I'm debating Scottish anti-gun "journalist"

S

simonov jr

New member
This article was posted

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/newsi.hts?section=Magazine&story_id=13892

in the liberal anti-gun British news. The author is a bed-wetter who wrote a hatchet-job article on the Second Amendment sisters...Any suggestions for the debate forum? I'm thinking about George...


Neil.Mackay@scottishmediagroup.com writes:



Damn, you dullard, you must have a lot of time on your hands to decontstruct my entire letter. Ironically, you are so pendantic and obsessive that you - yes you - actually interest me, in a sick kind of way




Dear Neil, So you ADMIT you're sick? ; ) You're making progress, old boy, old chap...and even you have to admit you were a weak suck for forwarding something you sent to someone else as your response. FYI, I am not a conservative. I am what we call a libertarian, which had you (in your immense "journalistic" wisdom) done any research on our "inferior" political system you would realize is one of the major "minor" parties here. We are pro-choice...on everything. It will be interesting to see what a Socialist such as yourself does when confronted with a truly consistent set of postions...



As I have a job and a life and tend to use my time for things more constructive than baiting ignorant people like yourself, I will have to reply to you at length over the weekend. But I'm so glad to see that I have provided you with something to fill the empty void that is your souless existence.

Well, since you seem to bait the "ignorant" (Defined by Websters as "anyone who disagrees with Socialism in general, or Neil in particular") as PART of your job, I don't really see the big scheduling conflict for you Neil. Focus, buddy. That was part of the basis for my (still apparently undisputed) contention that you are NO professional journalist, but rather a mere partisan hack...remember?

Alright, avoid me for now if you must, but DO take my challenge. For example: How can you make claims in the affirmative about the NRA, yet produce no material showing them to have any of the positions you mention? Since I used to work for NRA, I'm probably the best way for you to focus your angst and anger. However, why don't you do so intelligently, since you are holding yourself up as the pillar of enlightenment? Being enlightened, AND one a' them "award-winning and highly-acclaimed journalists", you'd certainly agree that a position should have confirmatory facts and data, wouldn't you? Go to their website and show me a SINGLE racist, sexist or homophobe statement or position. JUST ONE ol boy. What you WILL find (unless you prove otherwise) is a truly egalitarian and multi-faceted group singularly dedicated to the responsible use of firearms. Members come from all races, backgrounds and walks of life.

You on the other hand, are in a tough spot. Your postition on disarming blacks is the same as that of the KKK and neo-Nazis. Your position on rendering women defenseless would doubtless be cheered by stronger predatory male criminals worldwide. And your vision of homosexuals dependent upon police protection is a gay-basher's dream. But since you're such a "credible" journalist, I KNOW you're not AFRAID of the possible outcome of doing some actual research (that's spelled R-E-S-E-A-R-C-H, perhaps you've heard of it in passing) for your articles. Do you have the balls to do the research that will impartially confirm or deny the charges you so haphazardly make? I guess we'll see. Again, that's nra.org. Got it? nra.org....don't forget.



Otherwise feel free to set up whatever asinine 'forum' you want. If this means arguing with you in a chatroom then I would find it fun - it's been a while since I've seen a really powerful intellect in action.



To tell you the truth, I DO rather enjoy the clash of ideas. I WOULD like to set some ground rules, since I have experience with Left wingers like yourself. Why don't we use a point system? If someone tells an overt untruth, they will lose a point? Also, failing to directly answer an opponent's question as at least a part of one's response will cost a point. Finally, we can have a subjective component where the others can decide who had the rational and coherent position. I'll find a couple options for your approval. I'd suggest a discussion board rather than a chat room. The reason is if one of us "accidentally" uses false info, the other can get the URL to disprove him and win a point. I'm sure I can beat you, not because you are unintelligent but because your postion is weaker and your mind seems disorganized. You wield opinions very crudely without the need for formalities such as actual data. In short, you've never debated anyone like me in the UK...if you don't prepare, I'm going to embarrass you. Frankly, if you DO I'm still going to teach you a good lesson. I'm giving you fair warning. In my debates, I will contend and prove the following:

Firearms are more effective than any other means in preventing injury to citizens during violent assaults.
Bans of firearms have failed to halt violent crime, including gun crime.
Self-defense is a basic human right, acknowledged by the laws of ALL civilized countries, most major religions and some of the formost thinkers of our times.
Defenseless populations are entirely more subject to genocide than armed ones.
A government that fears its own citizens is itself not to be trusted.

