Quote of the day–ubu52

I believe, if guns were only used for target shooting or for events like Boomershoot, guns would be as controversial as bowling balls.



It looks like a fairly rural county. I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t be armed? To me, this is exactly the kind of county where everyone should have guns. It just makes sense. If the cops are more than a couple of minutes away, you probably would be wise to have a gun.


ubu52
April 11, 2010
Comments here and here.
[The significance of this relatively mundane comments can only be realized if you take into account that she has also said such things as:



[To be fair, I have pulled the above quotes out of context from 83 comments she has left on my blog in the last year. It does represent a biased sample.]


And of note is that numerous gun bloggers have banned her from commenting on their blogs. I think it is safe to say that ubu52 falls on the anti-gun side of the fence. Yet, she admits (as she has in the past) that guns are useful tools and may in fact agree a gun is the self-defense tool of choice in some circumstances. I was surprised to read the comments she left today. Yes, there were some qualification that she made which I didn’t include in my QOTD. But it seems to me that she is breaking into somewhat new ground and may have made a small step closer to coming around to our side of the fence. I welcome that.


Some of the other commenter’s reminded me of a Libertarian essay or pamphlet I read 10 or 15 years ago. The author pointed out that hard-core Libertarians sometimes have the nasty habit of pushing until they find a point they on which they disagree with someone they are proselyting to. For example, they might find someone agrees that the war on some drugs cannot be won and is more harmful to society than the drugs themselves would be if legalized and taxed like other recreational drugs such as cigarettes and alcohol. The hard-core Libertarian would not try and “cement” that agreement but would go on to some other issue such as elimination of government schools or something. And then “hammer” on the potential new recruit if they disagreed.


This is not the way you recruit people to your cause. When someone sees a glimmer of the light you have been trying to demonstrate you should encourage them. You don’t tell them they are a blind idiot because they can’t see the entire spectrum of ultra-violet, infra-red, and X-ray, beauty to find in so many ways that you know and love. If you are right your viewpoint will grow better through careful nurturing than through pushing more and more new material down their throat until they start gagging.


I think the proper response in this case is to ask her where and how the dividing line between rural and metropolitan areas should be drawn. If guns are acceptable and appropriate in a “rural area” but not in “metropolitan areas” then legal definitions will have to be created. What might those definitions be? How will someone traveling from one area to another (perhaps several times in one day or hour) be able to change their status from gun possessor to gun free and vice versa?


When they get stumped or realize their belief system has an internal conflict let it drop rather than push on or gloat. Let them think on it and realize they have an irreconcilable problem on their own.


Welcome new people to your community even if you don’t really trust them to watch your back. You have considerable power to determine the nature of the future relationship of them with you and other people like you. Someone who is not really your friend is much better than someone who thinks you are jerk and maybe a little bit rabid.–Joe]

3 thoughts on “Quote of the day–ubu52

  1. UBU has been a regular at my place for a while, and like you, I see glimmers of reality intruding in on her world.

    I don’t ban anyone for three reasons – One, nobody has ever ventured into territory where they require banning. The worst I’ve had required me simply editing their comment (with a notice that I did so). Two – I don’t have the kind of traffic where it’s necessary, and therefore it would be unproductive to not engage and disassemble. Three – I never wrote banning code into my blog. If I did, I’d write the best ban possible – the banee would still be able to comment and see everything, but everyone else would not see their comments. They’d be arguing with themselves and not know it.

  2. The irreconcilable problem with most people goes back to the very basics– an inability to understand a right, or to distinguish a right from a privilege. You don’t recognize a basic right if you think you should tell people how, when, where, under what circumstances, and by whom, it may be exercised. That’s saying there is a basic right, and then setting out to violate it in a number of ways. I understand that it is practically worship-worthy to be a “moderate” but you can’t have it both ways. That just means you’re attempting be seen as “reasonable” without having any real principles. That doesn’t impress anyone who has principles and is willing to take risks to defend them.

    I wrote about this before– your average leftist knows perfectly well how a right works, because the average leftist advocates it strenuously with regard to abortion. That’s the model and we need to understand it ourselves. If the average leftist claims to acknowledge the right to bear arms, yet goes on to advocate this and that restriction on carry here and there, and this or that licensing scheme, they’re being dishonest. Plain and simple, and willfully so. No– they DO understand how rights work. When it’s a right THEY want to see exercised, they scream it from the rooftops, they hit the streets, and demand that the voters never be given the chance to infringe on it in any way, any where, ever, no matter what (because a right is a right, damn it). Further; it matters not a whit how many children die as a result, which puts the lie to any and all of their assertions regarding “The Children” or “Our Children”.

    FYI; if anyone should be tempted to believe that this is a position piece on abortion, you are completely, utterly (yet predictably) missing the point.

  3. Lyle,

    I doubt one person in ten acknowledges the existence of rights. They think strictly in terms of what they think is the best way for government to rule. Very, very few people have even a glimmer of the basic concepts this country was founded upon. They totally overlook that our government was given certain limited, enumerated powers. That basic truth has been turned upside down until people believe people are allowed certain privileges as long as the government so pleases to allow them.

    I don’t have high hopes for the Firearms Freedom Acts and the lawsuits over health care succeeding in the courts but perhaps the debate will enlighten a few more people.

Comments are closed.