There is a blog by the name of pagun blog; it is a play on words, pa for Pennsylvania; gun for firearm. It is written by a blogger who works for the NRA as a political action volunteer coordinator.
It is not clear if this is a paid gig, or a freebie.
But it is clear that this guy talks the talk of the NRA, for the NRA, in his own little echo chamber.
He doesn't like what I have written here, and he doesn't like the opinions of my friend Japete over at Commongunsense, who represents not only her own views there, but who is also involved in advancing the aims of the Brady Campaign. He differs significantly as well from my friend and co-blogger Laci.
Having noticed the visitors coming from his blog, I wandered over to see where and how my name was taken in vain. I invited him to comment here, to engage me 'to my face' rather than behind my back, or alternatively, to at least post my remarks about his post, in order to have a substantive discussion on points of difference, and to possibly find points where there might be common ground.
As of last I checked, new posts appeared on the blog and other comments were posted after that, but not mine. I guess Sebastian is only interested in an uncritical readers, where everyone repeats the same position ad infinitum, and he apparently is afraid of any contrary, logical view. That suggests to me he is well aware of the flaws of his position, and is afraid of engaging in an honest discussion of those points.
To my surprise, K.M./ Sebastian thought it was unreasonable of me to argue that people who sought carry licenses should be able to see. He used as his example a competitive shooter who is suffering from a degenerative eye condition. Of course, the notion that this one person's performance on stationary targets would extrapolate to either a real-world situation like that of the NYPD in the recent mass shooting near the Empire State Building is unreasonable. To further extrapolate that individuals who had not been competitive shooting sport performers on a par with this guy could just pick up a firearm, and be as good, or that all other forms of eye impairment would equate is simply either foolish, or dishonest, maybe both.
Sebastian has a further axe to grind as apparently a woman with whom he has a close relationship and who is his co-blogger also apparently has vision impairment, especially peripheral vision. He bragged that she could still hit a bad guy at a certain distance. What he didn't allow for were moving targets, multiple targets, multiple people who were NOT targets, less than optimal light or unfamiliar locations--- all of which were distinctly possible aspects of real life, real world, real time encounters for a carry permittee.
On Japete's blog, and on Mikeb's blog as an author and admin, as well as here, I've brought up the additional topic of CC permittees having insurance for their firearms and for actions relating to those firearms. Where I have gone into greater depth on the advantages it seems to have been persuasive to both sides, because there are definite advantages to both sides of gun ownership and carry. I had somewhat hoped that Sebastian, as a more or less prominent voice for one side, might engage in that dialog...............but no. Maybe he fears any controversy where it is not an advantage to be armed with only his intellect.
I politely differed with Sebastian, leaving a comment that pointed out something I had mentioned here before - that it is a core aspect of firearm safety that a person who is going to shoot at a bad guy should be able to see that person relatively clearly, as well as anyone nearby - which means peripheral vision - anyone moving into or across the path of firing, and of course what is around and behind the person being targeted.
Vision impairment would interfere with that kind of safety, to a dangerous degree. The notion is ridiculous that many, much less most, amateurs who do not routinely win shooting competitions will be comparable in skill or exceed the skill of law enforcement.
But what even more Sebastian too out of context that is worth noting is that there is nothing about being a Constitutional right that says crazy people, or physically incapacitated people, or dangerously impaired drug users, or criminals, or minors or illegal immigrants are guaranteed firearms under every conceivable situation, even when that endangers themselves and/or others.
I doubt that most people, seeing a firearm targeting a criminal but also pointed in their general direction, or in the direction of a loved one, family member, friend or colleague would be comfortable with that weapon being held by a person who could not see reasonably well, or who could not hold that weapon steady.
But the core point of my argument for both eye testing and a physical review was that we have an aging population of gun owners, who are not, from what we have seen of the typical NRA member, all that robust. None of us is immortal, and we don't improve with age indefinitely. Even alcoholic beverages have limits to getting better with age. As we have seen recently with the 100 year old man mowing down people with his car in a parking lot, diminishing capability happens to all of us sooner or later. As we saw recently with the 69 year old man who for no apparent reason threw acid all over his daughter, who was his care provider, is in critical condition, with her skin peeling off of her. She is reported to be losing her left eye. Her father is reported to have been deteriorating mentally in recent years.
Some people, as they decline at the end of their lives, will gracefully give up things like cars and driving, or guns and shooting them. Many don't and won't; we have a lot of cars, we have a lot of guns, and we have a lot of people who are aren't getting any younger.
So the notion that no one can - or should - take any action to address the problems inherent in large numbers of people with large numbers of very lethal firearms in declining mental and physical condition is not very realistic, or reasonable.
One person who is clearly the exception to the rule is not an argument for most people. And it is certainly not an honest argument for the larger problem.
But apparently, since 'Sebastian' has no answer for that, he has to silence any contrary view in his little echo chamber gun world.
How weak is that - and how invalid?
Every SCOTUS decision has affirmed that the 2nd Amendment right is not an absolute, that it is subject to regulation, even extensive regulation. No one who is reasonable believes the Constitution is a suicide pact. Most SCOTUS decisions, other than recent ones, actually affirm that the foundational clause of the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", upon which (for those who still know how to diagram a sentence properly) all of the rest of the text forms dependent clauses, is an indication that the 2nd is about militas for state security rather than the contorted interpretation of private, personal security or hunting.
It is not clear if this is a paid gig, or a freebie.
But it is clear that this guy talks the talk of the NRA, for the NRA, in his own little echo chamber.
He doesn't like what I have written here, and he doesn't like the opinions of my friend Japete over at Commongunsense, who represents not only her own views there, but who is also involved in advancing the aims of the Brady Campaign. He differs significantly as well from my friend and co-blogger Laci.
Having noticed the visitors coming from his blog, I wandered over to see where and how my name was taken in vain. I invited him to comment here, to engage me 'to my face' rather than behind my back, or alternatively, to at least post my remarks about his post, in order to have a substantive discussion on points of difference, and to possibly find points where there might be common ground.
As of last I checked, new posts appeared on the blog and other comments were posted after that, but not mine. I guess Sebastian is only interested in an uncritical readers, where everyone repeats the same position ad infinitum, and he apparently is afraid of any contrary, logical view. That suggests to me he is well aware of the flaws of his position, and is afraid of engaging in an honest discussion of those points.
To my surprise, K.M./ Sebastian thought it was unreasonable of me to argue that people who sought carry licenses should be able to see. He used as his example a competitive shooter who is suffering from a degenerative eye condition. Of course, the notion that this one person's performance on stationary targets would extrapolate to either a real-world situation like that of the NYPD in the recent mass shooting near the Empire State Building is unreasonable. To further extrapolate that individuals who had not been competitive shooting sport performers on a par with this guy could just pick up a firearm, and be as good, or that all other forms of eye impairment would equate is simply either foolish, or dishonest, maybe both.
Sebastian has a further axe to grind as apparently a woman with whom he has a close relationship and who is his co-blogger also apparently has vision impairment, especially peripheral vision. He bragged that she could still hit a bad guy at a certain distance. What he didn't allow for were moving targets, multiple targets, multiple people who were NOT targets, less than optimal light or unfamiliar locations--- all of which were distinctly possible aspects of real life, real world, real time encounters for a carry permittee.
On Japete's blog, and on Mikeb's blog as an author and admin, as well as here, I've brought up the additional topic of CC permittees having insurance for their firearms and for actions relating to those firearms. Where I have gone into greater depth on the advantages it seems to have been persuasive to both sides, because there are definite advantages to both sides of gun ownership and carry. I had somewhat hoped that Sebastian, as a more or less prominent voice for one side, might engage in that dialog...............but no. Maybe he fears any controversy where it is not an advantage to be armed with only his intellect.
I politely differed with Sebastian, leaving a comment that pointed out something I had mentioned here before - that it is a core aspect of firearm safety that a person who is going to shoot at a bad guy should be able to see that person relatively clearly, as well as anyone nearby - which means peripheral vision - anyone moving into or across the path of firing, and of course what is around and behind the person being targeted.
Vision impairment would interfere with that kind of safety, to a dangerous degree. The notion is ridiculous that many, much less most, amateurs who do not routinely win shooting competitions will be comparable in skill or exceed the skill of law enforcement.
But what even more Sebastian too out of context that is worth noting is that there is nothing about being a Constitutional right that says crazy people, or physically incapacitated people, or dangerously impaired drug users, or criminals, or minors or illegal immigrants are guaranteed firearms under every conceivable situation, even when that endangers themselves and/or others.
I doubt that most people, seeing a firearm targeting a criminal but also pointed in their general direction, or in the direction of a loved one, family member, friend or colleague would be comfortable with that weapon being held by a person who could not see reasonably well, or who could not hold that weapon steady.
But the core point of my argument for both eye testing and a physical review was that we have an aging population of gun owners, who are not, from what we have seen of the typical NRA member, all that robust. None of us is immortal, and we don't improve with age indefinitely. Even alcoholic beverages have limits to getting better with age. As we have seen recently with the 100 year old man mowing down people with his car in a parking lot, diminishing capability happens to all of us sooner or later. As we saw recently with the 69 year old man who for no apparent reason threw acid all over his daughter, who was his care provider, is in critical condition, with her skin peeling off of her. She is reported to be losing her left eye. Her father is reported to have been deteriorating mentally in recent years.
Some people, as they decline at the end of their lives, will gracefully give up things like cars and driving, or guns and shooting them. Many don't and won't; we have a lot of cars, we have a lot of guns, and we have a lot of people who are aren't getting any younger.
So the notion that no one can - or should - take any action to address the problems inherent in large numbers of people with large numbers of very lethal firearms in declining mental and physical condition is not very realistic, or reasonable.
One person who is clearly the exception to the rule is not an argument for most people. And it is certainly not an honest argument for the larger problem.
But apparently, since 'Sebastian' has no answer for that, he has to silence any contrary view in his little echo chamber gun world.
How weak is that - and how invalid?
Every SCOTUS decision has affirmed that the 2nd Amendment right is not an absolute, that it is subject to regulation, even extensive regulation. No one who is reasonable believes the Constitution is a suicide pact. Most SCOTUS decisions, other than recent ones, actually affirm that the foundational clause of the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", upon which (for those who still know how to diagram a sentence properly) all of the rest of the text forms dependent clauses, is an indication that the 2nd is about militas for state security rather than the contorted interpretation of private, personal security or hunting.
