05 May 2013

Accuse Others Of Politicizing History So You Can Politicize History - Or, How To Step In Bat-Poop Paranoia

*UPDATE - the man who Levin and his readers call "bats**t crazy" is:
. . . a graduate of the Cumberland School of Law and a Special Assistant Attorney General for the state of Alabama. He volunteers his time and legal expertise to serve as a trustee of the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund and as a legal advisor/counsel to the NRA in federal court litigation. Porter also serves as vice president of the Alabama Rifle & Pistol Association, and is a former trustee of the Alabama Forever Wild Land Trust as well as the Alabama Trust Fund.
 
END OF UPDATE

The *National Rifle Association is a popular target (no pun intended) for progressives these days. Kevin Levin is the latest to wade in to the fray. I wonder what took him so long? He calls the new President of the NRA, Jim Porter, "bats**t crazy" due, ostensibly, to his referring to the War for Southern Independence (aka, the Civil War, aka the War Between the States) as "the War of Northern Aggression." Really? That term is used tongue-in-cheek at just about every non-academic WBTS event I attend - Civil War Roundtables, Reenactments, SCV meetings, etc, etc. Big deal. Levin should broaden his horizons a bit. Fellow blogger Scott Manning calls Levin on such a reaction and juvenile name-calling and is told to "take it easy." Amazing. A little pot and kettle going on there, wouldn't you say? Watch the video below and see what you think:




Levin and his followers also seem to think that the crowd's reaction (or non-reaction) to Porter's comments is worrisome. I guess they're troubled that not everyone shares their hand-wringing obsessing over such common terms being used by the unlettered. Maybe these elites could unpucker their panties if they would just consider NRA members as part of the great unwashed; just a bunch of illiterates needing to be re-educated. Hey, 5 million people - that's a whole lotta educatin' needs doin'. They should be glad to have so much work when our real unemployment rate (not the one from the trustworthy government) is running north of 10%. Think of it as a mission field.

Actually, I heard chuckles from the audience myself and, I believe, a hand clap or two. Big whoop. I think Levin is trying to manufacture something here, a mountain out of a mole hill, a "gotcha" moment so they can accuse the NRA of being a bunch of racist rednecks and, like their guru David Blight, make anyone espousing a conservative, traditionalist worldview into a modern reincarnation of the Confederacy. We've all seen this drill before. It's really getting a bit old, and rather easy to spot. But hey, what else do you do when the facts aren't on your side?

And, of course, the post and the comments that follow suggest Mr. Porter is "paranoid" because he mentions the threat of tyranny. (I think a talking point memo must have gone out to all these folks.) You'd think professional historians would be at least somewhat familiar with the threat of tyranny - given mankind's history and proclivities. And then others chime in suggesting associations with the KKK, extremists, blah, blah, blah. They got the script memorized well, I'll give 'em that much.You see how that works, if you believe the U.S. Constitution and disagree with a bunch of elitists and professional historians in academia, you're an extremist and recruiting material for the KKK. They can't debate the facts on this issue, so they descend to name-calling and using four-letter words. Oh, how classy and scholarly. Please, do keep it up.

As is usually the case, these elites are out of touch. I mean really out of touch. They're spending too much time talking to each other. They should get out more. In January of this year, a Pew Research Poll revealed the following:
As Barack Obama begins his second term in office, trust in the federal government remains mired near a historic low, while frustration with government remains high. And for the first time, a majority of the public says that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 9-13 among 1,502 adults, finds that 53% think that the federal government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms while 43% disagree.

Hmmm . . . I guess a healthy majority of Americans are suffering from bat-poop paranoia - a bunch of wackos just clingin' to God and guns. Well, praise the Lord and pass the Prozac!

Actually, Mr. Porter is simply echoing what the Founders intended in regards to the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution and the NRA's mission regarding that intent. But, of course, we already knew that these elites think NRA members and those who support the 2nd amendment are just "bats**t crazy bitter-clingers." Ain't that right? 

I would suggest these elites actually take time to study some history - and the United States Constitution and the words of the Founders. Otherwise, they're going to keep stepping in the guano.

*Full disclosure - I'm a proud, card-carrying member of the NRA. I have a  follow up posts to this one as well as this one, which will further demonstrate that elites like Levin and much of academia are out of touch and absolutely clueless about this subject. Their comments and views are truly on the fringe.

29 comments:

Ralph Steel said...

Despite your update...he can still be batsh!t crazy.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Certainly, lawyers are often in that category. However, I believe members of academia are still in the lead. Stay tuned, you'll love the next post about this. The "NRA Members are akin to the KKK" crowd will look even more ridiculous than they already do. This is fun.

ropelight said...

The NRA was founded in 1871 and is America's oldest and most important civil rights organization.

