values? Get serious. Phelps was just wacky, which makes him more like a liberal than a conservative. The guy was a lib with a few conservative sounding views.

  28. Some interesting excerpts from Matt Walsh, on Clippergate.

    “Sterling is an old, crazy, rich, (alleged) racist who happens to own the LA Clippers. Being old, crazy, and rich, and living in California, he also has a pretty progressive love life. He left his wife a while back and started shacking up with his young west coast mistress. Now, his wife has quite unfairly accused the mistress of gold-digging, all because she just so happened to fall madly in love with a rich married man who showered her with Bentleys, diamonds, and cash.”

    “In a normal and sane society, this sordid soap opera would never be discussed outside of gossip magazines and entertainment shows, because there’s nothing very newsworthy about it. A wealthy, morally bankrupt adulterer in Los Angeles professed some unsavory views, behind closed doors, to his manipulative morally bankrupt girlfriend.”

    “Donald Sterling can say and think whatever he wants to say and think. Given his situation, I’m not particularly surprised that he says and thinks offensive things. In fact, his overall lifestyle is far more repugnant than his ludicrous statements about black people.”

    “We permit and even celebrate most forms of evil and debauchery in our society, so our Moral Outrage energy is stored, ready to be unleashed anytime an old white guy utters something untoward about minorities. Having removed sins like baby-killing, pornography, sex-trafficking, and infidelity from the ‘Things to Get Upset About’ column, this seems to be among the only universally-recognized evils remaining.”

    Definitely worth checking out the whole piece, he makes some good points.

  29. Now that we’ve totally left the rails, does anyone have any thoughts about whether or not the NBA will be applying this new zero tolerance policy in an even handed manner?

    • I just read of a former player, Larry Johnson, who is still in the league in some capacity I believe, stating he believes there should be a blacks only league and the black players are treated like slaves. Sure, they are incredibly well paid and coddled slaves, but I guess that doesn’t count. That sure seems racist to me. He should be fined and banned for life as well.

  30. paynehollow says:

    I’m looking for a question you gave to me about Bundy’s comments, but don’t see it, John. I see the question about “how would you describe me if I said the great thing about President Obama was that he was light skinned and didn’t have a Negro dialect unless he wanted one?” Is that what you’re speaking of?

    Obama IS light skinned, so there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. And noting that someone has a dialect that comes and goes is not inherently wrong. This is not uncommon in many places (not just “urban” dialects, but dialects in general… we often speak one way around our cultural peers and another “in public…”).

    So, there is nothing inherently wrong in noting either thing, it seems to me.

    ~Dan

    • No dan, im saying the good thing about him is that je is light skinned with no negro dialect unless he wamts one. If you find nothing wrong with my use of the word negro, why do you have an issue with bundys use?

  31. paynehollow says:

    As to the use of the term, “negro,” it would depend on context. Some of my young black friends will say to one another, “Hello, Negro” as a rhyming, light greeting. No harm, no foul.

    On the other hand, saying, “The thing about ‘the negro’ is this…” and proceeding to list a bunch of bad stuff, ascribing it to a whole group of people, that is more problematic and symptomatic of a racist charge.

    Context matters.

    For another example, I had a dearly loved elderly (in her 80s and 90s at the time) white family member who would say, even up into the early 1990s, “What a cute little nigger boy” and say it with a smile on her face and voice. She meant no harm, she was just raised with that sort of language. But it’s still a patronizing and racist thing to say, whatever her intentions were. She lived through the civil rights era, she should have known that such a phrase was wrong, and still, there it was.

    I’m not saying Bundy’s comments were meant to cause harm or that he hates black people, just that he was speaking negatively and patronizingly of a whole race of people, as if they were one inferior group. This is racism, by definition.

    Is that the question you were wanting answered?

    ~Dan

    • You insisted that it was obvious that his use of the word negro referencing blacks was racist or at least prejudiced. I suspect you know exactly what I asked this question, namely, that liberal democrat Harry Reid said this of Obama and was given a complete pass. More evidence that liberals give their own a pass whereas conservatives are demonized.

      How about if I said Obama is the worst negro in america? Would that be racist?

  32. paynehollow says:

    1. I did not insist that the use of the word “negro” was racist. Here is what I said…

    Well, the “folk hero” Bundy has now had video released of him offering his opinions about “the Negro…” and what’s wrong with them and if wondering if they weren’t better off back in the good ol’ days of slavery!

    As in, “Here’s the problem with the Negros…” As in, here is the problem with this whole race of people. As in, racism, by definition.

