Quote of the day—Baldr Odinson

Would bringing up the issue of gun violence have been “dancing in the blood of victims” as some pro-gun people have written?  If that’s what it takes to call attention to the issue, I’ll do a freakin’ tango in a pool of it!

Baldr Odinson
January 25, 2011
President Obama, Take A Stand Against Gun Violence!
[The facts and the failed efforts of over a century of gun control aren’t sufficient to support your views. So you are willing to take advantage of people at the times when their emotions are running strongest and rational thought is at it’s lowest ebb.

It’s nice to have you admit this.

Thank you Baldr.—Joe]

11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Baldr Odinson

  1. In typical fashion, Joe, you have taken my statement out of context by publishing only a portion of it. Here is the full quote of that paragraph:

    ‘Would bringing up the issue of gun violence have been “dancing in the blood of victims” as some pro-gun people have written? If that’s what it takes to call attention to the issue, I’ll do a freakin’ tango in a pool of it! They didn’t shed their blood just to have us ignore the issue! This isn’t taking advantage of the unfortunate. It is calling attention to yet another example of our policies gone wrong. Instead, the NRA and pro-gun folks would rather take a hose and wash it away. “Nothing to see here folks! Just some red stuff. It’s gone now. Just a random bad guy doing his thing. Go about your business and honor the 2nd amendment. There’s a gun store just down the street.”‘

  2. “In a typical fashion…”? I guess it would be too much for passive-aggressive beta-males like you to actually bother substantiating backhanded insults like that, eh? Linking back to your post is hardly taking your quote “out of context”.

    Likewise, the remainder of that particular paragraph consisted of little more than a Shakespeare-esque “methinks he dost protest too much” rationalization of of the exploitation the murders and injuries of innocents for tighter “gun control” laws that no evidence indicates would have prevented the Tucson shooting. Not much “context” to be had there.

    More to the point, the policies did not fail – the people in charge of them did. Countless opportunities were presented to give the Tucson shooter a criminal or psychological history, and yet those responsible for doing so failed to act, which could explain why the Pima County Sheriff was also hip-deep in MHDPTM, pointing fingers every which-way to try and take the attention off the failure of his department. However, even if those folks had done what they were supposed to, if you honestly believe that all of the laws being fielded by the anti-rights nuts in response to this outrage (well, really, they are just aiming for a new Assault Weapon Ban, which would have done nothing to prevent the shooting), then you are even stupider than you are letting on.

    But, hey, thanks for being honest and admitting what we already knew – time and time again (both here and abroad), anti-rights organization’s goals can largely only be moved forward by exploiting harm done to others and misrepresenting potential “cures”. Like I said, observation of historical patterns is one thing, but having someone even loosely affiliated with an anti-rights group admit this certainly is interesting…

  3. Yet the policies and issues you’re wanting to change are the ones responsible for the situation. You’re looking at the ancillaries and using the tragedies as an excuse to push a personal agenda. Perfect example is Josh Sugarmann (another Joyce puppet) w/i hours calling for a new ‘Assault Weapon Ban’. Did that have ANYTHING to do w/ it? No, it did not.

    Tucson was committed by an undiagnosed schizo who had committed multiple disqualifying offenses but never been prosecuted. Why aren’t you going after those policies which would effect a much larger category of violence and crime?

    Oh, right. Because it’s all about the guns.

    Just like when I asked you why Chicago’s crime rate was higher than the rest of the state. You blamed ‘trafficking’ (w/o showing any evidence) yet you couldn’t explain why the crime rate was lower elsewhere where firearms are common.

  4. Joe, You’re quoting the man out of context and calling it an “admission,” speaks really well for your intellectual honesty.

    Why do you have to resort to such tricks if you have “right” on your side?

  5. I’m in agreement with Linoge and Thirdpower. When something happens and a group uses that “event” to push their agenda, that’s dancing in the blood. When the “fixes” you call for have nothing to do with the event in question, that is dancing in the blood.
    And I don’t believe Joe quoted him out of context. A) What he meant to say was there for all to see and if they wanted more context, click the link.

  6. Also, it was a quote. Quotes are almost always a small portion of the original.

    Baldr,

    My point is that the facts do not support any benefit to society for what you advocate. Hence you attempt to take advantage of situations with high emotional content when people are rationally impaired. Either you are unable to rationally demonstrate a social benefit for gun control or you know that no such benefit exists and you wish to implement gun control for some reason other than public safety. I cannot see a third alternative.

    If I have overlooked something perhaps you could enlighten us.

  7. Baldr,

    So you are basically saying that you will gleefully (unless there is a sad form of dancing) use *any* tragedy to further your political goals.

    Did you borrow Rahm Emmanuel’s politics books?

    You should start smaller. You’ll never get all the guns away from all the people. Since urban areas are hardest hit by gun violence, and since in those urban areas, the largest portion of gun violence is in the black communities, your aim should first be to pass legislation forbidding black people to own guns.

    Once the blacks are disarmed, then you can show that the second largest threat comes from brown people, and then asians. Once those minorities are disarmed, you can show that white people have no cause to keep and bear arms (except for hunting,) because all of the non-whites are now disarmed so they have nothing to fear.

    There. See how easy it is?

    Jackwagon.

  8. It’s only “taking out of context” if the context is a sentiment at odds with the portion of the quote. Your “context” is just as wrongheaded as what JH quoted, even if it’s not quite so reprehensible.

Comments are closed.