Friday, July 27, 2012

Responding to Selwyn Duke's Bill O’Reilly’s Anti-gun Blarney

In Bill O’Reilly’s Anti-gun Blarney , Selwyn Duke had good cause to take on Mr. "No Spin" zone. But I found it hard to accept that Mr. Duke is unaware of an email sent out by a usually more reliable conservative voice, Michael Savage. [Mr. Duke informed me that, to his recollection, he'd not received the email; I have since forwarded him a copy.] For the record, Selwyn Duke has frequently been interviewed on The Savage Nation.

Let's face it Selwyn. O'Reilly has always been a bit squishy. He often plays to the middle ground, even when there really isn't any firm middle ground and only a slippery slope. So I am less concerned by O'Reilly's stance than I am with a very good friend of yours, Michael Savage.

I received an email yesterday from the Doc entitled:

'You don't need body armor to hunt deer.'

Deer hunting is an old code word that's been used by SKUNCs whenever they get ready to excuse their complicity with the Left on its latest crackdown on self defense, acting as if they never heard that it's governments who have been the gravest threat to liberty time and again in history.

But even worse than that title, there are his words that disclose that the Doc has abandoned conservative principles in favor of "pragmatic" compromise. Here, let his own words reveal the problem.
  "We conservatives must take the high road and say we are in favor of banning body armor and drum magazines.

That's because unless our side controls what gets banned, we're liable to see things happen that we don't want to happen,"

It's as if he suddenly believes that if conservatives will just give the Statists this they'll be satisfied. Appeasement Dr. Savage? Tell us, when has that worked?

Bottom line: We should have never expected much better from O'Reilly; but I think the Right has good cause to be alarmed by Savage's new course.

Mr. Duke responds:

Dear Pascal,

Thank you for posting here, and I'll be happy to respond. I was unaware of the email you cite; I don't believe I ever received it.

Needless to say, however, I disagree profoundly with Michael on this one. And, if I could talk to him, perhaps I'd be able to change his mind. I'd point out that most of us who own guns — and this includes him and me — have them not for hunting but self-defense. Taking this into consideration, one can well see the possible need for body armor. After all, can we be so sure that we won't find ourselves in a Katrina-like situation in which there's social breakdown and bullets are coming our way from armed gangs? It also should be noted that James Holmses's body armor didn't kill anyone on that fateful night in Aurora. Body armor is defensive in function.

In Michael's defense, I'll say that he's an extremely sincere man who never takes positions unless he believes in them. And I certainly wouldn't place his commentary on the same plane as O'Reilly's rant, which displayed a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter on which he was rendering opinions.

But I'll reiterate that I disagree with Michael on this one. We don't need more gun control; we need more criminal control.


  1. I'm in favor of "cop-killer" bullets if the bad guys are going to wear armor.
    And they are.
    Welcome back.

  2. Had a conversation yesterday, with the father of a very good friend of my youngest. The talk had turned to the recent activity in CO. His daughter is attending college (culinary school) out there in Denver, and was planning on going to see that movie at said theater, on the night in question...she was not feeling all that well, and begged off. Chances are good she may have been one of the victims, had she gone.

    That being said, (I'll call him "Mr. P" for right now) Mr. P stated that he was all for some people being able to own firearms, but to be able to have the kind of, and amount of guns and ammo the gunman had, was just too much. Much more than anyone would have a need for. Mind you, this was based on what he had heard via the "media", and colored by his own education (Chicago public schools) and to some degree, his politics.

    I admit I was getting a bit hot under the collar, when I asked him "What part of 'the ..right to bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand!" ....

    We did have an interesting talk, and he is a good friend...they are good people, but their lack of understanding of the Constitution, the concept of "rights" vice privileges, and their willingness to have their rights abrogated in order for them to "feel safe(r)", saddens me to no end.

    In a nutshell, he is scared. Scared of what very possibly could have happened to his daughter, scared of what is happening in the country and around the world, and (at least I am willing to bet) is wanting his government to take care of this. To give him his comfort zone back.

    I will have to think about what might be a good primer for him to read, regarding the constitution. and perhaps the mindset of the founding fathers. Then I will have to try and import all that to todays settings. (He is also under the impression that all that was written so long ago that it is scarcely applicable today. "How could the founding fathers even imagined what kinds of weapons are available today.")

    So it is not so much a died in the wool liberal/socialist/progressive that I am dealing with here, as it is someone who has been successfully programed by the schools and the media for the past 20-30 years.

    He would have found Savage's comments to be very even handed and above board.

    1. Guy;

      The day after Aurora, the troll from Toronto ("Jansen") came back to my thread "The Genius of Blaise Pascal." His aim was to deride our rights in the face of the mayhem.

      I turned the tables on him by making note of the laxity of our authorities in how they (mis)handle known mass killers. I meant it to be ironic, because the handle he adopted is that of Cornelius Jensen (circa 1580-1630), the man who fought against laxity at the highest levels of power and influence during the Counter Reformation.

      The troll, of course, evaded the reference because it strikes at the heart of the real issue. To whit:

      The authorities wish to deny us our right to defend ourselves (beyond their rights under the constitution) at the same time they don't provide adequate protection for us through the rule of law (which is the primary reason we have government and that they are in office to enforce.)

      This game has gone on far too long. It is safest to presume that these "authorities" are NOT all incompetent. Many are, but the biggest schemers merely pretend to be and appoint lieutenants who ARE incompetent. What power-mad men like that are seeking are a few people like your friend will give up liberty for security. (And the media will inflate the numbers who are like him.) His is the hopeless belief of far too many: He believes that those scheming bastards in office (who act so incompetent now) will provide security if we give them the power to disarm us citizens (and future subjects).

      Keep on hammering this theme Guy. More and more people are becoming wary of the power-seekers and listening to what you have to say. You-know-who thinks you can never reach anyone. But you know that "never" is an extreme position -- and is simply not true.

  3. I have to find a way to talk about this (with him) and not let my passion over ride my reason. Also, to find a way to try and at the very least, create cracks in the shell his education and the media have put up around him (and others0. This can not be done with passion (although being passionate about what one is doing, is not a bad thing), but there has to be some way which is easy enough for him to "take a chance on", so as to start the process of deprograming.

    We shall see....

  4. Know when to cut your losses. Understand that some people- no matter how much you like them- may not be worth the effort. Concentrate your efforts where they will do the most good.


View My Stats