    It would have been the same if he had said, “The problem with ‘the blacks’ is this…”

    It’s not using the word “Negro” itself, it’s the denigrating a whole race of people. “Hello, Negro” is not racist. “The problem with the Negros is this…” is racist.

    “Hello, Black man” is not racist.

    “The problem with Black people is…” is racist.

    Do you understand now what I actually said?

    2. Saying that Obama is the worst negro in America is not racist.

    Saying, “The negros are a problem,” is racist.

    3. It has nothing to do with giving anyone a pass. If Biden had said what you suggest, I do not recall it, thus, I was not giving anyone a pass. I am talking about word usage.

    Anytime anyone begins with “The thing about the Negros is…” OR “the thing about black people is…,” red flags will go up because the person is getting ready to make some proclamation about a whole race of people, and when that proclamation is negative, then you have racism, by definition.

    See?

    ~Dan

  33. So, it would appear that it’s OK for a liberal or democrat to say inappropriate things about individual Negros, but it’s not OK to say inappropriate things about Negros in general.

    Just to be certain, it is NOT racist to call an associate justice of the SCOTUS and “Uncle Tom”.

    “In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.” Is also apparently NOT racist.

    “African Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do.”

    Also, apparently NOT racist.

    P-BO is “…light-skinned,” and with “no negro dialect.”. NOT racist.

    “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Also NOT racist.

    “I love this quote. It’s from Mahatma Gandhi. He ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years. Mr. Gandhi, do you still go to the gas station? A lot of wisdom comes out of that gas station” NOT racist.

  34. paynehollow says:

    ? I’m sorry, do you all not understand the meaning of the word, “racist?” Insults to individuals about their real traits is not racist, by definition. It may be unkind or meant to be an insult, but it is not inherently racist. Now, if you are insulting a light-skinned black man because you hate black folk, that may mean you are racist, but the comment itself is not racist.

    The “first mainstream African-American who is articulate…,” THAT is racist in tone, because it is not an insult to the individual, but an indictment against a whole race, ie, racism, by definition.

    It would appear you all have a problem with the dictionary, not me. Take it up with Webster.

    Respectfully,

    Dan

  35. No, I think the problem is your selective application of your criteria of racism.

  36. paynehollow says:

    Racism: noun a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

    Merriam Webster

    Thinking that “the blacks” are, as a race, defective (“the problem with the Negros is they kill their babies, send their young men to prison and seemed to just be better off when they were slaves picking cotton…”) is, by definition, racism.

    Take it up with Webster.

    ~Dan

    • Actually pointing out that black mothers abort at higher rates is not racist. Perhaps attributing it to a belief that blacks as a race are stupid is. Pointing out that blacks in urban cities commit crime at higher rates disproportionatly to their population representation isnt racist. Perhaps attributing it to a belief that blacks as a race are just criminally minded is.

      You called me racist because I stated a fact and asked the question why. Maybe you should do some more of that “serious study” you talk so much about.

  37. paynehollow says:

    This guy did not say “black women abort at higher rates…” He said, “The negro abort their babies, send their boys to jail and maybe they’d be better off as slaves picking cotton…”

    The suggestion that the race of black folk might be better off as SLAVES is NUTTY as hell and racist, by definition.

    If you want to change what he said to something else, then yes, sure, maybe that new statement that he didn’t say wouldn’t be racist. But I’m not talking about things he did not say. I’m talking about what he DID say.

    See the difference?

    Now, do you want to suggest that he meant something other than the racist claim he made? Go for it, maybe you’re right. I’m not into mind-reading, I’m just going on what his actual words were.

    Really, fellas, you all do this all the time. For folk with whom you disagree, you read our actual words, twist them to mean something we didn’t say and try to knock down that strawman. Then, when you have someone like this with whom you do agree, you are twisting his words to say something less malignant than his actual words and say, “Look, he’s not so bad…”

    I’d suggest just sticking to people’s actual comments.

    ~Dan

    • Dan

      Try to keep up. I SAID black mothers abort at higher rates and asked why and you essentially called ME a racist.

    • “The suggestion that the race of black folk might be better off as SLAVES is NUTTY as hell and racist, by definition.”

      The suggestion that he was speaking of blacks in general as opposed to those existing on govt handouts as his entire statement clearly suggests is nutty as hell and typical leftist demonizing.