All foreign concepts to you, ALL ones which I assure you I'm prepared to feed you like a Continental breakfast...



Now I'm a bit busy at the moment - so of you go and enjoy playing.

Bye bye.

Neil


Later man. This should be fun, and maybe in the end we'll both learn something. While I still dislike the way you smeared millions of decent people you have never met, I DO give you a bit of credit for accepting my challenge. I am serious about the ground rules though. If you use the normal avoidist tactics in our debate, I'll outpoint you so badly you won't be able to make it up. Yours in ACTUAL Liberty, Mark...
 
J

Jeff OTMG

New member
OUTSTANDING!!!! I love this. Looks like you tore his letter apart and all he could do was attack you, just don't you fall into the same trap. A sure way to lose a debate is to attack the person and not the position. He has no ground to stand on. I am betting that you never hear from him again.
 
D

DC

Moderator Emeritus
simonov...you owe me a new monitor!

Where do I send the bill?

I'm dying heah!

Just remember, you're debating with a "man" whose national cuisine is haggis
 
B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
If you are debating him in an open forum soon, then I would say keep to the anti's stereotyped view of a gun owner - use older (pre-90s) articles and slogans and maybe even engage in a little ad hominem via email (though nothing you would be ashamed to have him display in same public forum at a later date).

No point in letting him research all your best arguments in advance, sucker punch him with an audience watching by using the email exchange to lower his expectations for the actual debate.
 
O

Ought Six

New member
Debate ammo

If you want to *really* upset him and throw him off-balance, tell him the NRA is the most important civil rights org in America. After he finishes attacking that statement, point out that our Second Amendment civil rights are more under attack by our government than any other we have, the NRA is the leading pro-Second Amendment civil rights org, and thus it is the most important civil rights org we have. That ought to wind him up. It will also draw him into a discussion of the Second Amendment, and why he thinks all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights refer to civil rights, but the Second doesn't. That is an impossible position to defend.

Here's something I wrote, and like to inflict on anti-gunners who think they understand the Bill of Rights:
To believe that the Second Amendment doesn't restrict the fedgov from infringing our individual inalienable right to keep and bear arms, you must believe the following things:
  • You must believe that wherever the phrase 'the people' appears in the Bill of Rights, it refers to individual rights of citizens except in the Second Amendment.
  • You must believe that each clause in each amendment in the Bill of Rights stands on its own merit, except in the Second Amendment.
  • You must believe that the intent of the Founding Fathers, clearly delineated in their papers, letters and publications is of paramount importance in interpreting the meaning of the Bill of Rights except in the Second Amendment.
  • You must believe that the wisdom and principals set down in the Bill of Rights is as fresh, relevant and applicable toady as it was in 1791, except in the Second Amendment.
This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that you must practice to believe the lie of the anti-gunners.
Click to expand...
Also, there is the natural, inaleinable right of every human being to defend their own life, and that of their loved ones. This is a principal recognized in all of humanity's moral and legal codes, ancient and modern. It's a given that criminals *will* get guns, as evidenced by the recent wave of gun crime in Britian, in s[pite of the fact Britain has the strictest gun control laws on the planet. It is also evident that the police cannot be there to protect you when you are attacked. Criminals obviously will choose to attack you when you are most vunerable, and certainly when there's no cops around. The courts in this country have clearly ruled that protecting citizens is not even the police's responsibility. To defend against an armed attack by criminals, a gun is the only viable tool. Thus, since you have the inalienable right to self-defense, a government that refuses to protect you and takes away the only suitable tool for you to protect yourself has abrogated your inaleinable rights. And that is what you Scottish opponenet is trying to argue is right and just.

The last part is the real meat of the issue, guns as 'liberty insurance' (as George Washington refered to privately-held firearms as). It's perfectly clear from the Federalist Papers and other writings of our Founding Fathers that the Second Amendment was designed to insure that an armed citizenry was established and preserved, in order to prevent tryanny from without or within. Many scoof and say such a thing 'couldn't happen here'. That's what the Jews thought in 1938. A Slobodan Milosovich could rise in America, but only if we are disarmed first.

Here is a great resource site on RKBA facts, statistcis and arguments:


http://www.guncite.com/index.html

Good luck on the debate.