Speaking yesterday at this year's national convention Ted Nugent remarked that during the 2 hours he spent signing autographs and shaking hands with hundreds of supporters he noticed that protesters were present.

"Both of them," he said to laughter from the crowd. Nugent then called for a 20-fold increase in NRA membership, “I want to show them how much we will fight for freedom,” he said as the crowd stood and cheered.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

People like Levin use every possible mention of the Civil War to advance their agenda under the guise of history. Their problem now is, they have a very long record that's been recorded. They've been exposed and trapped by their own writings. The NRA is mainstream - unless you're an enemy of American Exceptionalism and an activist historian.

Ralph Steel said...

Mr. Williams,

Here is what I don't get and maybe you can help me understand since you are a member of the NRA.

No one in the governement has advocated for the confiscation of people's guns, unless I am wrong.

So why all this fear by gun owners (IE: The NRA) over this unfounded fear of improved background checks in order to keep the guns out of the hands of those "mentally troubled" as LaPeire claims.

Also, Glenn Beck, is he really the best spokesman for the NRA keynote speech? Do you wonder why some might connect the crazies like Beck and the NRA?

And since you fully disclose your membership, I too will disclose that I have been a member for 10 years.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Ralph - I'll try.

"No one in the government has advocated for the confiscation of people's guns, unless I am wrong."

Yes, you are wrong.

"The governor [Cuomo] then laid out several ideas for how the state would enforce stricter laws on those so-called “assault” weapons: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” he said."

Here's another example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVz2lHODQvs&feature=share&list=UUe6zkHQpTMBhiGPCiNA0qMg

That's just two examples - there are others. It's right before your eyes. Don't get sucked in to thinking it won't happen or they won't try. That's terribly naive.


"So why all this fear by gun owners (IE: The NRA) over this unfounded fear of improved background checks in order to keep the guns out of the hands of those "mentally troubled" as LaPeire claims."

As noted, it's not unfounded. Secondly, the current laws aren't being enforced, so why do we need new ones? (I worked in the judicial system 12 years - I'm aware.) Moreover, the recent legislation proposing "improved background checks" involved much, much more. Have you read it? I've read the pertinent passages. This was de facto gun registration.

"Also, Glenn Beck, is he really the best spokesman for the NRA keynote speech? Do you wonder why some might connect the crazies like Beck and the NRA?"

Hmmm . . . the NRA membership has exploded while Beck has been connected with the organization. So based on membership and revenue, I'd have to say Beck certainly isn't hurting.

Thank you for supporting the 2nd amendment. You're needed now more than ever.

Tyler Hayes said...

Funny how all these NRA nuts forget to include the phrase "well-regulated" when touting the 2nd amendment. It appears that the Founders themselves knew that you folks would have to be regulated.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Tyler - you assume that "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment meant in the 18th century what it means in the 21st. Isn't it rather telling that you default to government control. Your comment reveals a lot about your mindset. Not real suprising, given the condition of our education system though. You're a victim.

The term "well-regulated" was in common use well before 1789 - but it was not referring to government regulations. It meant something being in good working order or condition. If something that was "well-regulated", it meant that it was functioning properly.

You'd profit from reading the original writings of the Founders. They meant what they said and said what they meant. It ain't complicated.

Thanks for the comment.

Ralph Steel said...

I would suspect membership has increased since Beck has been involved exactly for the fact that Beck is a fearmonger.

Seriously, how much of what Beck has predicted come true.

He claimed that Romney would landside Obama, that did not happen.

He claims there would be a second civil war/revolution if Obama won, did not happen, and so on.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"I would suspect membership has increased since Beck has been involved exactly for the fact that Beck is a fearmonger."

Yes, he's a bit over the top sometimes, but not as often as accused.

"Seriously, how much of what Beck
has predicted come true."

In regards to the financial crisis, the Obama agenda, and the Middle East, quite a bit.

"He claimed that Romney would landside Obama, that did not happen."

Yes, he missed that one for sure. So did I.

"He claims there would be a second civil war/revolution if Obama won, did not happen, and so on."

I never heard that. But the current trajectory is unsustainable. Things could (I certainly hope not) could still go very bad as far as civil unrest. Americans are quite naive to think what's happened in other parts of the world could never happen here. There's absolutely no evidence in world history that any nation is immune from unrest. Very naive.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Ralph - as a side note, President Obama has proven that being connected to crazies (Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc) doesn't seem to hurt you these days. Also, missing predictions (health insurance premiums are going to go down), doesn't seem to be a liability either. Welcome to the new normal.

;-)

13thBama said...

Detroit, California and D.C. have gun control. How effective has it been in stopping gun murders? It has not.

And as for the KKK? That was not founded by Republicans. And Lincoln was not a Democrat.

Read People!

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

It's amazing how confident these people are despite failure staring them in the face at every turn.

ropelight said...