  38. paynehollow says:

    I don’t know, I don’t recall the exchange. If you want to provide some context, I’d be glad to talk about my actual words. As it is, I don’t recall the specifics. Is this the one where I apologized and said I misspoke?

    It is not racist to note a fact. Now, what you do with that fact – if you try to then twist the fact to say, “therefore, all blacks are immoral,” or “black people tend to be baby killers…” that might be more problematic. But if you merely noted the fact that “black families have more abortions than other racial groups,” I doubt seriously that I would have called the simple statement of the fact “racist.”

    ~Dan

  39. paynehollow says:

    From your linked post, I quote my words…

    John, I apologize for my words here. I should not have gone down this road. My mistake and I am sorry.

    ~Dan Trabue

    So, in answer to your question…

    I SAID black mothers abort at higher rates and asked why and you essentially called ME a racist.

    I note that I apologized for the implication. It was a mistake. I do NOT call you a racist for asking the question. Does that clear it up?

    On the other hand, Bundy’s words are racist, by definition.

    ~Dan

  40. paynehollow says:

    I will also note that my original post in that was NOT a charge that you were racist, but a note that it SOUNDED like you were going down the racist road of implying black folk tend to be evil, and ASKING you the question if that was your intent. Asking questions is not the same as making a charge. It is noting “Hey, TO ME, this sounds like… is that your intent?” and thereby giving you the opportunity to respond and clarify that it was not your intent. An opportunity, I believe, you passed up.

    ~Dan

  41. “On the other hand, Bundy’s words are racist, by definition.”

    Reading the quotes from the original story, I cannot find where Bundy made any claim that any group of people “are, as a race, defective.”

    Nor did he espouse any belief “that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

    It’s almost as if your fidelity to a dictionary definition is directly related to its polemical usefulness: why, Biden’s comments can’t be racist because they don’t fit this particular definition, but Bundy’s comment is racist “by definition” EVEN WHEN IT DOESN’T ACTUALLY FIT THE DEFINITION YOU CHOOSE TO CITE.

    Nothing new, but you should still be called out for it.

  42. paynehollow says:

    He raised the question, as if it were in doubt, if “the negro” would be better off enslaved. That seems to most reasonable people (I suspect) to say, “there is something WRONG with these people… who would benefit from being enslaved??”

    Are you trying to suggest that he’s trying to pay a COMPLIMENT to black folk by suggesting they may be better off enslaved? That they might be better taken care of by an owner than by themselves? Are you seriously suggesting this is NOT a slight against black folk?

    Get serious, fellas. Even the Rand Pauls and other conservatives in public eye recognize this as racism, It’s not like I’m reading something unbelievable into his comments…

    ~Dan

    • Did he say better if they were enslaved, or did he say back in that era? Did he qualify what he meant? One could make the argument that the widespread brokenness of black families, especially in urban areas, is highly detrimental and a controlling factor in other woes in the black community, such as crime and abortion rates. In the days of slavery, black families were essentially in tact. In the 40s-60s before the war on poverty, black unemployment was lower than white unemployment. In those days black legitimacy rates were on par with everyone else and there was as much overt racism as at any time.

      Dan, I havent even taken the time to investigate the issue, its just not important to me. But given your history of reading between lines and imposing the most uncharitable interpretation to people who disagree with you, I have a hard time believing he said blacks were better off enslaved.

    • YOU need to get serious, Dan. In his clumsy way, Bundy was comparing those enslaved in the past, to what he regards as another form of enslavement to the gov’t welfare system that hasn’t lifted them up above a state that is no better than slavery of old. It is not an unreasonable comparison despite not being perfect. He is truly concerned about the harm that is inflicted upon people who believe they are being benefited by the welfare system. No honorable person needs a translator to understand this, which is why I explain it to you now.

  43. Dan, nothing in what the Times quoted implies that Bundy’s point was that slavery was uniquely beneficial to blacks: his obvious point was that slavery was arguably less detrimental than the welfare state.

    Bundy wasn’t comparing blacks to any other race, either to denigrate them or to pay them some sort of compliment. He was comparing the welfare state to slavery.

    One can disagree with his position and even denounce the comparison as odious for minimizing the evil of institutionalized, chattel slavery — which is evil even when it’s not race-based — but that doesn’t make it racist.

    And I don’t believe Rand Paul’s complete statement was published, but what was originally published was this, “His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him” — “offensive,” but not necessarily racist.

    Nevada Senator Dean Heller’s spokesman called the statement “racist,” but if you’re going to invoke an argument from authority, you should probably have your facts straight.

