Courage not cowardice; balls not bluster

[Tiassa]

Priorities

In a nutsack.

Nutshell.

I mean, nutshell:

Negative comments have rained down on a pro-gun political ad by controversial Georgia gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp in which the Republican points a shotgun at a young man supposedly interested in dating one of Kemp's daughters as the teen professes a "healthy appreciation" for the Second Amendment ....

.... "I'm a conservative businessman with a four-point plan to put hardworking Georgians first," Kemp said in a tweet Friday when he unveiled the ad. "I'm also the proud father of three teenage girls. Here's the thing: If you want to date one of my daughters, you better have respect for women and a healthy appreciation for the Second Amendment."

While his shotgun is "broken" open and unable to fire as the ad starts, he closes it up at the end and aims it at the boy, which viewers found especially disturbing, particularly in the wake of school shooting deaths. Other weapons lean against the wall in Kemp's "study" in the ad.

(Papenfuss↱)​

To a certain degree, the only surprising thing about this is that it made the airwaves. Then again, no, not really.

Say what you will about liberals. What does it mean when the Republican thinks this sort of thing will play among his voters?

Oh, hey, and what of those voters?

Oh, right.

How about, let's not get started on that.

But beyond politics, Hawkins said, the average American conservative feels bombarded daily with disrespect.

"He turns on a TV show where he's insulted, and then he's like, 'well, maybe I'll just unwind and watch an awards show' — the Oscars or something — where he gets trashed all day long," Hawkins said. "He goes to Twitter and he's got some you know guy calling him in a-hole ... this is sort of like a pervasive all-out attack if you're a conservative. And it's all the time sort of thing" ....

.... Kurt Schlichter, a columnist for the conservative Townhall.com, recently wrote a column speculating about whether there could be another civil war. He concluded there could be one and predicted how the left would lose a violent conflict if it came to it.

"We want to be treated with respect, and we will not tolerate anything less which is just unacceptable for this to continue. I'm tired of Hollywood spitting on us. I am tired of academia spitting on us. I'm tired of the news media spitting on us," he said.

(Mak↱)​

Oh, right.

Er ... ah ... so, yeah, imagine that.
____________________

Notes:

Mak, Tim. "Despite So Much Winning, The Right Feels Like It's Losing". All Things Considered. 27 April 2018. NPR.org. 1 May 2018. https://n.pr/2KmQpQo

Papenfuss, Mary. "Shocking Gun Ad By Georgia Gubernatorial Candidate Brian Kemp Backfires". The Huffington Post. 30 April 2018. HuffingtonPost.com. 1 May 2018. http://bit.ly/2HJlpIl

 

[Dr_Toad]

Respectable conservatives like me are angry about that as well. No one with any sense points a gun at another person, unloaded and checked or not. Even if he's from Georgia...

We can find idiots everywhere, and not all of them are flaming liberals.

 

[Tiassa]

We can find idiots everywhere ....

I don't disagree, but the mix of caricatures, blending conservative economics, purity and ownership cult, and gun-nut machismo into a single pitch like that is just emblematic.

 

[iceaura]

Respectable conservatives like me are angry about that as well. No one with any sense points a gun at another person, unloaded and checked or not. Even if he's from Georgia...

We can find idiots everywhere, and not all of them are flaming liberals.

One problem the rest of us have with these hypothetical "respectable conservatives" is that they are never around when we need them.
They crawl out the woodwork in self-congratulatory not-me hordes when the latest undeniably idiotic disaster or absurd folly hits the fan, but when decent people need a courageous vote or honest policy support there's never any "conservatives" around except standard Republicans - and those folks voted for Trump.
Brian Kemp has been an idiot with no sense for an entire political career, including multiple elections to powerful office. That's because lots and lots of Republicans voted for him. He's currently running 2nd in the polls for Governor, with the frontrunner being the guy who threatened Delta Airlines with loss of tax benefits and other governmental revenge for refusing charity to the NRA. So he needed some pro-gun publicity.

Not a whole lot of respectability visible in any of that, eh?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

what is he selling ? arranged marriages for teenage girls ?
im confused

 

[Dr_Toad]

Ice, does your preferred news source not report on things like the Texas church shooting in which an AR-15 toting gun nut chased down the shooter and prevented more killings?

Whatever, maybe you have a short attention span.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You make bald assertions and claim they're a timeline. You know absolutely nothing about the progression of the bombs except what you get from comic books.

 

[Capracus]

Ice, does your preferred news source not report on things like the Texas church shooting in which an AR-15 toting gun nut chased down the shooter and prevented more killings?

Did he prevent more killings? Or did he endanger more lives in the process of trying to stop the shooter after he had concluded the mass shooting?

