Good job!

Caleb did well on Fox News against Dennis Henigan from the Brady Campaign.

When a young amateur goes up a seasoned professional in his prime you expect the professional to “mop the floor” with the young upstart. That didn’t happen.

While it shows Caleb knows his stuff what it shows more than anything is the weakness of the Brady Campaign position.

13 thoughts on “Good job!

  1. I agree that Caleb knows his stuff, but exactly how did this short debate show “the weakness of the Brady Campaign position.” It didn’t do anything of the sort.

    I think you gun owners are so concerned with your own rights that you forget non gun owners have rights too. I should have the right to know which of my neighbors has a concealed carry permit. Drunken or aggressive behaviour which might be overlooked in another, could be an indication of a serious problem in a neighbor who carries a gun. But if it were kept secret, due to what?, privacy concerns, I couldn’t very well protect myself and my family from the threat, could I?

  2. Hehehe And MikeB cements the weakness of the position.

    FYI for all readers who have functional brains, if your neighbor is doing dangerous of aggressive behavior, it shouldn’t matter what cards are in his or her wallet. We already have laws to protect you and your family.

    If you want to trust them 100% I welcome you to that choice.

    I’ll trust the law, and keep a gun in case it lets me down.

    You don’t want to talk about your criminal acts:
    http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/568583.html

    But I suspect such a public registry would be ideal for criminals like you to steal guns.

    So again you are advocating for criminal and for harming innocent people.

    You are evil!

  3. I’m sure MikeBigot read this but for anybody who might think he’s making sense, read this:
    http://www.squeakywheelseeksgrease.com/blog/?p=2982

    “I’m one of the women he was talking about – I got a gun because of an ex who’d raped me and then began stalking me. I went through all of the appropriate steps to become licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and I’m listed in the same database section that my ex would be if he was arrested for that rape. How is that a public service?”

    Well it all depends on who’s side your on. The lawful, or the criminals. MikeB fights for the criminals!

  4. Mike,
    You’re pretty selective about how you want your “rights” to be doled out. Are you even aware of what a “right” is?

    I should have the “right” to know the medical history of every driver on the road. In fact, anyone with a heart or nervous condition should have to put a blaze orange flag on their car roof. Because I have the “right” to know if they are going to collapse at the wheel and cross the centerline or plow into bystanders on a sidewalk. Of course, drunkards should have to display a day-glo green flag for the same reasons. Then I can “protect” against them.

    People should also have to put a menu outside their home, listing the charities and organizations they donate too. After all, folks might donate money to a terrorist organization or a liberal gun control group, and I have the “right” to protect against that.

    Children, those little germ factories, should be required to wear funny little hats, displaying their current health status. I’m tired of catching colds and flu from kids. If they had to be screened every couple of days to see what they were sick with this time, then the proper hat would let me know and I could protect against it. After all, it’s my “right” to be healthy.

    OBTW – how do you plan to “protect” against your alleged aggressive, concealed carrying neighbor? Buy a gun? Now that would be pretty hippocritical. Wear a kevlar suit? Or perhaps just move to Chicago or New York, or one of those other bastions of gun safety, where crime is low and guns are rare? Good luck with that.

  5. I don’t know anymore if the average American is capable of critical thought, but Hennigan should have been asked by someone for specifics on the accusations he made. Whether Caleb did it or the moderator he should have been asked then Caleb should have been allowed to repsond.

    If there are any Americans left with critical thinking skills they will have noticed the paucity of detail in Hennigan’s assertions and the glib way in which he cited unproven “facts”.

  6. I have to admit, I was rather impressed with how well the Brady Bunch representative fillibustered the five minutes… The host had to interrupt him twice to break the guy out of his unending monologue, whereas Caleb actually took a second to apologize for speaking over the host (gotta love satellite-based communication lag). But, then again, based on the history of the Brady Bunch, they have become acclimatized, I would bet, to controlling the debate and the flow of information, and do not seem to have caught on to the idea that they no longer have the reigns. It must suck to see your empire slowly corroding before your eyes.

    It didn’t do anything of the sort.

    Yes, MikeB30200, it did. For Heaven’s sake, the Brady Bunch representative could not even hardly remain on-topic, much less answer the direct and very simple questions of the host, and instead ventured off into completely tangential talking points straight from whatever script he was preprogrammed with. Now, I understand that for Dennis Henigan, scripts are important, but when you evade a simple question by diverting the conversation to statistics that have no bearing on the topic, and no context in which to frame them, you are, indeed, exposing the weakness of your position and, by extension, the position of the organization you are representing.

    Then again, given that you have no repeatable method of determining fact from fiction, you probably do not understand my explanation of what you did not understand in the news segment.

    I should have the right to know which of my neighbors has a concealed carry permit.