  44. …and, Dan, you’ve gone from denouncing Bundy’s comments as racist “by definition” to expressing an unproven (and probably unprovable) “suspicion” that some vague group of reasonable people would infer racist assumptions underlying his comments.

    Tell us why a similar suspicion is readily dismissed when it comes to the offensive humor of Democratic politicians and the even more offensive theology of a race-essentialist conspiracy-mongering pastor who you praise as a “man of God.”

  45. “If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

    What an anti-Semitic slur. I mean, who would benefit from being drowned?

  46. paynehollow says:

    Defend nutty comments all you want. I’ve made my point.

    Dan

  47. This whole affair reminds me of Joe the Plumber being denounced by the National Jewish Democratic Council for mentioning gun-control laws that disarmed the German population prior to the Holocaust. Apparently, mentioning Jews in any comparison with which the Left disagrees is inherently anti-Semitic, just as it’s racist “by definition” to invoke slavery in ways that the Left would not.

    In the 2008 election, many reporters seemed more interested in the background of a private citizen who asked a pointed question than in the background of the politician who provided the inconveniently honest answer. Who cares if the actual candidate spent decades listen to sermons from a race-essentialist conspiracy-monger, launched his career in the house of unrepentant domestic terrorists, and ran campaigns that always seemed to benefit from convenient government leaks that damaged his opponents? That plumber has a lien against his property because of unpaid taxes!

    Hish papers vere nut in orter! That’s what matters!

    “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

    The tactics have been obvious for years.

    So who cares whether an unelected bureaucracy uses snipers to enforce their regulations over 80 percent of Nevada and more than one-eighth of this country’s land — an area larger than France, Germany, and Italy combined? Who cares that the federal government is over-eager in enforcing environmental regulations while actively undermining our border?

    Some guy said something politically incorrect, and by God, we must have a comment about it from everybody who dares think that Leviathan is a little too big for its britches!

    Unless the guy turns out to be Mother Teresa in cowboy boots, we cannot and must not dare take his side when the government has perhaps overstepped its bounds, and unless the guy turns out to be Mother Teresa with a plunger, we cannot and must not allow him to ask pointed questions of his political betters.

    Is the government run by paragons of moral virtue? Of course not, but we MUST assume they have the best intentions as they audit every piece of paper produced by organizations that happen to be conservative, spend money to close open-air parks to prove that they have no money to spend, and lie to the American people over the flag-draped coffins of the diplomat and soldiers they refused to protect.

    They are statists and therefore they are on the side of angels — and they’re only human.

    And since their opponents are enemies of history and progress and social justice, any flaw that we would indulge as “character” in the lying lechers who rule us MUST be denounced as reason enough to dismiss them from the body politic.

    In this case, Cliven Bundy’s real crime is opposing the Left. His comments merely provide the pretext for this farce of mock outrage.

  48. What point was that, Dan? I thought you were just asking for comments. Don’t tell us that your innocent question had a more accusatory subtext! That’s so unlike you!

  49. paynehollow says:

    No, his crime was failing to pay that which he owed to the tune of a million bucks. He’s a cheating freeloader and now, as he’s made clear, racist or just plain insane about his ideas about “the negros.”

    You may defend citizens refusing to pay their bills and pointing rifles at state officials when they come to collect if you wish. I think it is abundantly clear. And on that topic, why don’t you answer the question I put to others who refused to answer it: Would you also defend the marijuana grower who disagreed with gov’t rules and said “Nope, they don’t apply to me!” and then pointed guns at state officials who came to chop down his marijuana crop and used the threat of violence to chase away officers?

    Will you be consistent or expose yourself as a partisan hypocrite?

    I’m consistent: If you break the law, you should expect to face the consequences and you sure as hell shouldn’t threaten violence against others for merely holding you accountable for your own actions. IF you incur costs against your fellow citizens, you should be held accountable to pay back those costs.

    It’s all about basic decency and personal responsibility. Real conservatives would support these ideals. Even when the “hero” of the story is one of their own.

    ~Dan

  50. I suspect that most reasonable people would conclude that the point Dan was trying to prove is simply this:

    Conservatives aren’t sufficiently enthusiastic for the Two Minutes Hate for the latest Goldstein, and thus they too are guilty of Thoughtcrime and are, therefore, just as doubleplusungood.

  51. “Will you be consistent or expose yourself as a partisan hypocrite?”