During the time Willeford exchanged fire with the shooter, did that exchange endanger the lives of other people in the area?

Willeford then pursued the wounded shooter in a high speed vehicle chase that ended when the shooter lost control of his vehicle and wrecked it. Did Willeford further endanger public lives by enlarging the field of violence from the original site of the shooting to also include the public roads?

Sometimes law enforcement in the guise of performing their duty make a bad situation worse. Do we really want to encourage inexperienced civilians to go down that road as well?

 

[iceaura]

You make bald assertions and claim they're a timeline.

If you have anything specific to correct, feel free - always ready to learn new things, from the better informed.
Quote my errors, and correct them.

For example, I would check "yes" here:

Did the US keep the Bomb a secret from the Japanese from when it had the gun fission design in hand until it could drop the plutonium design on a city: _yes _no.

That is because I think that the events of March - the latest at which one could claim the US command was fully informed about the success of the Manhattan Project, the consequent simplest and first Bomb design, and the essential completion of the contracted manufacture of all parts necessary for assembly of said device - come well before the events of August of the same year, in any reasonable chronology. And I think - it is my bald assertion - that the Japanese were deliberately kept ignorant of this success, and the existence of this manufactured and ready device, and the ability of the US to make and deliver on target more or less as many of them as it would need to obliterate Japanese civilization, over that entire interval.

While pondering the choice, note the relevance as revealed in the rhetoric here - the relevance to the OP. There is cowardice involved in the US celebration of mythical over historical violence, and this is closely associated with its celebration of violence overall. Pacifists - those who do not carry guns in particular - are not mythologized for their courage, in the US. The unarmed are not made into mythical heroes larger than life, granted courage and other virtues greater than life, as the armed frequently are. They are honored for their reality. Those who made the decision to Bomb Hiroshima by surprise - hospitals, schools, and military bases all together - were not choosing between different ways of being heroic, but between forbearance uncredited (in their own minds) and dramatic accomplishment sure to be celebrated by a nation well versed in averting its eyes.

This is a feature, possibly a bug as well. What to do?

 

[Tiassa]

what is he selling ? arranged marriages for teenage girls ?

Republican psychomoral "values".

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Willeford then pursued the wounded shooter in a high speed vehicle chase that ended when the shooter lost control of his vehicle and wrecked it. Did Willeford further endanger public lives by enlarging the field of violence from the original site of the shooting to also include the public roads?

a fair and decent question. Considering we only have hindsight, we can only suggest possibilities. What that would lead to is the argument that Willeford acted as a vigalante, but that is also a subjective term and wholly dependent upon the observer and local interpretations of the law.

Considering the legal definition, as Willeford didn't punish or try the individual (per the law) and simply detained until LEO's could arrive, then it isn't technically vigilantism (though certain judges could rule otherwise - depending on area). This is perfectly legal as well (ignoring the pursuit for the moment) depending on state. The subject wasn't under arrest, he was simply detained until LEO's could arrive to assess the situation and call it.

Most LEO's don't advocate for civilians doing this simply because they're not trained to engage in most of the activities that may ensue during pursuit, be it on foot, vehicle or the potential shootout.

having said that, it is also withint the scope of duty of an LEO (and especially an elected Sheriff, etc) to temporarily deputize the citizenry.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If you have anything specific to correct, feel free - always ready to learn new things, from the better informed.
Quote my errors, and correct them.

For example, I would check "yes" here:
That is because I think that the events of March - the latest at which one could claim the US command was fully informed about the success of the Manhattan Project, the consequent simplest and first Bomb design, and the essential completion of the contracted manufacture of all parts necessary for assembly of said device - come well before the events of August of the same year, in any reasonable chronology. And I think - it is my bald assertion - that the Japanese were deliberately kept ignorant of this success, and the existence of this manufactured and ready device, and the ability of the US to make and deliver on target more or less as many of them as it would need to obliterate Japanese civilization, over that entire interval.

While pondering the choice, note the relevance as revealed in the rhetoric here - the relevance to the OP. There is cowardice involved in the US celebration of mythical over historical violence, and this is closely associated with its celebration of violence overall. Pacifists - those who do not carry guns in particular - are not mythologized for their courage, in the US. The unarmed are not made into mythical heroes larger than life, granted courage and other virtues greater than life, as the armed frequently are. They are honored for their reality. Those who made the decision to Bomb Hiroshima by surprise - hospitals, schools, and military bases all together - were not choosing between different ways of being heroic, but between forbearance uncredited (in their own minds) and dramatic accomplishment sure to be celebrated by a nation well versed in averting its eyes.

This is a feature, possibly a bug as well. What to do?

Making shit up is not evidence.

 

[iceaura]

Making shit up is not evidence.