Soft on crime loony leftists refuse to enforce existing laws and put criminals behind bars and keep them there, then complain the rights of law abiding citizens must be regulated to prevent mass shootings while Eric Holder's so-called Justice Department and Hillary Clinton's turncoat Department of State uses taxpayer money to put modern weapons in the hands of murdering drug smugglers and bloodthirsty Islamic terrorists so they can kill even more US citizens.

And, yet, noisy know-nothings expect competent men to to take their silly nostrums seriously. Well, not in this lifetime.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

They are rather silly, aren't they. It's amazing they can write what they write with a straight face, though I can't see their mugs when they're typing - I assume they believe others believe they have credibility. Absolute buffoons.

ropelight said...

I'm not picking on Hayes but his smarmy attitude is one that deserves examination and exposure.

Consider that if an authoritarian Administration was attempting to regulate the right of American citizens to speak out in opposition to coercive government policies or to assemble in peaceful protest, would Tyler Hayes and his ilk be so quick to label them as nuts or look down his nose and accuse them of touting the Bill or Rights?

Would he tout the 5th amendment if he was hauled into court and made to incriminate himself? Since Hayes doesn't value the 2nd amendment does he have valid grounds to object if his other Constitutional rights are suddenly deemed subject to government regulation now or in the future?

Perhaps it's possible that if certain rights Hayes does currently value were under attack right now by agencies of the federal government and in the national media he just might be able to see these vital matters in a broader context.

Tyler Hayes said...

I take offense to ropelight’s accusations. I never said that I didn't value the 2nd amendment. I think you sound a bit paranoid and have watched too much Glenn Beck. Nobody is coming to take your guns away boys, we just recognize that there is something very wrong with a country where the gun culture is so prevalent and where 5 year-olds are given guns as gifts (one in Kentucky just killed his sister) The problem is that nobody is ever willing to seriously discuss and/or compromise on anything gun-related regardless if it will save lives. This isn’t just about guns, it’s about the country’s love affair with them. I grew up hunting and shooting but even I’m smart enough to realize that the NRA is just another political organization protecting its own agenda at the expense of the rest of us. No need to reply with the usual pro-gun rants. It won't change our minds.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

"I take offense to ropelight’s accusations."

Then you're probably reading the wrong blog.

"No need to reply with the usual pro-gun rants. It won't change our minds."

Yeah, we know. Don't confuse you with the facts. But if the left was as concerned about "the children" as they say they are, they'd be more concerned about abortion. Sorry, but there's a real credibility problem there.

Thanks for the comment Tyler.

Tyler Hayes said...

With all due respect Richard, using the abortion issue to counteract my point on protecting children is like me using gay marriage rights to counter your pro-gun stance. You say we ‘leftists’ want to protect children, but don't care about abortions - and I could return that ‘accusation of hypocrisy’ by saying that the ‘right’ wants their rights preserved as gun owners, but don't want to allow gays to have the right to marry one another. Your trying to distract with apples with oranges here. It gets neither of us any further in our points.

The bottom line is that we have more guns, gun-related crime, and people incarcerated in prisons than any other country on the planet and there is something VERY wrong with that. I don’t know what the solution is. But the NRA seems to have the mindset that absolutely nothing should change EVER in regards to gun ownership and that we should just continue on the way we’ve been. That is the issue I have with them.

I say we nullify the unrealistic portrayal of guns on our youth and perhaps the country will benefit as less of them will be drawn to guns for the wrong reasons. It worked for smoking when it was no longer simply a ‘cool’ fad to smoke. Now everyone knows it’s dangerous. This means we stop promoting violent video games and televised violence, etc. We’ve bred a culture of kids who do not respect weapons for what they are capable of or intended to do. It’s a toy to them.

In addition, this good ol’ boy network of NRA leadership needs to get out of Washington and stop buying their own politicians to support their agenda. You can quote all the numbers you wish as to membership etc. and you are correct the NRA is growing, but the other stat you leave out is that the majority of the country does believe that SOMETHING needs to change in regards to gun purchasing and excessive ammunition loads. What exactly that is no one appears to know for sure but the NRA isn’t even willing to have the discussion. Once again our country may have more freedoms and liberties when it comes to guns but we also have more issues and problems because of it. There has to be a balance that can support gun rights but also do a better job of protecting the public somewhere. More guns is not the answer.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Hey Tyler.

My view on marriage is the same as President Obama's was before he needed some extra cash in the last election. But let's stay on topic.

The subject of abortion is germane since you brought up children in your previous comment and since pro-abortionists politicians used the Sandy Hook shooting to advance their agenda. It's not apples and oranges - children in the womb are still children.