    Will you show me where I’ve defended Bundy, or are you just assuming my position for me? The only thing I’ve written here is about your characterization of his comments as racist “by definition.” Your doing so doesn’t fit the definition you yourself invoked, and it’s just another instance of your hypocrisy, inconsistently invoking standards only when they suit you.

    If being a “cheating freeloader” is his real crime, why do you IMMEDIATELY go back to his supposed racism? And why do you now diagnose a person you’ve never met as being insane, Doctor Trabue?

    …and, really, if you’re that consistent about the rule of law, paying for the costs you incur, and “basic decency and personal responsibility,” could you please point me to where you were asking your fellow travelers to denounce the Occupy movement’s excesses in vandalism and trespassing?

  52. paynehollow says:

    Bubba, if you can’t quote my positions correctly (and you almost never do), I’d suggest it would be the better part of wisdom to not summarize them in your own words.

    The last comment: Totally false. Never said it. So, note where Bubba says, “Dan has said…” you can almost count on what follows as being either a total falsehood or an entirely twisted version of reality.

    Just for the record.

    And for the record, it is my actual belief (if you are interested in, you know, reality and stuff), that conservatives are not by and large racist. Just to throw a bit of cold reality out there, not that it appears to matter.

    Bubba…

    Will you show me where I’ve defended Bundy, or are you just assuming my position for me?

    I have not said you’ve defended Bundy. I posted a question here on the assumption that most rational people (conservatives, included) MUST surely recognize the principle that Bundy was standing for (If I believe it is so, I can act like it is so. And if The People disagree with my beliefs, they are out of luck, my belief trumps the will of the People. And if The People try to hold me accountable to their “rules” I will threaten them with deadly violence…) is one that no rational person could support. And so, I came here to ask a random sampling of “online conservatives” (as opposed to conservatives I know in real life who, by and large, could not reasonably support such a position) what their view is. So far, I have heard only defense of Bundy, albeit in a vague, non-committal sort of way. I’ve seen nothing like anyone even questioning anything he’s done or said. So, based on appearances so far, you all SEEM to be supporting him. The easiest thing to do would be to offer an actual clarifying statement to say, “This is what I think about Bundy,” ideally on your own blog so we’re not tying up this post (which, again, has been my intent from the beginning… that you all chose to take it up here was your choice, not mine.)

    Bubba…

    If being a “cheating freeloader” is his real crime, why do you IMMEDIATELY go back to his supposed racism?

    This is funny. From the beginning, I’ve stated CLEARLY and directly: It is NOT my desire to talk about the racist elements of Bundy’s positions, but the anarchist elements. You all took up that thread and I’ve responded to some of your comments and questions, but it was literally, directly, specifically NOT my intent to talk about that.

    So, to the point of my question: Do you see that the Philosophy that Bundy is advocating in saying, “I don’t recognize the gov’t or its rules or its enforcers, therefore, I don’t have to heed its rules or enforcers. IF the ‘gov’t’ tries to enforce their ‘rules’ on me, I will threaten them with violence…” is not a rational one, but one of hedonistic anarchy?

    Would you allow just anyone to make that case, or must it be acceptable ONLY if a conservative is the one advocating anarchy?

    Feel free to clarify.

    But try to stick to my actual words and not your false summaries of my “positions.” 90% of the time, they’re wrong, and surely, you don’t want to be wrong that often.

    ~Dan

  53. paynehollow says:

    Sorry, typo: Where I said at the beginning:

    So, note where Bubba says, “Dan has said…”

    That should have read “Where JOHN says…”

    My apologies, just a typo.

    ~Dan

  54. paynehollow says:

    Bubba…

    your fellow travelers to denounce the Occupy movement’s excesses in vandalism and trespassing?

    I am not a fan of the Occupy movement. Anyone who commits vandalism and actual trespassing are wrong in doing so. Plus, by and large, I think the movement – while often good-intentioned and having some very valid concerns – is sloppy and not well-versed in smart Non-Violent Direct Action, used well.

    You can’t assume “He hasn’t said something about a topic” to mean “He must support those people…”

    Dan

    • That’s exactly what you’re doing here. You’re trying to force us to comment on Bundy and because we won’t, you’re assuming we support him. The truth is that at least two of us has said we haven’t taken interest in the Bundy situation and as such aren’t willing to comment on what we believe, since we don’t know the details. In the meantime, you claim he made racist comments and feel you can label his comments in a slanderous manner and insist we must NOT comment on THAT. Could you draw your lines more narrowly, please.

  55. paynehollow says:

    Bubba…

    And why do you now diagnose a person you’ve never met as being insane, Doctor Trabue?