And you have provided none, except your continuing refusal to acknowledge even the basic timeline of events that culminated in the Bombing of Nagasaki - that refusal is indeed evidence of something, and it's relevant here:

forbearance is not generally celebrated, in the US. The courage and faith of those who accept vulnerability in exchange for the advantages of mutual trust is not celebrated. Truman choosing the lowest reputational risk option, even though it involved a surprise incineration of schoolchildren and hospital staff and most of the civilian population of two major cities, even though it involved a guarantee of months of full scale war possibly avoidable, is not labeled a coward. The refusal to inform the Japanese of the existence of the Bomb is almost never identified as cowardice (and/or cynicism, racism, - another thread) in an American narrative.

And so we have a gap, a missing issue, an oddly avoided aspect of the "bothsides" jamb in American gun politics: the cowardice of both sides of the "bothsides" jamb.

Meanwhile, a random factoid floats through - of the active shooters killed in the events between 2000 and 2016, 21% were shot by police, 1% by armed civilians.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You made a claim, you can't back it up. That's lying.

 

[billvon]

Meanwhile, a random factoid floats through - of the active shooters killed in the events between 2000 and 2016, 21% were shot by police, 1% by armed civilians.

So the more than 75% were NOT killed by a "good guy with a gun." Sorta lets the wind out of that particular sail.

 

[pjdude1219]

So the more than 80% were NOT killed by a "good guy with a gun." Sorta lets the wind out of that particular sail.

just because some one on the pro gun side gonna be a dick about this im just going to go ahead and say it would be 78% that werent not more than 80%. billvons argument still stands the vast majority aren't stopped by a good guy with a gun.



i would argue that this fetishization of violence ( shooting and killing the bad guy) is part of the problem that allows this to happen.( this is not directed at you billvon but the pedantic people who have used a minor slip up to rack you over coals.)

 

[billvon]

just because some one on the pro gun side gonna be a dick about this im just going to go ahead and say it would be 78% that werent not more than 80%. billvons argument still stands the vast majority aren't stopped by a good guy with a gun.

oops, fixed it.

i would argue that this fetishization of violence ( shooting and killing the bad guy) is part of the problem that allows this to happen.( this is not directed at you billvon but the pedantic people who have used a minor slip up to rack you over coals.)

Yep. And that's why the gun lobby is so effective. They promulgate fear, uncertainty and doubt - "Obama will GRAB YOUR GUNS! You will be defenseless! Might as well call schools 'victim disarmament zones.' Do YOU want to be a victim?" Good for increasing their political power, and VERY good for gun manufacturers. The more scared you are, the happier they are. Heck, the world is so scary, a Glock 17 won't cut it any more. You need an AR-15 to fight off today's well armed intruders and stop the school shootings! Now available for the low low price of $600 - or two for $1000!

For a while gun manufacturers were donating $1 to the NRA for every gun they sold. I can just see the phone calls flying back and forth - "We're not selling enough guns, so you're not getting as much from us this year. MAKE THEM MORE AFRAID!"

 

[iceaura]

You made a claim, you can't back it up. That's lying.

Evidence, including a quote of the claim, or no cigar. And no, that wouldn't be lying - not by me, anyway.
There is genuine cowardice here. It's buried in America like a swallowed hook.

So the more than 75% were NOT killed by a "good guy with a gun."

I think sometimes they count the shooter suicide as a good guy with a gun. Subliminally.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Evidence, including a quote of the claim, or no cigar. And no, that wouldn't be lying - not by me, anyway.
There is genuine cowardice here. It's buried in America like a swallowed hook.

That's the route you're taking now? That's genuine cowardice.

 

[iceaura]

That's the route you're taking now? That's genuine cowardice.

Remember that thing you've been namecalling and squid-inking to duck? Try again: _ yes _ no.

Meanwhile, as long as we're dealing in Wikipedia level history denial while circling the vicinity of what the US could have done at the end of WWII, and what it did instead, as relevant to the modern gun culture - this guy marks the root as well as any: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Vandenberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Doctrine

Acheson laid out the "domino theory" in the starkest terms, comparing a communist state to a rotten apple that could spread its infection to an entire barrel. Vandenberg was impressed, and advised Truman to appear before Congress and "scare the hell out of the American people."[16]:127-8 On March 7, Acheson warned Truman that Greece could fall to the communists within weeks without outside aid.[1]:545

When a draft for Truman's address was circulated to policymakers, Marshall, Kennan, and others criticized it for containing excess "rhetoric." Truman responded that, as Vandenberg had suggested, his request would only be approved if he played up the threat.

And that on top of the racial panic.
The American people have been scared ever since.
Note that Vandenberg did not begin from a position of flexible and generalized fear - in his day the Republican Party was a respectable, ideologically adult, representative political entity.