[Edited by Ought Six on 02-09-2001 at 10:14 PM]
 
A

AnotherPundit

New member
if you get in a second amendment debate, make sure you've read the Emerson briefs (pro and con)and the other issues like the Bellesiles book. Good refutations of all those historica;/political arguments can be found here:

http://www.saf.org/


If you get into a modern practicality debate, make sure you've read john lott's More Guns, Less Crime etc. It's essentially irrefutable, as I'm sure you're aware. the other guy probably won't be willing to read that book, though, so here are some web links:

http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taeja98c.htm

http://www.jpfo.org/school.htm

Otherwise, other good links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/25/opinion/25HERB.html

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/

http://www.wagc.com/

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/commun1.htm

--------------------------

otherwise, that guy's just. . I don't know. AS best I can gather from that article, If all Americans were black people, he'd be David Duke. He's an ignorable socialist.


-----------
http://www.AnotherPundit.com
 
B

Bam Bam

New member
Use this sucker punch, the Constitution of the US is heavily based on the 1689 English Bill of Rights signed by William and Mary. Call his country a failure of will and manliness by going down on its knees and forfieting the rights laid out there-in. This is no BS. Read the 1689 Bill of Rights and you will be amazed. Some of our first 10 BOR are almost line for line with the EBOR of 1689.
 
K

kjm

New member
Remember the military acronym: KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid).

Let's pretend you're over at Nicole Brown Simpson's house. OJ has just jumped the fence and he has a rather large and quite sharp knife. Now imagine that for a split second, you may choose one of 3 items to save your life: a telephone, a knife, or a Glock in .45ACP. Which one are you going to choose?

Point is this: When you don't need a gun, then you don't really care, but in that moment when you need a gun, only a gun will do, and you really NEED the gun in a bad way.

Now for the sake of arguement, let's say that you are OJ. You've just jumped the fence with your knife, and you're planning on killing your ex along with her boyfriend. As you clear the fence, what is the one thing you hope that Ronald Goldman doesn't have in his hand? A phone, a knife, or a Glock in .45 ACP? What order do you suppose that these would be ranked in threat to the assailant, and what order do you suppose they would be ranked by the assaulted? Why?

Firearms are only a danger to two classes of people in society: Criminals and victims. Like it or not, the most ancient and effective of codes is force. The ONLY proven way to counter force, is with equal or greater force (refuse to be a victim). A predator only understands force, and only speaks in the language of force. He doesn't reason with you, he either respects and fears you or he preys on you. That is kinda the reason that we give police officers guns (Britain is even doing that now to counter the violence that has swept that country as the gun control laws become more despotic), and that is why our army keeps guns.
 
J

johnr

New member
simonov jr--FYI

These sites are mostly RKBA ( right to keep & bear arms ) but some cover broader rights issues. Some have forums, all have good links to other sites--

http://www.keepandbeararms.com -Keepandbeararms--New & Agressive

http://www.eaglesup.com -Eagles Up!--(former home of the Tyranny Response Team)

http://www.guncite.com -Guncite--Lots of references

http://www.gunowners.org -Gunowners

http://www.boortz.com -Boortz--pro 2A radio host

http://www.i2i.org -Independence Institute--Research

http://www.thefiringline.com -TheFiringLine--Tech info, good forum

http://www.hamblin.com -Ken Hamblin--pro 2A radio hos

http://www.jpfo.org -JPFO--Our Jewish Friends

http://www.nealknox.com -Neal Knox--An oldie in the RKBA fight

http://www.gunfacts.org -Gunfacts--Ammo for the War of Words

http://www.nfanow.com -The National Firearms Association- a Canadian Perspective

http://www.lufa.ca -Canadian Grassroots resistance--

http://www.2ndlawlib.org/ -Legal scholarship on the Second Amendment

http://www.thelsas.org/index.html -The Lawyer's
Second Amendment Society

http://www.trt-co.org -New Home of the TRT!

http://www.sas-aim.org/ -The Second Amendment Sisters

http://www.saf.org -the Second Amendment Foundation

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b5380776c5.htm -Must Read for all people- State rep Garcia (MI-R) speaks out(gun rights)--

http://www.gunsafe.org/ -Connecticut-based GunSafe-grassroots RKBA-

http://206.112.97.70/forum/a3a6c95524e4d.htm -Empty-Barrel Gun Policies-A legacy of nonsense from Clinton, Blair, and the Left--

Number of physicians in the U.S. = 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year = 120,000.
Accidental deaths per physician = 0.171
(U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)

Number of gun owners in the U.S. = 80,000,000.
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) = 1,500.
Accidental deaths per gun owner = 0.0000188.
( U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms)


Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more
dangerous than gun owners.
 
