Monday, November 26, 2007

This "Yahoo" Responds to an Elitist

After reading this post on War on Guns, I wrote to the "representative" in question. I told him that as one of the "yahoos" he hated so much, I thought he should get a real job.

Here is the response I got from his office:

Good Afternoon Kent:

I am sorry that you were offended by the
“yahoo” comment; it actually referred to persons who shouted “yahoo” after
common sense gun legislation was defeated within the judiciary committee.
We are a Commonwealth state and surely we will differ on opinions and

I am a strong supporter of the right to bear arms.
As a former police officer and chief within the Philadelphia County Sherriff’s
office, we need such legislation to protect the lives of law enforcement
officers across this state and the lives of Pennsylvanians like

Thank you for sharing your views.

Jewell Williams

Not content to leave well enough alone, I replied:

I am more offended by the elitist mindset you have demonstrated by pushing
these slavery-enhancing "laws", than by your name-calling. The only
"common sense" gun legislation necessary or desirable is to honor the highest
law of the land: The Constitution, as it is written, not as socialists would
prefer to reinterpret it. The Second Amendment protects from
government infringement two separate rights "of the people" (look up
"infringe" if you have difficulty with the word): the right to form a militia,
("well regulated" meant "well practiced" at the time it was written, not
"government controlled" as you would prefer to think), and the right to own and
to carry any type of weapon they desired, wherever they went, in any manner they
saw fit, without asking anyone's permission, ever. If you do not abide by
this, you are not even a weak "supporter" of the right to keep and bear arms,
but a believer in the limited privilege to keep and bear arms at the whim of the
government. Victim disarmament ("gun control" to you) has failed everywhere
and every time it has been tried, IF the goal is to reduce crime. If the
goal is to reduce the population to a state of slavery and fear, then it is
effective. Philadelphia has the most draconian gun "laws" in the state;
shouldn't it therefore have the least crime if victim disarmament prevents
crime? Police would not need laws "for their protection" if they were not
on the streets and in the neighborhoods violating the rights of peaceful people
by enforcing counterfeit "laws" (laws that have no real individual
victim). If they were acting honorably they would be rallied behind and
protected by the people all around them. Sadly, this is no longer the case
in America, and will not be again unless the absolute rights of the people are
once again respected by those in government and their enforcers.

I guess I will wait to have my door kicked in now.

Willful Mischaracterizations of Libertarians

I was looking back over my past blog entries and got to thinking about the racist blogger from a few weeks ago. You know, the one so consumed with hatred and racism that he myopically pointed an accusing finger at libertarians as the villainous racists in his fantasy world. I read his incoherent blog entry again where he goes into a detailed description of what (he "thinks") is a typical libertarian.

Dissecting it, I see he claims that "Libertarianism is heavily made up of of healthy young men in the 20's and 30's making very good incomes." Hmmm. OK, I may be relatively healthy, but I am not in that age bracket, and I am not making even a passable income.

OK, on to his next lie: "A few older guys and married men are into it, and they are usually making very good incomes too." I am not married, though I am in a relationship (still not making a good income).

Next: "There are not many libertarian women, because the life of woman is vulnerable, as she is the bearer and raiser of the very "weak" people, in this case children, so despised by libertarians. And woman is weak herself, as biology and cultures the world over inform us." Wow, is there anyone this guy doesn't hate? Why does he keep projecting his opinions on others? Some of the libertarians I admire the most are women. But he probably hasn't ever heard of Claire Wolfe, Sunni Maravillosa, Liz Michael, "ElfNinosMom", Kirsten, Taran Jordan, Loretta Nall, and a bunch of others. He hasn't heard of them because it might upset his delicate sensibilities to find out he is dead wrong yet again. I am constantly awed by women, and I never thought of children as "weak". Women take on responsibilities that I don't think I could bear, and children have been strong enough to learn, survive, thrive, and keep this species going for millions of years, even with imperfect parenting.

Moving right along: "The number of poor, low income or working class libertarians is not large." I fit into this category, but feel in no way "less-than" or whatever he thinks I should feel. I think I am a very typical, if somewhat more vocal, libertarian.

His final insult is: "As these libertarian and far-right men age, many shed off some of their extreme conservatism or libertarianism, as entropy inevitably attacks their mortal coils. In particular, they often endorse more socialist health systems. A tiresome saying says, "Any man at age 20 who is not a socialist lacks a heart, and any man at age 40 who is still a socialist lacks a brain." Well, wages of time being what they are, I've noticed that older conservative guys sort of move back into that age-20 thing as they grey and hobble. Past 65, you are one of the "weak" that the libertarians hate so much, and most smart American conservatives figure this out." I guess he means that when the brain cells die off, old men become reborn socialists who want welfare? Socialism, being a form of authoritarianism, does not have a "heart". Neither does its mirror-twin, conservatism. No system based on theft does, unless it is the heart of a thief. Old people are seldom "weak". Their bodies may be battered by the ravages of time, but their spirits are often stronger than that of people a quarter of their age. I have known old people who would happily punch him in his smug, racist, sexist nose for saying such things. But elderly libertarians will not initiate force. Not that I would blame them too much if they did in this case. The only thing I "hate so much" is when government, posing as a "provider and protector" steals the future away from these people, replacing it with a welfare check. Where is the dignity in that?

I guess I shouldn't let this get to me. After all, it isn't the first time I have read mischaracterizations of this sort. It just seems like someone who advertises himself as a "journalist" should try a little harder to look into things he is trying to denigrate. I guess that is too hard for him.