It’s rare for me to rant

But Henry pushed my buttons one too many times.  See also his blatherings with Rolf.  Now I need to take a walk before I will be able to go to sleep.  And I have an 8:00 meeting with the Department of Homeland Security tomorrow too.  I hope I can sleep when I get back from my walk.  If I had my chemistry set here in Richland I would be tempted to detonate some reactive targets just for stress relief.


5 thoughts on “It’s rare for me to rant

  1. Joe,

    No need for a chemstry set. Get a paper bag and breath into and out of it a number of times. That will bring down your oxygen level and help you get over your panic attack.

    At the end, leave the bag inflated, grip its opening shut tight and then bang it against your hand or head. The result will be an impressive boom that will provide just the stress relief you are looking for.

    You have titled this thread “It’s rare for me to rant”. In fact, your commuications to me over the past year or two have had a decided rant to them, so do not fear that you are any more out of control than usual.

    Best wishes and be not afraid,


  2. Henry Boitel:

    Once upon a time (for a very brief history in time), I aligned myself with liberals such as yourself. Years ago, I saw nothing wrong with something as “simple” and “harmless” as gun registration.

    But when I was presented the facts that gun laws (including registration) do more harm that good –- in addition to other policies that increase government’s power –- I was forced to seriously question and rework my beliefs.

    When faced with the facts, I admitted that I was wrong. Why can’t you do the same? Paxton Quigley, once a member of Handgun Control Inc., changed from a staunch gun-control proponent into an impassioned, no-compromise supporter of the Second Amendment. You, too, Henry, can make the change.

    But at this point, your emotion-based ramblings have become tiresome. Your infantile refusal to re-evaluate your viewpoint demonstrates your abysmal lack of critical thinking.

    You cling to –- and refuse to assess –- ideologies that are horribly detrimental to freedoms of the American people. Your gun-grabbing beliefs and approval of national ID cards support the colossal power growth of our already-Leviathan government.

    By supporting gun laws, you support the disarming of citizens. Yet you think it’s a-okay for a selected, elite, privileged few to remain armed: cops, elected officials, and their security staff (not to mention criminals, who will always get guns, regardless of the law).

    You think it’s a-okay for government to intrude upon the privacy of its citizens, forcing them into compliance of national ID cards.

    Logic-lacking lawyers like you push for terrifying restrictions on the American people, yet you’re too clueless to realize that gun-grabbing, and coercing citizens into a nationwide database, grants government massive, sweeping powers over the people.

    You fail to realize that minimizing the power of government promotes freedom, whereas maximizing the power of government. . . kills people.

    In short, you think government should have more power. We, the freedom crowd, disagree with your stance. We will never budge on freedom, because we understand what happens when the balance of power is tipped in favor of government.

    Before closing, I’d like to ask you this, Henry: Before you preach the perils of guns, why don’t you try to shoot a firearm, just once?

    Silly question, I know. You lack the open-mindedness required for exploring that which you fear.

    At this point, it’s obvious you lack the logic-ability required for thoroughly analyzing the issues at hand. You are equally void of the character strength required for admitting that you’re wrong.

    Don’t bother writing me anymore. If you don’t get It now, you’ll never get It.


  3. Stephanie,

    I have only written to you once or twice and it was in reponse to your invitation.

    I have a view in which many other people join. We generally do not attack the motives or character of people who have a different view. Sometimes we get lulled in to responding in kind.

    It appears that you have some difficulty managing discussion in this area without it becoming a personal rant. I suggest you work on that.

    Separate and apart from this effort at a dialog, it is important that people who find a need to walk around with loaded firearms have a high degree of anger management.

    You say that registration does more harm than good. If you regain control, as I hope you will, please explain that. You see, my primary thrust is registration and some on this blog keep converting it into banning of guns since they feel more comfortable arguing against a ban. “More harm than good”. Tell me whether it does any good and exactly what the harm is.

    Don’t bother replying if you don’t have a rational answer.

    Best wishes,


  4. Your last sentence is weak. The double negative of your last sentence posits that, if I were to be silent, it is because my reply is irrational. Your implication is downright silly, and lacks logic.

    I, like so many others from this pro-freedom group, have actively chosen to disengage in discourse with you, for it is a futile waste of time. Accepting that you’re not worth my/our time is an act of peace.

    It’s odd that, after all these years, and, after all the glaring data, you *still* fervently support government coercion. You still think it’s okay for government to force citizens into gun registration. You still think it’s okay for government to force national ID cards upon the nation.

    In my life, I’ve discussed the perils of government coercion with thousands of people, but I’ve never come across someone as stubborn and close-minded as you. When repeatedly presented with the facts, you remain affixed to policies that are detrimental to freedom.

    You will never budge. You will never reformulate your ideas. You are incapable of admitting error. Such is the sign of a slow stubborn mind.

    I accept you and your ways, Henry, but I kindly ask that you practice peace: drop this conversation that started years ago with Joe. Simply accept that you’ll never agree with our pro-freedom group.

    You posit that it is “important” for gun owners to “have a high degree of anger management.” But in order to need anger management, one must first be angry. This is rarely the case with firearms owners. Most gun owners are anger-free, polite, kind, and respectable.

    I shall begin my last and final closing to you. The only condition under which I’d interact with you again, Henry, would be if you were to accept my offer of Guns101/Firearms Safety training. The offer extends to your friends and family, too.

    Last but not least, and for the third and final time, a data link:



  5. Stephanie, Stephanie,

    I am happy to see you are not angry.

    First things first. Your reference to a double negative, describes a situation that “just ain’t so”. The concept of double negative does not apply when the second negative appears in a separate phrase or clause.

    On the other hand, one might question the use of the redundant, “last and final” in the way you have used it.

    But, let us not be led astray by grammatical bickering.

    Once again, you have “chosen to disengage in discourse with” me, and find me “not worth” your time, and then go on to issue requests, directives and criticisms to me for seven more paragraphs. Aware of your preoccupation with the negative, is this a case of saying “no” but doing “yes”?

    You describe yourself as “profreedom”, but, not content with giving me your somewhat emotional assertions, you would have me opt out of having the opportunity to choose. So then, the only person’s views that should be asserted are those that agree with you and those who do not express concern over the substantial abuse of weapons that arises from the gun-owning community. “Freedom of choice” for some, and “don’t ask, don’t tell” for others?

    Again, I say to you: You say that registration does more harm than good. If you decide to speak to me, ever again, as I hope you will, please explain that. You see, my primary thrust is registration, and some on this blog keep converting it into banning of guns, since they feel more comfortable arguing against a ban. “More harm than good”. Tell me whether it does any good and exactly what the harm is.

    Don’t bother replying if you don’t have a rational answer or if you find that speaking with me is more than you can bear.

    Best wishes,


Comments are closed.