First I want to get something out of the way before I make my main points.
I’ve been laying it on Catherine pretty thick and she updated her blog post to include some of my comments such as suggesting she look up the definition of “shill”, and commenting on my equating our struggle for gun rights to other civil rights. I will partially concede one point to her. At least one dictionary defines “shill” merely as “to act as a spokesperson or promoter”. The definition I was working from required the person pretended no association with the group or organization being promoted. Except for the Merriam-Webster dictionary cited above all the other on-line definitions I found mention deceit (or similar such as “put under cover”) as a component of the definition:
- The Free Dictionary
- MSN Encarta
- The American Heritage Dictionary
- Online Etymology Dictionary
- OneLook Dictionary
- 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary
- WordNet 3.0 Vocabulary Helper
- Look Way up
Hence even though I promote the civil rights agenda of the NRA because I am open about being a (life) member of the NRA, an NRA certified instructor, and communicate with them fairly regularly I am not a shill of the NRA–except if you use Catherine’s and the Merriam Webster definition. Perhaps in our on-line war of words we should just drop the shill issue. We both have adequate justification for our positions and it’s a distraction from the important points.
The more important point is that despite being a lawyer and a BA in English magna cum laude she has a reading (and spelling but I don’t hold that against her) problem. For example she stated:
Some NRA proud propagandists (they displayed a badge stating “NRA propoganda” [sic] blogger)
But the actual badge doesn’t say that. The badge is:
The badge does not say what she claims it says. Furthermore it does NOT have ANYTHING to do with the NRA. Not only doesn’t it say NRA, it is not affiliated with the NRA in any way other than there is a strong correlation between people that have those badges and a NRA membership.
Another example. She stated:
They only seek to ridicule viewpoints different from theirs in the most base and crude ways. I will not engage in that. See my comments. That is my right.
She implies someone was trying to infringe her rights in some way. No. They, and I, tried to point out the flaws in her statements and I asked her Just One Question. She refused to engage on those issues and shut off the comments. Fine, it’s her blog she can do whatever she wants with it (within legal limits such as libel and certain limits on pornography, extortion, blackmail etc. which are not at issue in this case). As near as I can determine she had trouble reading the actual words said and imagined they said something completely different.
Because of her refusal to engage people did ridicule her and I did call her a bigot in regards to which had the following to say:
I have been referred to as a “bigot” because I have a different opinion. They equate gun ownership with the struggle for civil rights that African Americans had in this country, which is why I am a bigot? Yet they say my view is narrow? Such chutzpah to even to equate gun ownership with the struggle for civil rights. That says a lot about just how extreme and fringe they are.
No. Not because she had a different opinion. It was because she without thought, is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from her own. She wants to ban “assault weapons” but refuses to address the facts they are probably protected by the Second Amendment, and restrictions on them have never been shown to improve public safety. Facts, as near as I can determine, are irrelevant to her beliefs and she continues to push her beliefs. That makes her a bigot.
In still another example that can be explained by her inability to read we have the issue of the D.C. v. Heller ruling. I gave her a link and quoted from it. This ruling clearly states the Second Amendment is a specific enumerated right that protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. That means gun ownership is, beyond any doubt, a civil right. Either she cannot read what the ruling clearly states or something else is going on. In any case that I can think other than some sort learning disability it is further confirmation she is a bigot.
Also of note is that my posts regarding the bigot at hand generated some hate mail. It’s been so long that this really made my day:
From: Skujins Andre [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 2:43 PM
Subject: Comments on: Shills
Boy your title says it all mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger. What a complete asshole. Hope your dog gets shot by your drunk buddies.
First off, I don’t have any dogs (my wife and kids have two small dogs that I occasionally interact with when I go home to Idaho). And two, I almost never drink anything with alcohol nor do I hang around with friends that are drunk. So what is appears what we have here is another person that is willing to apply false stereotypes to someone they don’t know because of their bigoted beliefs.