J

Jeff, CA

Guest
It's sad to think this pantywaist's ancestors were one of the few groups in ancient Europe to hold off the Roman Empire.
 
S

simonov jr

New member
Haggis-boy called it off...

Guess he didn't like the way I was handing him his ass from the get-go. Here is the "no-mas" email in its entirety.

I've seen the website you set up for a debate on gun control, and I can only say that I'm surprised and disappointed in the way you have behaved.

I was happy to engage in a debate with both yourself and others. However, I am not prepared to be insulted nor to read stupid comments about my country - Northern Ireland - and some of the terrible things that have happened there.

On that count alone, you should be utterly ashamed of yourself. More than 3000 people have died through political murder in Northern Ireland and you deem it appropriate to make light of this and attempt to score points of me by using this tragedy to your own advantage.

As to the level of response from those posting to the site, I think you will agree that quite apart from the base level of insult directed at me, the quality and content of what they are saying is beneath contempt.

I hope that you yourself do not think it appropriate for a topical and serious debate to be dragged into the gutter or, in your own case, reduced to juvenalia.

Given the nature of how you approached this and the responses from the posters I can only say that I have no interest in continuing with this matter any further.

I now consider this correspondence closed. I would have liked to have engaged with you further, but I do not deem this appropriate.

Yours,

Neil Mackay
Home Affairs Editor
Sunday Herald
 
T

Tamara

Moderator Emeritus
Note:

More than 3000 people have died through political murder in Northern Ireland and you deem it appropriate to make light of this and attempt to score points of me by using this tragedy to your own advantage.
Click to expand...

Seems that "making light of this" and "using tragedy to his advantage" were the cornerstones of his putrid little smear job of an article in the first place.

As an American woman who owns a gun or two, I was personally extremely insulted by his venomous little screed. Too bad he can't seem to be able to take a dose of his own medicine...
 
D

Don Gwinn

Staff Emeritus
How utterly predictable. I too wonder what he was doing in his article if not mocking the people of the American south for having what he deemed stupid religious beliefs, stupid political beliefs, and a macabre fascination with death and killing, murder and mayhem.
What an idiot. Who hires a moron like this?
 
S

simonov jr

New member
Here's my letter to his BOSS

Attn: Editor, Sunday Herald

Dear Sir:

Neil Mackay, one of your "journalists", wrote a "hatchet-piece" editorial on the Second Amendment Sisters and wholesale condemnation of the American people (READ the article sir, he blasts all Americans).

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/newsi.hts?section=Magazine&story_id=13892

Among the other labels he used to describe Americans, and gun-owners in particular, were such gems of journalistic impartiality as (and I QUOTE):

"over-zealous... mentally unstable pistol-packing American... dangerous sexuality to women with shooters... I just think all Americans, and American women in particular, are just downright scary... creepy... trigger-happy... go postal and off you as part of a thrill-kill spree... freakish... oddities... straight-up-and-down-mad-as-a-coot dangerous beliefs... rank extremism... Nazi-esque... quite frightening... The conversation is beginning to make me feel a bit queasy... sicko..."

I challenged Neil to a public debate to defend the honor of my nation and her people. You bear some responsibility for this situation as you have given Neil a forum of mass communication for spreading what is clearly bigoted demagoguery to any impartial observer. Neil accepted my challenge. Here is the statement he used to accept it:

"...feel free to set up whatever asinine 'forum' you want. If this means arguingwith you in a chatroom then I would find it fun - it's been a while since I'veseen a really powerful intellect in action"..."Do your worst, my colonial friend..set up your message board or whatever...have ago at me, if it makes you feel good".

Here is the URL:

http://georgebb.hfnm.com/NonCGI/Forum8/HTML/001443.html

Here in PART is my "worst", and the part which your tough and seasoned journalist apparently found intolerable:

"The only thrill-kills NEIL has ACTUALLY seen were not in America, but in his own war-torn, “why the hell haven’t we been able to get along with each other for 300 yrs” society of N. Ireland. They butcher each other in perpetual ignorance, blaming everything but the REAL causes of their self-destruction. But it would be too hard to take personal and societal responsibility for their own hooligan sub-culture. And, it is Americans who dare have a different opinion than NEIL, so the transference and scape-goating of his own society’s failings onto America’s is all in fair play…See how that works? "..

