Category Archives: Rebuttal

A Brief Point-for-Point Response

As is often the case, this woman’s assertion that there was ‘quite frankly nothing to add’ has inspired me to respond to her comment point-for-point.

In the middle of the night, once upon a time, a house owner heard what seemed to be an intruder entering his house, took his gun, fired and killed his son!

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the Empire destroyed the planet of Alderaan with a giant laser fired from the Death Star.
Do you have some names and dates here so the actual facts can be analyzed, or are you simply inventing a hypothetical situation based on nothing more than misguided emotions that isn’t rooted in any factual evidence?

How about that for self defense? Come on! So tell me, how the hell do you know that guns will be properly used, once issued to the offender in beautiful disguise?

Not sure what disguise you’re referring to, but I can tell you conclusively that the best way to be sure whether or not a gun will be used properly is to observe the gun, and decide if it is, at the time of observation, being used properly. If it is not, then you had better have your own, and use it properly.

My gosh! in what kind of society are we living in…so let’s see, just as an example. My neighbor and I get into an argument. Ok! he or she gets ticked off, and pulls its gun on me, just because! then what?……There is in fact no answer to that. Quite frankly there is nothing to add.

…If your neighbor is the kind of person who would pull a gun on you for ‘no reason’, firstly, you should move, secondly, you should have a means to defend yourself from their dangerous antics.
However, if you are implying that the mere presence of a firearm means that an ordinary person will suddenly become a violent criminal, then you are projecting your own insecurity about how dangerous you know yourself to be with a firearm on others, which is irrational.

Also, as a point of advice, to state in the absolute that there is nothing more to add is to deprive yourself of the beautiful thing that is educating yourself on the opinions and facts available from the people around you, which, whether you agree with them or not, can be invaluable in understanding your environment and interacting meaningfully and safely with it. If you are truly closed-minded enough to dismiss immediately points which have not even been brought to your attention, it is no wonder that you have such a tragically skewed view of how the world works.

RANT: Fox 2 News are Propagandists, not Journalists.

Fox… It wasn’t about guns. It was never about guns. Just because a person happens to be armed for their own protection does not mean that everything they do has to be spun in such a way as to claim they were doing it because they were ‘gun activists’… even if on separate occasions they ARE gun activists.

You are journalists. Or at least you claim to be… after all being a journalist would require some measure of journalistic ethics, one would think, and you’ve thrown those directly out the window.

Your story [] takes a man who was simply exercising his first, second, and fourth amendment rights and had them violated, and instead of asking the question ‘what happened’ or ‘why’, you simply assumed [incorrectly] that this was all about guns, you assumed [incorrectly] and subsequently asserted [also incorrectly] that his conduct [simply filming on public property] was illegal, misrepresented the situation to a ‘gun rights expert’ in order to solicit the most unfavorable response possible, and threw it all together in an effort to defame someone all because he was doing the very thing that keeps you assholes employed.

It’s about you as much as it is them. It is to demonstrate what happens when you try to actually use these ‘rights’ we are supposed to have, that are supposed to be recognized in [not granted by] the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Sure, you have the right to freedom of press… unless its negative press, in which case we will violate your fourth amendment right to be secure in your person, papers and posessions. You have the freedom of press, unless it goes against the agenda of those who write our paychecks, in which case we will misrepresent the facts as best we can, report on all the dirt we can find even if it is completely unrelated to the incident being discussed, and dismiss you as a ‘lunatic’.

Imagine if, while compiling footage for this ‘story’ [pronounced “bullshit”], you were approached by a policeman who demanded to know everything about you simply because he didn’t appreciate being filmed? If you value your privacy at all, as you should, you would decline. What if, then, he decided he was simply going to steal that information from you without your consent? That would make that officer a criminal.


So what do you, as ‘journalists’, do about it? You take their side. You don’t research the laws, you don’t try and see both sides, you don’t read the Bill of Rights again, you simply see a badge and assume they are always the good guy, ignore logic, reason, and the law of the land, and take their side. YOU TAKE THE SIDE OF THE CRIMINAL.


Fox, I implore you, stop writing propaganda and go back to news.
At this point, I’d be more likely to believe Stephen Glass.

REBUTTAL: If you want to protect so badly, join the military

You know the drill… saw something in a conversation thread that got me fired up. This was in relation to someone suggesting an Open Carry walk in Menasha, WI

As is my style… a point for point response:

“The most powerful weapon someone can own is their brain…. a gun wont always protect you.”

–True, but your brain won’t always protect you either. You can use your brain all day to figure out how to fix a car or build a house too, but without the right tools for the job you won’t be getting very far.

“I understand you are all fighting for your rights to carry… I do respect that. I dont believe any of you would do anything like that… but in doing that… you gotta at least see… you also fighting for the right for people who would or WILL do something like that.”

–Not so… you see, people DO NOT HAVE a right to do that. Someone in that mindset will not be affected by laws or rights, only by what their mind is set upon. The only ones affected by such things are the law-abiding. Everyone has a right to carry a firearm for self defense. NOBODY has a right to be the harmful aggressor.