"we have more guns, gun-related crime"

You're half right. Gun related violence is at its lowest point since 1993. Since you don't like Glenn Beck, the following comes verbatim from an article that was posted yesterday on the Washington Post's website. The stats are from the DOJ:

"Firearms-related homicides declined 39 percent between 1993 and 2011, the report said, while nonfatal firearms crimes fell 69 percent during that period. . . . Less than 1 percent of state prison inmates who possessed a gun when they committed their offense obtained the firearm at a gun show, the report said. Even the percent of homicides involving a gun has dropped from 1993 (71.2 percent) to 69.6 percent, and school violence has been declining without anti-gun laws. (“Homicides at schools declined from an average of 29 per year in the 1990s to an average of 20 per year in the 2000s.”) Total homicides at school dropped by half during the period of the study.

This is wonderful news for the country, and rotten data for anti-gun advocates trying to revive the Newtown, Conn., anti-gun legislative package. As for the type of weapon used, it does not appear that “military style” weapons are the problem."

So that pretty much nukes everything you've said. Face the truth - the facts are not on your side. History is not on your side. Be open-minded.

Part 2 of my response next (Too long for Blogger to allow.)

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

You write:

"I say we nullify the unrealistic portrayal of guns on our youth and perhaps the country will benefit"

I doubt it. The issue is the breakdown of morality in our culture. I believe I read that the vast majority of these recent mass shootings had a common thread - the absence of a father in the home - another wonderful development brought to us by the left. This is how the left operates. They manufacture a "crisis", then come up with a "solution" which exasperates the problem and creates a whole set of new problems and then they offer yet another flawed solution. It's a vicious cycle, but one they've been very successful at. The media and academia is complicit.

However, if you are concerned about Hollywood's impact, I suggest you contact the White House and our celebrity in chief since he spends so much time schmoozing with them. Maybe he could threaten to stop taking their big donations if they don't clean up their act.

"We’ve bred a culture"

Sorry, but I'm not part of "we." All of my children are familiar with firearms and respect them as tools. The left has bred the culture.

"SOMETHING needs to change in regards to gun purchasing and excessive ammunition loads."

Right. I'm sure these murderers would obey the new laws and just throw up their hands and move on to other things. You're extremely naive.

"he NRA isn’t even willing to have the discussion."

With lying demagogues? You're right. Why should they? These pols have stated very clearly (as I showed you yesterday) that their intent is the gutting of the 2nd amendment and the eventual confiscation of even handguns. You don't have a discussion with people like that. You defeat them and expose them for the liars and statists they are.

"Once again our country may have more freedoms and liberties when it comes to guns but we also have more issues and problems because of it."

Yes, Utopia is out of reach in this life. However, restricting freedoms and liberties creates a whole new set of problems - remember what I wrote before. It's job security for statists and bureaucrats.

I do protect the public by having a concealed carry weapon. And if we're ever in a restaurant together and some madman comes in shooting up, you hide under a table with the women and children and dial 911. I'll protect you until the police arrive.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

BTW Tyler - your notion that "most" Americans favor some of these restrictions is based on propaganda and some of the misinformation you are helping to spread:

"Gun crime has plunged in the United States since its peak in the middle of the 1990s, including gun killings, assaults, robberies and other crimes, two new studies of government data show.

Yet few Americans are aware of the dramatic drop, and more than half believe gun crime has risen, according to a newly released survey by the Pew Research Center."

Source:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story

Tyler Hayes said...

I forgot that you live in the mountains of VA and have a limited view of the rest of the country. I'm originally from San Diego and now live in DC. so my perspective may be a bit more in this century.

You say: "I'll protect you until the police arrive." = Sorry but that's an example of the "John Wayne BS" that has completely enveloped the knuckle-dragging right.

Yeah, I love the idea of a bunch of gun-toting bufoons, untrained in law enforcement techniques and trugger-happy, interfering with my family's safety. Oh and let's give our teahcres machine guns too like they do in Israel. Brilliant!

But...if playing army makes you feel more like a man, then so be it Quick-Draw MaGraw.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Tyler, Tyler, Tyler - so typical of your side. Usually, I delete insulting remarks like yours but, in this case, they serve as a perfect illustration. I shred your arguments using facts, statistics, logic, and one of your own mouthpieces - the Washington Post, and how do you respond? Name calling and insults.

This is why your side is losing the debate. Your arguments are based on emotion and devoid of logic and reason. Thanks for validating everything I said.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Yes, you live in DC - which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, as well as one of the worst gun crime rates.

Keep it up, you're on a roll.

Tyler Hayes said...

I will simply part with this...WE won the biggest debate of all...the election. Checkmate!

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Right Tyler - and "the one" couldn't even get his own party to support gun control. So what did you really win?

Once again, thank you for illustrating how intellectually vapid and devoid of reason the left is. Your comments have been quite useful.

PS - 2014 is coming soon.

Tyler Hayes said...

One last comment since you brought it up...

Hillary in 2014!

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

I know you've already demonstrated your brilliance, but the Presidential election is in 2016, not 2014.

You're funny.