    I have made no diagnoses of Bundy. I’ve talked specifically about his comments and the principle he is advocating. The Principle, “IF I think it, I can do it, regardless of whether society agrees with my idea of reality. If society tells me I can’t do it, I can threaten them with violence…” IS a nutty principle. It is a hedonistic anarchy of the most selfish, vile sort. And defending that irresponsible hedonism with threats of violence, THAT principle is insane, too.

    Again, I have to believe that you all are rational and can agree with me on this point, but you tell me.

    ~Dan

  56. paynehollow says:

    John…

    we both know you said conservative pretty much equals racist

    No, I don’t know it and reality does not support it. That you read something and interpret it to mean the OPPOSITE of what I actually think does not mean you are speaking from a position of reality.

    You won’t find and post such a statement from me precisely because it does not exist in the real world.

    ~Dan

    • Dan, what happened was I made the comment you seem to think that conservative equals racist and you replied “well…”.

      Of course you had some double plus ungood way of distancing yourself from that afterwards but your excuse was smartless.

  57. “From the beginning, I’ve stated CLEARLY and directly: It is NOT my desire to talk about the racist elements of Bundy’s positions, but the anarchist elements.”

    We can tell.

    “No, his crime was failing to pay that which he owed to the tune of a million bucks. He’s a cheating freeloader and now, as he’s made clear, racist or just plain insane about his ideas about ‘the negros.’ ”

    Now there’s some incisive criticism of the supposedly anarchist elements of his political philosophy. No harping on his supposed racism, goodness no.

    Of course, Dan, just because you can’t produce evidence of your asking other leftists to condemn Occupy, we can’t automatically assume that you support their lawlessness, but it is funny what gets your attention.

    For a guy who we shouldn’t dare dismiss as a partisan hack, you sure do offer a reasonable facsimile of partisan hackery.

  58. I have made no diagnoses of Bundy. I’ve talked specifically about his comments and the principle he is advocating. The Principle, ‘IF I think it, I can do it, regardless of whether society agrees with my idea of reality. If society tells me I can’t do it, I can threaten them with violence…’ IS a nutty principle. It is a hedonistic anarchy of the most selfish, vile sort. And defending that irresponsible hedonism with threats of violence, THAT principle is insane, too.

    My apologies, then. I thought you were calling him insane because of his ideas about the negroes.

    “No, his crime was failing to pay that which he owed to the tune of a million bucks. He’s a cheating freeloader and now, as he’s made clear, racist or just plain insane about his ideas about ‘the negros.’

    No telling where I got that idea. I must be a little mental myself.

  59. paynehollow says:

    So, you’re defending Bundy by not taking a stand on his actual position. Vaguely defending him, but you won’t address the question actually being asked.

    Again, IF YOU ALL have no opinion about the matter, a simple, “I have no opinion about the matter” would have sufficed. But instead of saying “no opinion,” you’ve offered opinions and defenses of these nutty ideals.

    I’m fine with “no opinion.” Saying, “I don’t really have an opinion, but Bundy clearly isn’t nutty and he’s making some good points…” isn’t really “no opinion…”

    My point would be that it is anarchy and irresponsible and selfish to demand – at gunpoint – that society let you do whatever you think is right, regardless of rules we have in place with which the adults cooperate.

    “I gotta have it my way or I’ll threaten you with my big gun” is the position of a dangerous child, one that needs help.

    ~Dan

  60. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,”

    Just want to clarify. In the above quote it quite clearly states that P-BO (at the time S-BO) was “THE FIRST” (in other words he possessed qualities that no one before him possessed), “mainstream African-American” ( as opposed to the non mainstream Negros), ” who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” (because there haven’t been any “articulate” “bright” “clean” “nice looking” Negros before P-BO, right?)

    So, clearly, in accordance with your definition the above statement is by definition racist as it characterizes virtually an entire race of people as NOT “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking…”.

  61. paynehollow says:

    Yes, Craig, clearly it is a racist-sounding statement. As I already noted.

    Do you disagree that it is a racist-sounding statement or can we agree on it when it’s a more liberal person making the comment, but only then. Certainly NOT when it’s a conservative?

    You see, I have no problem pointing to a problematic statement, whoever said it. I’m not partisan or hypocritical, that way. You?

    And, in both cases (Bundy and Biden), I can easily allow that either fella might be a nice-enough fella with no evil intent on their part when they made these racist-sounding statements, but the statements clearly are racist, in that they are denigrating to a whole race.