    No, MikeB302000, you should not. In fact, if you follow the “logic” of such organizations as the Herald Times Online and the Commercial Appeal, as you obviously do, we handgun carry permit holders have a right to not incriminate ourselves based on the Fifth Amendment.

    What? Something of a leap for obviously limited brain? Well newspapers and anti-rights advocates alike have been treating handgun carry permit holders as criminals by association, extension, and implication. Likewise, the Supreme Court has long since upheld the value and validity of the Fifth Amendment, in that individuals do not need to incriminate themselves if they do not want to, and criminals do not have to further incriminate themselves if they do not want to (see how U.S. vs. Haynes set the precedent that criminals do not need to register their firearms, should a registry come to pass). As such, based on your opinion and the opinions of hoplophobes like you, in addition to the obvious legal precedents involved, forcing handgun carry permit holders to disclose that they have permits (by forcing them to aquiesce to public records, and having their information entered therein) or otherwise disclosing that information is a direct violation of their Constitutionally-protected rights.

    Hey, do not blame me if your “logic” fails you. Again. And again. And again.

    However, even discounting the opinion of anti-rights folks like you, you do not have the right to know anything about any other private citizen, nor should you (and what follows will not even go into the protection of the individual’s right to privacy afforded by the Ninth Amendment, nor the specific protections given by the Fourth). Not to ride on Defens’ coat-tails, but based on your totalitarianistic “reasoning” (and I am using that term very loosely), I “should” have the right to know if my neighbors are Irish – Lord knows we red-headed-step-children of Europe are trouble when we get our happy arses drunk. I “should” have the right to know every household chemcial, substance, and poison my neighbors keep in their house – heaven knows what could happen if children were to get into them (and, after all, twice as many children have died to unintentional poisoning since 1999 as have died to unintentional firearm injuries). I “should” have the right to know if my neighbors have a computer and a digital camera, as well as their comprehensive and complete webbrowsing history – who knows what kind of people spread child pornography these days?

    However, just as you have no right to know whether or not I have decided to take steps to protect myself and my family, neither do you have any right to know any of that other information… nor should you. My privacy is my privacy, and whether or not I want to disclose something to you (or anyone else) is my own personal choice. If something I do were to detrimentally affect someone else, then I can certainly be brought up on charges and punished accordingly. However, until that point, you have no “right” to know a bloody thing about me, or any other private citizen.

  7. Mikeb, put all,ALL, your personal information right here. Every bit of it. We have a right to know.

  8. Start with your full name, date and place of birth, employment history, marital history, sexual preferences, annual salary, full address, make model and year of vehicle(s). Insurance rates, driving record, pasttimes, medical history, criminal history.

    That will do for starters. We will come back for more once we have perused the above supplied information, assuming of course you mean it when you say “we have a right to know”. I assure you, I can give just as reasonable justifications for gathering that information as you can for what you “have a right to know”.

    If you refuse or decline to offer up the requested information you will have admitted you are a liar, and an enemy of liberty and the nation. The only way you can convince anyone you truly believe what you said is to lead the way and supply the above requested information.

    You wouldn’t want to expose yourself, now would you? Or have you already, is that something we would see in your criminal history?

  9. Linoge hit it very well. Perhaps I can say it in a shorter manner.

    Owning and carrying a weapon is legal. Uses of that weapon may be challenged, but not the weapon itself (at least in a reality which duly honors the second amendment).

    Publication of such lists is in effect an attempt at prior restraint. It is an infringment and may violate that US code that Joe is always mentioning (section 18 something?).

    Can you imagine somebody shouting on the corner: “Person X took out a marriage license – there will be humping and bumping” a legal behavior (hmmm perhaps not the best analogy given Dr. Joe’s cure for everything…).

    There is an undercurrent of expectation of evil, an assumption of guilt rather than innocence for an offense not even committed.

    That is the nub of it. I am offended by the implicit statement that owning and carrying a firearm is somehow an evil in and of itself.

    When I used to live in the mountains is was not at all unusual to see a pick-up truck in town with a gas can and chain saw laying in the bed. Does this mean that the individual is preparing for a “Texas Chain Saw Massacre”? No, with as often as tree limbs (and whole trees!) fell across the highway in storms, it was a public service, being able to cut the debris away. We had work to do and didn’t need the gummint to hold our hand. We just let them deal with the corpse (opps, I meant the debris..).

    Carrying is a public service. Crime statistics prove it. It puts a greater chance of protection at the point of need. I am sick of it being cast as a threat. End of story. Those with their knickers in a twist should change knickers.

    So, I have rambled on and not said it nearly as well as others, but at least I have had my rant.

  10. No doubt about it mikeb, but where is all that information about you that we “have a right to know”?

Comments are closed.