“If all people were like you… there would be no need for guns, but they arent. It does add fuel to the flame.”

–What flame? If people can’t understand that water is not flammable, then they are the ones with a serious problem. An armed good guy is not adding fuel to an armed bad guy’s flame. It is adding water. It might not put the fire out, but it will hopefully keep it at bay long enough to save some people.

“Other countries have stricter rules.. and they dont have all these shootings we have. Its sad.”

–They do, however, have much higher rates of violent crime than we do per capita typically. I’ll cite some examples after you do.

“Now none are you are even gonna listen to me, and I am most likely wasting my breath….”

–I’m responding point-for-point, so hopefully the fact that I’ve listened to you isn’t lost in the fray…

“I was just saying dont rush to parade MENASHA. People are nervous with the recent events. Respect that. Give it more time. People will always be nervous… but that is high there now. You are gonna do it anyway… but even right after a funeral? … just wrong and disrespectful.”

–It’s wrong and disrespectful to cause the funeral in the first place. People who are nervous because of Charles & Friends are nervous for the wrong reasons, and if it takes 10 nervous people to reach one person with the message of liberty it is frankly worth it.

“And People wont complain if u are carrying a gun…. I mean.. its a gun. Guns injure and kill… but I’m sure in their minds stuff is flying.”

–Guns don’t injure and kill. People who wield guns may or may not injure or kill. If a person leaves a gun out on the table and a kid finds it and shoots himself, we blame the gun. If a person leaves a circular saw out on the table and plugged in and a kid cuts himself in half, we blame the parent. Take a second and reflect on why that is. Inanimate objects are only as dangerous as the person wielding them, and no law will influence that person’s mindset.

“If you want to protect so badly.. i’d say join the force or military. Or fight to build a community citizen force…. but guns in individual hands= problems.”

–Join the police and kidnap people at gunpoint for petty bullshit that doesn’t hurt anybody except maybe themselves, and kill them if they resist, occasionally getting lucky with someone who is actually a violent criminal. Or, join the military and go somewhere overseas and kill people for no particularly good reason. Which one of those is really protecting anyone? The police have no duty to protect us, and the military, unless we’re invaded which I find unlikely, is only really protecting our financial interests these days.

“I am done with this… I will let you all come back with your debates… I am not into debates really, just had to say something. And should wait for Menasha… that was really the point.”

–If they wait until people forget about it, if they wait until the media [who isn’t waiting] has had their three weeks to hammer their agendas into people, then they have waited too long.


RANT: A Rebuttal

Today I wanted to comment on something I read from a friend of ours from Wisconsin, known on YouTube as chuckley54494

He shared this post from a police officer:
a rebuttal

In my usual style, I’ll be addressing this point-for-point.

“People like this uses the system just to be assholes…”

Not so… in fact we’re not ‘using’ the ‘system’ at all… we’re mostly disgusted with it. I’d be interested to hear what evidence you have beyond your own emotions to support this assessment. For now, its just an assumption, and you know what they say about when you assume…

“I had an encounter with one a few weeks ago we had a concerned citizen calling in reference to a man walking down the street with what appeared to a automatic weapon .”

Again, I wonder what criteria you’re using to suggest that it ‘appeared to be an automatic weapon.’ Whether or not a weapon is automatic is a mechanical property, not a cosmetic one. A GT40 kit car may look like a GT40, but to say that it looks like a V8, or that it looks like its all-wheel-drive would be a sort of ridiculous assertion. Pulling someone over because their vehicle looks like it might be breaking emissions laws, or looks like it is beyond street-legal horsepower, or ‘looks like’ it has any other cosmetically ambiguous internal functionality is a cop-out [pun-intended], and a way for you to attempt to assert your incorrectly perceived authority, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny or logic.

“I saw a weapon and it did look like a AK 47.”

Not surprising. Its the most imitated/copied/produced firearm in the world. And if you were to have diarrhea in a glass it might look like chocolate milk, but if you find it on the counter and didn’t see it get poured that would be a rather shitty assumption, wouldn’t it? [oh, more puns!]

“He asked me if he was being detained I stated yes he was while I was inspecting the weapon…”

While you’re inspecting the weapon? You need reasonable articulable suspicion that the weapon is illegal, if the weapon is your reason, and ‘it looks like its fully automatic’ is just not strong enough, as discussed above. If you can’t articulate the crime you believe is being committed, and your reasonable observations as to why you believe that crime is being committed, you can’t detain us.

“…and course he wanted to quote Constitution to me…”

Of course. And if a taxi driver was purposely taking the wrong way around town just to run the meter up, his passenger dare not say anything to him because, damn it, he’s a professional.

“At that time I stopped him , and informed him I was giving him lawful command to stretch his arms out for the side and turn around I was going to seize his weapon for inspection.”

You know, just because you say the command is lawful doesn’t make it so. If you want to prove me wrong, I have a glass of chocolate milk for you.