    Now, perhaps Marshall is right in his guess and when this fella said “The Negro…” he was only speaking of lazy black and white people, specifically, not all “those negros,” I’m not a mind-reader and don’t know if he intended something different than what he said, but what he said was racist in those actual words, as was Biden’s comment.

    How about you? Do you agree that BOTH statements are wrong, or at least wrongly-stated?

    ~Dan

    • That’s gracious. I never said anything about “lazy black and white people” and I don’t believe Bundy did either. So once again, as you did initially slandering Bundy as having made racist remarks, you falsely attach intention not indicate by the words used. To put it more plainly so that even you might understand, you are referring to Bundy’s comments as racist because he said “those people” (or words to that effect). An honest person, listening to the entirety of his comments (did you even view the full video of his comments?) can easily understand his meaning. But you would condemn the man for his choice of words rather than the meaning he clearly intends to convey.

      There’s nothing wrong with Bundy’s comments at all. There is a lot wrong with you for your arrogance and condescension toward him for his unprofessional and inarticulate phrasing. You ought to be ashamed for judging him so harshly.

  62. paynehollow says:

    The thing is, people are generally ready to forgive a stupid statement – even a racist statement – when one’s life exemplifies a love of humanity, regardless of color, and when one acknowledges the stupid or racist statement.

    Biden apologized, acknowledging it was a stupid statement.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16911044/ns/nbc_nightly_news_with_brian_williams/t/sen-biden-apologizes-remarks-obama/

    Further, he presumably lives a life of openness to all people, regardless of color (his boss, after all, is of another race and he gladly took the position).

    Where is Bundy’s apology? Where is Bundy’s life of openness to people of all races?

    These comments were not made in a void. We have a history in our nation of very real slavery, very real racism and very real oppression. You can understand how some people may be skeptical of an “innocent mistake” when no acknowledgement of the mistake has been forthcoming.

    ~Dan

    • “The thing is, people are generally ready to forgive a stupid statement…”

      But you jumped all over Bundy and ASSUMED his statement was racist simply because of his less-than-cultured speech. How superficial you are! How lacking in grace!

      “…when one’s life exemplifies a love of humanity, regardless of color, and when one acknowledges the stupid or racist statement.”

      And yet, taken in full context, from a position of objectivity, it is clear that nothing in Bundy’s comments indicates bigotry on his part. You assumed it. You took it for granted, and I’m guessing you believe him to be conservative so how could it NOT be racist, right? Hypocrite.

      “Biden apologized, acknowledging it was a stupid statement.”

      Considering his background, his comments are far less forgivable, though very typically stupid for the GaffeMaster. He apologized because he is a Democrat caught with his foot in his mouth (once again) and likely wouldn’t have if his error wasn’t pointed out to him (because there’s no way he’s smart enough to have noticed otherwise).

      “Further, he presumably lives a life of openness to all people, regardless of color…”

      On what do you base this? Because his “boss” (which is really us), is half black? Are you suggesting that being able to say he’s vice-prez, next in line should Obama die, usually the first considered for the post after “his boss” serves his limited term and recipient of all the perks that go with it was a far second to serving under a half black man? Yeah…that must be it.

      “Where is Bundy’s apology?”

      He said nothing for which he need apologize and you still haven’t pointed out anything that proves otherwise.

      “Where is Bundy’s life of openness to people of all races?”

      Talk about saying something stupid! His comments demonstrate his concern for other races. Obviously, you did NOT view the link I posted with his full comment. If you have, then you’re lying now.

      “We have a history in our nation of very real slavery, very real racism and very real oppression. “

      And very real race-baiting and white guilt. Thanks for playing your part.

      “You can understand how some people may be skeptical of an “innocent mistake” when no acknowledgement of the mistake has been forthcoming.”

      The only mistake is your hypocritical lack of grace for this salt of the earth individual. Shame on you, though you aren’t likely to acknowledge your woeful mistake. Bundy didn’t make one except for allowing his comments to be recorded where fakes like yourself might distort them.

  63. Biden “presumably lives a life of openness to all people, regardless of color.”

    The uncharitable interpretation is a riff on the Clinton/Kennedy Defense: sure, he’s a known womanizer and probable rapist (or murderer in Ted Kennedy’s case), but he’s on the right side of issues like abortion and feminism, so he gets a pass.

    But why should we be charitable when Dan assumes we’re defending a guy WHEN WE’RE NOT DEFENDING HIM?