Here in part is Neil's whining email in which he bows out of the debate:

"I've seen the website you set up for a debate on gun control, and I can only say that I'm surprised and disappointed in the way you have behaved.I was happy to engage in a debate with both yourself and others.

However, (emph. mine) I AM NOT PREPARED TO BE INSULTED NOR TO READ THE STUPIC COMMENTS ABOUT MY COUNTRY- NORTHERN IRELAND- AND SOME OF THE TERRIBLE THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED THERE.On that count alone, YOU SHOULD BE UTTERLY ASHAMED OF YOURSELF. More than 3000 people have died through political murder in Northern Ireland and you deem it appropriate to make light of this and attempt to score points of me by using this tragedy to your own advantage.

Please contrast that with Neil's own article about MY country, in which he says, and I QUOTE:

" in America similar tragedies, such as the Columbine High School shooting, have seen some communities enthusiasticallytaking up arms in response. Butfemmes and firearms are as much a way of life in the US as carjacking, crackand apple pie - and they've even set up an organisation to prove it: the SecondAmendment Sisters. These women like nothing better than kicking back with lightautomatic weapons and concealed firearms. To them the constitutional right tobear arms and form a militia, should King George or the federal government cometo place the yoke of tyranny around their necks, is more important than churchon Sunday ..."

I ask you sir, WHO is making light of tragedy in WHO's country?

Neil continues: "As to the level of response from those posting to the site, I think you will agree that quite apart from the base level of insult directed at me, the quality and content of what they are saying is beneath contempt".

That clucking sound you just heard was the sound of Neil taking his rattle and, like a modern-day Cornwallis at Yorktown, UN-assing the area. His article speaks for itself. He launched a ruthless attack upon the values and people of my country...and then the scribbler has the sheer audacity to whine that he's been insulted? As we would say in the Colonies, the man can dish it out but he can't take it, and like a scolded dog, he runs away with his tail tucked between his legs.

It seems that you and especially your cry-baby correspondants are FINE with smearing the good names and reputations of common people from other countries who disagree with you or otherwise dare to have a different value system. Heaven forbid it's your OWN ox that is being gored. THEN all of a sudden its not nearly so funny, in fact it is "beneath contempt". Why don't YOU tell me what the HELL is the difference between MY post and Neil's article, other than the much wider circulation HIS slander received?

Here's his OTHER problem:

Neil describes an exchange in his article thusly:

."Haven't you heard about the kids in California?" she asks conspiratorially. "A naked man wielding a pitchfork broke into their house when their parents were out. The guns had been locked away and the kids couldn't get to them. Two were pitchforked to death."
Now, I've been a crime reporter for many years and believe me, I would have heard of this incident - given that it sounds like the script of Scream 3. In fact, I searched for the story in our news-cuttings service and I'm a little suspicious that Heil may be doling out some urban myths by way of a defence

That’s what NEIL told his audience. And he strongly implies that the lady is the ahem, dissembler. THAT is the standard of his supposed “research”. Here’s the link, which took me all of ten seconds to find:

http://12.9.217.6/plweb-cgi/fastweb...ame=2000&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1

Sir, are you REALLY comfortable with this "standard" of journalism? Is THIS why you got in the news business?

I suppose you will just throw this away. However, I wanted you to know that Neil is a sad coward, who when challenged on his own RECORD cut and run rather than defend the indefensible. Shame on YOU for sponsoring such bigotry, and for giving Neil the electronic skirt to hide behind. I cannot make you act responsibly, but I will surely take every opportunity to challenge and expose you on this increasingly open and communicative electronic frontier.

PS- should you have any desire to show a semblance of BALANCE, you will give me the opportunity to submit a response to Neil's article. I assure you that I will be every bit as civil as he was NOT, but I WILL challenge and expose the bigotry he propogated.

Regards in Liberty AND integrity, Mark Balenger, Indianapolis, IN USA
Director, Free Speech, Inc
http://handguncontrolinc.org
 
J

Jeff OTMG

New member
Well, I was close. He responded THEN found an excuse to drop out after you destroyed him. GOOD JOB. Nothing more than what I expected.
 
A

AnotherPundit

New member
you know, this is a perfect example of why I have great faith in the future of this country. Traditional centralized media bias simply cannot withstand the force of well-reasoned debate, and as more and more folks get wired I believe we're going to see the old propaganda machines get blown out of the water. It's just a matter of time and tech.


----------------
http://www.anotherpundit.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top