“He stated he was going to sue that was fine I was still going to inspect his weapon. there is something called reasonable suspicion and I explain that to him.”

You’re right, there is something called reasonable suspicion. There’s something called a million dollars too. So far I haven’t seen either one. Even if you did have reasonable suspicion, however, unfortunately for you the standard for detainment is ‘reasonable articulable suspicion’. If you can’t articulate it, then tough shit, that’s called a ‘hunch’, and we don’t have time to cater to your superstitions.

“I explained to him I had reasonable suspicion to assume his weapon could have been fully automatic which he would need a stamp etc at that time he shut his mouth because he knew I was right.”

This was discussed above… you did not have any reason to assume that the weapon was fully automatic. In fact, you had a legal obligation to assume it wasn’t unless you have some specific evidence indicating otherwise.

He did not shut his mouth because he knew you were right, he shut his mouth because he’s smart, and he knows that sociopaths like you look for any reason to fine or kidnap an otherwise normal person, possibly ruining their entire lives, just because your personal opinion is in disagreement with theirs.

“I expected the weapon and it was in fact a semi automatic. I gave his weapon backs and informed him he was no longer detained and was free to go.”

You expected what? Oh, I assume you meant ‘inspected’. Although… with the way you’ve articulated this post I doubt you would have noticed if it had ‘fully automatic’ stamped on the side of the receiver. Truth is, as discussed above, he was ‘free to go’ the entire time… but you would have killed him for it.

“to all the officers looking at this video keep that in mind go take some courses there are a few things on our side.”

There are only two sides, Liberty or Statist Tyranny. If you were on the correct side, we would be on the same side, and this wouldn’t be an issue to begin with.

“Don’t be afraid to do your job if you have concerned citizens your number one job is to see to it that they are protected and safe.”

Don’t be afraid to do your job, even if it is in violation of the very principles you took an oath to stand for? I think your moral compass needs recalibrating.

I agree that your number one job is to see to it that concerned citizens are protected and safe, but I think you and I have a different idea about what that means. You see, we people who you are detaining are also citizens, and we are concerned that you do not have any concern for our rights, or regard for us as people. We are concerned that you immediately take the side of the person calling against us, without observing the situation for yourself. Ensuring that concerned citizens are protected and safe means observing us, realizing we are not a threat, and that we have the means to protect ourselves, and going about your business.

“It’s going to be people like these people that are going to ruin it for everyone once the government decides to make these laws even stricter.”

As if that’s an inevitability, right? Well guess what… you’ll be more to blame than us. If the government does decide to further trample on our civil liberties, they cannot possibly do so if the police refuse to enforce the unjust regulations. But I have a feeling you’ll be right there with them, or else you wouldn’t be so resigned to your outlook.

“I don’t understand what’s the need of walking down the street was an AK when you can easily carry you a nice concealable weapon and not drawing attention.”

You can have the element of surprise, or you can have the element of deterrent. Both are valuable.

In terms of liberty activism… most of the time people are happy to hear the things we have to tell them about their liberties, but a concealed weapon would not instigate those conversations. A firearm is a tool, like any other. However, like any other tool, there are many ways to use them, and to many differing ends. Don’t be so closed-minded.

“soon one of these activist are going to be shot and killed by a citizen for someone suffering from post traumatic stress, or by some thug wanting to take a his weapon.”

Always a possibility, although in the former scenario lack of a firearm is not likely to prevent that, and even if it were the larger issue there is the way our medical system treats mentally ill individuals. The latter scenario, while possible, has been shown to be unlikely by almost all of the hard numbers available on gun ownership and carry vs violent crime.

It is possible for you to be killed by your seatbelt in a car accident, depending on the scenario. It may be 100 times less likely than a person being killed because they were NOT wearing a seatbelt, sure, but it’s possible. It has happened. Would you force people not to wear seatbelts because of that possibility?

“they don’t realize they’re making themselves a target.”

…for cops apparently.

“I’m a gun in fanatics and when off duty I do carry two weapons in fact.”

Good for you. When you’re on duty, however, that seems to be a different story. I’m not a gun fanatic, I’m a Liberty fanatic, and let me tell you… it’s a full time affair.

“But 90% of the time I’m concealed it’s all about the element of surprise”

That’s a nice unqualified opinion, and you’re entitled to that, just as we all are. However, it doesn’t give you any legal authority over those who disagree with you.

The element of surprise is great for waiting for a crime to happen and being able to shoot the perpetrator. However, I’d rather deter the crime from happening. Sadly there aren’t statistics for that because it is impossible to document all the times a crime does NOT happen or the times someone is NOT shot.

You are just another citizen. You are another person on the street. You will receive as much respect as the next person by default. However, understand that when you detain me for something you know is legal, that default level drops immediately. “It could be fully automatic” is really just your way of saying “I’d love to bust you for something.” You knew it wasn’t.

If you truly want to see to it that us citizens are protected and safe, then stop making us unsafe by stopping us and pointing guns at us and threatening our livelihood and our freedom and our lives, and illegally enforcing your opinions under color of law.