    “So, you’re defending Bundy by not taking a stand on his actual position.”

    That’s not generally how people defend somebody: at most, it’s merely an objection to the Three Minutes Hate that you’re trying to instigate for the guy’s doubleunplusgood Thoughtcrime.

    Only totalitarians insist on eradicating the distinction between what’s tolerated and what’s embraced.

  64. According to Dan, Biden’s statement is “a racist-sounding statement.” While Bundy’s is “racism, by definition”, but hey we all how how even handed Dan is when it comes to holding liberals to the same standards to which he holds conservatives.

    What is kind of interesting is that it seems Bundy’s point (no matter how poorly expressed) was that the current welfare system holds Negros in a kind of slavery which is a not unreasonable point of view. It is a conversation that should be had and treated seriously, not just brushed off with calls of “You’re a racist!!!”. But with the current state of the American left I’m pretty sure we won’t have that conversation.

  65. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    hey we all how how even handed Dan is when it comes to holding liberals to the same standards to which he holds conservatives.

    Again, I say that BOTH phrases are racist-sounding. BOTH Bundy and Biden stated things in a racist-sounding way. I’m glad to point out the wrong in both statements, demonstrating that I’m being consistent, not hypocritical.

    Can you agree with that, or are you a petty partisan hypocrite?

    ~Dan

    • If you listen to Bundy’s comments in their entirety, you cannot insist it sounds racist. That would be a lie. You could say it sounds unprofessional, that it sounds inarticulate, but not racist unless you are so race obsessed that you can’t hear anything but the words “negro” or “those people”.

      As for Biden? He’s a liberal Democrat who is famous for saying stupid things because he’s a stupid man. Is he a racist? Don’t know. But his comments do indicate the possibility is real because unlike Bundy, he is speaking of a particular person and commenting on that person versus some notion he holds of an entire race of people. Bundy is comparing govt handouts to slavery and uses black people he’s seen or known who are recipients of govt handouts as his example.

  66. Unfortunately, your own words disagree with you on this.

  67. paynehollow says:

    Actually, your own inability to condemn these sorts of words only when they come from your side is quite telling while my actual words stand quite consistently.

    If you misunderstand or misrepresent my actual words to mean something other than what I’ve actually said or meant, that’s on you.

    I hope you can see the reason in this.

    ~Dan

  68. Sorry, had to go and hit submit before I was done. You actually clearly said in your own words that Biden’s was “racist sounding” while Bundy’s was “racism by definition”, so no in fact you did not say that both were racist sounding.

    further, after listening to the unedited video of Bundy, I’m not sure that what he actually said was racist. He is quite clear in thinking that (shocker) the decline of the Negro family is a bad thing. For shame, having the gall to say that it is a positive thing to have intact nuclear families.

    I can agree that true actual racism no matter where it comes from is deplorable. I can also agree that there is plenty on all sides of the political and racial divides.

    What I can’t agree with is the hypocrisy of calling “racist” to marginalize or demonize someone who you disagree with. What I can’t agree with is any attempt to abridge the free speech rights of anyone, no matter how offensive their views.

    So, I’d say that I’m not a petty partisan hypocrite, you on the other hand I’m not si sure about.

  69. “Actually, your own inability to condemn these sorts of words only when they come from your side is quite telling while my actual words stand quite consistently.”

    I have no idea what you’re point is. I’ve condemned all sorts of things folks on my side have said. I’m sorry that I won’t condemn Bundy to your satisfaction based on your say so. The more I’ve looked at his unedited comments that more convinced I am that you’ve jumped to an incorrect conclusion based on incomplete information.

    “If you misunderstand or misrepresent my actual words to mean something other than what I’ve actually said or meant, that’s on you.”

    No, I’m quite capable of copy/pasting the actual words you actually wrote and putting quotation marks around them. Unfortunately, the problem you have is your own words coming back to haunt you. Unfortunately, that’s on you. Because I didn’t make them up, I just quoted them.

    “I hope you can see the reason in this.”

    Oh yes, i see the reasons why you’ve chosen this tactic.

  70. If anyone’s still interested, I came across this article that provides more background into the Bundy/BLM standoff. I thought previous derogatory sentiments submitted by Dan regarding Bundy made posting it here relevant. It also showed that Bundy had far more support from Nevada officials than I originally thought. Mainly, the article suggests that though technically Bundy is in default, the story is not so clear cut as even conservative sources have presented thus far. If Alexander’s article is accurate, I think Bundy detractors owe him an apology.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: