Now anti's are smearing RKBA by associating it with Timothy McVeigh

O

old lady new shooter

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
30,637
On redstate.com there is an article titled "The Deceitful Link: Anti-Gunners' Attempt to Connect Timothy McVeigh and 2nd Amendment Supporters" (https://redstate.com/jeffc/2023/05/...-mcveigh-and-2nd-amendment-supporters-n743283), however it is a members-only article. I went looking to see if I could find the same article elsewhere and could not, but I did see several links to articles promoting the alleged connection.

Apparently the impetus for this is a new book by Jeffrey Toobin titled "Homegrown: Timothy McVeigh and the Rise of Right-Wing Extremism" .

Articles jumping on the bandwagon include "American Terrorism: From Timothy McVeigh to January 6" (https://washingtonmonthly.com/2023/05/03/american-terrorism-from-timothy-mcveigh-to-january-6/), "Tracing the Angry Path From Timothy McVeigh to Trumpism" ( https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/03/books/review/homegrown-jeffrey-toobin.html), and "Timothy McVeigh’s Dreams Are Coming True" (Opinion | Timothy McVeigh’s Dreams Are Coming True - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (also reprinted at https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinio...0230509-6hnvx3jlkrfgrmy4mgbtjozlfu-story.html which is thankfully not behind a firewall), which starts with:
Timothy McVeigh, the right-wing terrorist who killed 168 people in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, cared about one issue above all others: guns. To him, guns were synonymous with freedom, and any government attempt to regulate them meant incipient tyranny.​
From there the author goes on to include every possible anti-gun trope.

The Washington Monthly review (also not behind a firewall) tars the entire Republican party with the McVeigh brush.

Anybody here an author who could write a review challenging Toobin's assertions and publish it somewhere that would get wide circulation?
 
Let's see if I can find an old article...
They have tried this before, not exactly this but close.
2012 article from the crazy Jesse Jackson.
Screenshot_2023-04-22-07-12-37-1.png
Screenshot_2023-04-22-07-11-48-1.png
Bla, bla bla. It goes on for 2 more screen shots just craping all over responsible law abiding gun owners....
Yeah comparing law abiding gun owners to terrorists, been there done that.
Didn't work last time, won't work this time.
 
Last edited:
I'm actually a bit heartened to note that a lot of folks out there seem to be able to see through the attempts to paint middle-aged and older Christian-identifying white males that may be military vets as potential "militant violent extremists."

It appears that the debacle that was January 6th has actually caused a few folks to engage their critical thinking skills and perhaps reevaluate just how much they actually trust the government.

Obviously, when the Southern Poverty Law Center and the FBI are sending out bulletins advising that folks that display Gadsden flags on their trucks or in their yards -- or, get this: fly the American flag in their yard (this is becoming a huge topic on TikTok and other social media) -- are potential MVEs, many of those living between the coasts are gonna take notice and maybe hoist their own BS flags.
 
JeffG said:
The libbies are arming themselves of late, I think the 2nd A has a lot of new allies.
Click to expand...
Yes. I've said all along that the old-school, hardcore Left is not against guns. (But they want them for themselves, and not necessarily in furtherance of the 2nd Amendment. Karl Marx himself wrote that "the workers under no circumstances should allow themselves to be disarmed.")

The antigunners are another set of people altogether. These, for the most part, are middle class people who get carried away by emotion, with no thought of practicalities or long-term consequences.
 
AlexanderA said:
Yes. I've said all along that the old-school, hardcore Left is not against guns. (But they want them for themselves, and not necessarily in furtherance of the 2nd Amendment. Karl Marx himself wrote that "the workers under no circumstances should allow themselves to be disarmed.")

The antigunners are another set of people altogether. These, for the most part, are middle class people who get carried away by emotion, with no thought of practicalities or long-term consequences.
Click to expand...
By and large, the pro-gun left isn't against having guns.
It's against non-leftists having guns.
 
Old Dog said:
I'm actually a bit heartened to note that a lot of folks out there seem to be able to see through the attempts to paint middle-aged and older Christian-identifying white males that may be military vets as potential "militant violent extremists."

It appears that the debacle that was January 6th has actually caused a few folks to engage their critical thinking skills and perhaps reevaluate just how much they actually trust the government.

Obviously, when the Southern Poverty Law Center and the FBI are sending out bulletins advising that folks that display Gadsden flags on their trucks or in their yards -- or, get this: fly the American flag in their yard (this is becoming a huge topic on TikTok and other social media) -- are potential MVEs, many of those living between the coasts are gonna take notice and maybe hoist their own BS flags.
Click to expand...
My hippie neighbor flies an American flag I don't think he owns a gun. They're just talking out of their arses making broad assumptions about that which they know nothing about.
 
theotherwaldo said:
By and large, the pro-gun left isn't against having guns.
It's against non-leftists having guns.
Click to expand...
If you look at guns as a zero-sum game -- that is, you are stronger if you are armed, while your opponent is disarmed -- then both sides play this game. In contrast, the positions of "guns for everybody" (principled pro-gunism) and "guns for nobody" (principled antigunism) are both apolitical in the sense that they don't serve a political purpose. Those positions are "pure" and "consistent" but that's not how the world works.
 
AlexanderA said:
If you look at guns as a zero-sum game -- that is, you are stronger if you are armed, while your opponent is disarmed -- then both sides play this game. In contrast, the positions of "guns for everybody" (principled pro-gunism) and "guns for nobody" (principled antigunism) are both apolitical in the sense that they don't serve a political purpose. Those positions are "pure" and "consistent" but that's not how the world works.
Click to expand...
You're right.
Being armed means that you are able to say 'no' to criminals, hooligans, mobs, opponents and tyrants.
It's just that the Left and the Right have different definitions of criminals, hooligans, mobs, opponents and tyrants... .
 
AlexanderA said:
Yes. I've said all along that the old-school, hardcore Left is not against guns. (But they want them for themselves, and not necessarily in furtherance of the 2nd Amendment. Karl Marx himself wrote that "the workers under no circumstances should allow themselves to be disarmed.")

The antigunners are another set of people altogether. These, for the most part, are middle class people who get carried away by emotion, with no thought of practicalities or long-term consequences.
Click to expand...

The anti gunners fit into the "Useful Idiot",another Marx term I believe, category for the hardcore Left...
 
Shanghai McCoy said:
The anti gunners fit into the "Useful Idiot",another Marx term I believe, category for the hardcore Left...
Click to expand...
Kinda Sorta. In the context of the Cold War, it came out of Yugoslavia and was used to describe the liberals who were willing to work with the Communists for the sake of Democracy. This was right around the time Marshal Tito was trying to break away and do his own thing in Yugoslavia; a move that he was pretty successful in pulling off. Both sides (Titoists and Communists) used the phrase which literally means something more like Useful Fools or Useful Innocents, seemingly describing the naivety of said Liberals.
Ludwig von Mises also used the phrase Useful Innocents in one of his books when covered the same topic.

/history nerd story
 
I don't know the name of the logical fallacy, but I hate this trope of saying that a bad group shares an ideal with you or supports you, then you must also be bad.

Like if white supremists support a political candidate, that's seen as condemnable for the candidate. I do get some of the logic - if the candidate is attractive to bad people, it's because he has traits that bad people like. But it could simply be because this person is white, which is not condemnable. Or it could be that they're the furthest to the right of the available candidates, which some see as condemnable, but isn't necessarily so.

However, I think this is another one of those articles you can't argue with, because I don't believe the author is writing in good faith. You can't have a debate with someone who is not arguing in good faith. January 6 was a slap-on-the-wrist event that sparked a totalitarian response. Meanwhile, you had other groups taking over cities, burning police stations, threatening council members, and saying "If Joe Biden is elected, the violence will stop." I only bring it up because it's in the title of the article. If someone is angry about January 6, and not about everything else that was going on at the time, I don't believe there's any way to have a rational discussion with them, so I won't even try.
 
I don't know the name of the logical fallacy, but I hate this trope of saying that a bad group shares an ideal with you or supports you, then you must also be bad.
Click to expand...
It is a variant of the ad hominem attack, guilt by association. From Logically Fallacious":
argumentum ad hominem

(also known as: association fallacy, bad company fallacy, company that you keep fallacy, they’re not like us fallacy, transfer fallacy)

Description: When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively.

Logical Form:

Person 1 states that Y is true.

Person 2 also states that Y is true, and person 2 is a moron.

Therefore, person 1 must be a moron too.
Click to expand...
 
Then we should associate Democrats with Socialists and their failed governments in Russia, China and other little countries that won't give you "luxuries".
 
At least now you know why they bury stories about the nuts that share their view points and highlight only the nuts they choose.

Or do you know as much about Audrey E. Hale as you do McVeigh from new reports?
 
Straw arguments are a favorite tactic of the left. I recently read a book called the Great Smear. There are companies whose purpose is to come up with ways to smear political opponents and make straw arguments. Stereotypes are not good but are a common political shorthand. When I was a Democrat politician a few cliches would get you elected. I am at a loss as a Republican. One has to use information and actual truth.
 
AlexanderA said:
Yes. I've said all along that the old-school, hardcore Left is not against guns. (But they want them for themselves, and not necessarily in furtherance of the 2nd Amendment. Karl Marx himself wrote that "the workers under no circumstances should allow themselves to be disarmed.")

The antigunners are another set of people altogether. These, for the most part, are middle class people who get carried away by emotion, with no thought of practicalities or long-term consequences.
Click to expand...
Everyone knows who is pushing gun control, the party you describe is long gone.
 
Gadsden "don't tread on me" car tags issued by the State are popular in this corner of Northeast Tennessee/Southwest Virginia. I seriously doubt that people who don't want to be tread upon are all MVEs eating MREs from their BOBs (not that there's anything wrong with that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top