Quote of the day—Tio Hardiman

I am Mr. Ceasefire and I got caught up in a situation and I am not here to point fingers and blame nobody. The verdict is still out. I can’t really speak about the case. Things happen for a reason and liberation comes in many forms.

Tio Hardiman
June 1, 2013
Bond set for CeaseFire head Tio Hardiman in domestic battery charge
[The organization “CeaseFire Illinois”, of which Hardiman is the director, changed their name to “Cure Violence” in September of 2012.

Some people have been calling the organization “Anti-Gun”. From what I have read about them, and I have sort of been following them for several years now, they aren’t really anti-gun. There is an undercurrent of anti-gun sentiment but I have not seen anything overt on their website although Hardiman himself has been quoted as advocating restrictions on guns. As near as I can tell they are a decent organization that attempts to prevent violence in a reasonable way. Yes, preventing violence is something that sends up warning flags for both Lyle and I (see also here and here). But these people are doing it by talking to potential perpetrators and victims when a violent situation is developing. I don’t have a problem with that.

The guy hasn’t been convicted of domestic violence yet, only accused. So I’m a little hesitant to say this anti-gun guy is a violent person. We have some strong clues and there is a strong correlation between anti-gun people and violent behavior but you should not apply statistics to an individual. So for now I’m going to glare at him and prepare to verbally lash out should the domestic battery charges turn out to be true.

Getting back to the quote. He appears to know English words but is unable to string them together in sentence in a way that make sense to me. Liberation comes from being arrested for domestic battery? But what do you expect from an anti-gunner?—Joe]


3 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Tio Hardiman

  1. Joe, you have a sharper mind than I do, with which you evaluate those opposed to the Human Right of self-defense, achieving great success while doing so.

    I too, have noted that some of the opponents to the practical implementation of this basic Civil Right can come off as almost rational. When I note that, I dig a little deeper into that person’s background, and in every case I’ve found so far, the person turns out to hold strong feelings of being “selected” somehow to solve the violence problem within society.

    Ample evidence exists for the idea that the violence problem is a result of previous pre-selection, either natural or Heavenly, you choose. Those who would presume to solve it have jumped God’s shark, so to speak, and presume to possess powers accorded no man since Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, or whoever your religion says for you to choose.

    In the non-religious case, those who meddle in this form of natural selection have posistioned themselves as Dr. Mengele did, with power to deny Civil Rights just to see what societal effect that will bring, or, as in present leftist politics, to bring about a pre-determined change in the natural order of things.

    In both the natural and religious cases, therefore, what we are always dealing with are meglomaniacs. Yes, it’s really just that simple, meglomaniacs. Remember, you don’t have to have strong language skills to be a meglo: there are lots of meglos who do nothing but babble incoherently.

    The natural order of things will toddle on it’s merry way just fine without the meddlings, either religious or numerical, of those who would alter it.

  2. The use of the word “liberation” is fascinating, and as I’ve been pointing out; whether you’re an extreme totalitarian/Progressive/jihadist/Nazi/Fascist/communist or a regular libertarian American, you tend to consider yourself a would-be liberator. On the other hand it may be as simple as Hardiman considering liberation from his wife, or she from him.

  3. The guy hasn’t been convicted of domestic violence yet, only accused.
    I presume you mean for this particular instance of domestic violence? According to the Trib, Hardiman had a prior misdemeanor conviction for domestic battery in 1999.

    He also appears to be one of the privileged few who was legally allowed to own a handgun in Chicago. I’ll assume the only firearms he owns were in his possession prior to 1999 since I’m sure he wouldn’t have committed a federal felony by lying on question 11i on the 4473 (Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?).

    None of this, of course, means he should be presumed guilty of the assault he’s currently accused of, but it apparently wouldn’t be out of character.

Comments are closed.