The Obama victory and stockpiling guns
Check out this paranoid posting from Mike Adams, a criminology professor at UNCW. What is it exactly that is so frightening about an Obama presidency? Does the far right not believe in (and trust in) governmental checks and balances? Why are gay rights so intimidating? And is the proper response to stockpile weapons? Why?
http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/11/19/debbie_does_malice
Mike Adams is our own local troglodyte, R. WTF is the guy doing teaching criminology to college students with FUD and righteous ignorance like that?? All the pseudo-rationality and haughty tones are a thin veneer on top of a big know-nothing-ness.
To Mike,
I was always taught in school that America was born from diversity and those who wished to escape the same absolutist mind-frames Mike Adams so happily flaunts in this response… which boasts a rhetoric that is dangerously similar to that of Islamic extremists… I mean really, do you even know what a Totalitarian Government is Mike…? You must not, b/c everything you write suggests that its the very type of government you’re in favor of (as are most other willfully ignorant conservatives)…. wherein the people have no rights except the one’s you deem worthy.
I mean, you have to be kidding me, Mike? You gave a gun to your 14 year old neighbor!! Let me repeat this…. You gave a deadly weapon to a kid who’s entering perhaps the most difficult phase of his life, where feeling boobs and being “cool” is the top priority. I can’t get over that! Again… You gave a weapon to a kid who grapples daily with pubescent machismo you clearly never grew out of… and you think homosexuals and animal rights activists are dangerous? THAT is scary.
Do us a favor, Mike. Shut the f–k up.
Personally, I would remove the link to Mike Adams’ website. Your readers will curiously follow the link and that only legitimizes his rantings. He is playing a game and knows exactly what he is doing. He is interested in self-promotion, advertising sales, speaking tours, book deals, etc. He knows how to provoke your outrage, it is his goal. This brings traffic to his site, hundreds of angry comments, and “cha-ching” money to his pocket. Don’t bite the hook!!!
He is not stupid and has mastered the art of double-speak, also perfectly spewed by Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. If you try to debate, speak honestly and reasonably with him, or question him, you will be mocked and belittled.
Ignore him. Certainly don’t visit his website. Even his wife left him. :o( He is a sad character, really.
My husband believes extreme, hateful, paranoid neo-cons like Adams are responsible for bringing down the Republican party in our last election. When you think of it that way, you may see the silver lining.
thanks for letting me express this here,
from a feminist, equality-supporting, peace-loving, tree-hugging, lazy-ass hippie!
I couldn’t agree with you more, Amy, and well said. When the editor reads this, maybe he’ll do the right thing and just take the whole posting down.
I was struck by Mr. Mike’s garden variety fear and consumption, but really surprised he found work at UNCW, so therefore thought it was a local item worthy of this site. No more.
Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference.
has everyone forgot satire? suuure there’s some truths and opinions he makes deeper in the article but come on folks…take the posting down? You’re the one kidding right?
we.must.take.down.anything.that.i.don’t.agree.with.
if THAT does sound like “rhetoric that is dangerously similar to that of Islamic extremists” , i don’t know what does.
as far as what the article touches on; i’d like to see government separated from marriage completely. 1. if two people wish to get married, find a preacher who will marry you under your god. 2. if you wish the government to recognize that you are now united, then seek a lawyer.
the two options are not dependant on each other and both could occur.
seems like that would make both sides happy. but probably not.
Wow! I can’t believe someone actually decided to break away from the pack. Isn’t that the purpose of this site, Amy? Aren’t we supposed to be creating a forum for people in the community, no matter what their political or religious beliefs? Do we really need to baby the readers and hold their hands, while simultaneously taking down material they might want to look at for themselves? While we’re at it, let’s get personal and talk about marriages, financial troubles, and physical flaws, such as your comment on Mike Adams marriage troubles.
(Gasps) Heaven forbid we let the readers form their own opinion. You know there are folks in the community that support Grove Project, read it regularly, but have different opinions. You might be surprised when you come face to face with “one of us.” We look like regular folks, have families and jobs,and can carry on pleasant dinner conversation all while managing to bite our tongues when people choose to make below the belt comments.
Let’s remember what a public forum is all about.
I am sorry, it’s like y’all didn’t even read my comment. I said “personally I would remove the link to Mike Adam’s website”.
I meant to point out the irony that Mike Adams profits financially from every link and every comment. That is the way his website works. He is baiting people with insults and slanders to spike his traffic. He is offensive by design.
I think that linking to him is being his pawn. You disagree with that?
I should not assume that GP readers would find Dr. Adams offensive. Yep, true, that hadn’t occurred to me. Maybe you agree with Mike Adams and say “ditto” all the time. How should I know? Actually, it doesn’t even interest me if that is true. Free country.
Also, maybe I shouldn’t have said that his wife left him, though she did. In fairness to me, though, TX, there are many, many worse things that I could have said about him. I managed to bite my tongue, too… so we have something in common, after all.:o)
Thanks for listening,
from a bleeding heart liberal, bare-footed grrl
PS: Cool hand, btw, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It’s the 14th amendment of our Constitution, and it works for me.
I think Amy’s point is a good one. Adams’ goal is not to persuade. His aim is to hook you. For bait he uses insult, ad hominem attacks, and patently irrational assertions. He knows he is being silly. But he also knows that it is difficult to resist the bait and we are lured by the impulse to refute his arguments. The clicks you give his website translate into money in his bank account. If it is debate you are interested in, Adams’ site is not for you. The moment you engage a person like Adams, you have already lost. So keep linking to him if you wish. But remember that there is a sharp hook in that shrimp. So, in my humble opinion, Amy’s advice is wise - don’t be a fish.
I can understand that point. I guess I would just hope that we could all have a discussion about beliefs, alternative views, and opinions without getting into name calling and insults. It discourages folks from participating in discussions when comments tend to be personal. I don’t really care about Mike Adams’ marital status any more than I care about how much Michelle Obama’s haircuts are going to cost.
No, I do not agree with giving a 14 year old a gun. I also don’t think Mike Adams would agree with giving a 14 year old a gun either.
I am not a bible thumping, deer hunting, homophobe. I’m open minded to both sides of the debate. When every single comment is just the same old “high five” to one another, it gets pretty uninteresting. I like to see an actual cross section of the community. Ohterwise, we all look like a bunch of sheep, no matter what side we’re on. Don’t be a sheep.
PS: Amy, you can’t cherry pick from the constitution.
Grove’s grove apogee! (paraphrasing Stevens). This makes me proud….If there’s one thing…….Just let me crawl up on my soapbox here……
Ahem! IF THERE’S ONE THING I want to maintain here it’s not consensus, but discourse. Discussion. Which I think is your point, TX. AND the main characteristic of this discussion. Thanks for being a supporter.
Thanks Amy for being a grrl.
Awesome, then let the real discussions begin!
Anybody wanna touch right to bear arms?
apologies if this gets posted more than once-
alright, i’ll bend on that…if you don’t want to ‘click’ that’s your business, although i don’t think it translates into mega-bucks or anything. sort of like boycotting french fries.
but i do think that you may have read something into my solution when you copied and pasted the the 14th amendment for me. thanks? i guess one could highlight the 2nd amendment if you wanted to go that route, but a separate issue. so i’ll try to be more eloquent next time and hopefully it’ll come across more middle of the road. at least i think so.
TX1138,
It’s the desire to bear arms, not the right to own them, that perplexes me. It is my understanding that if I own a gun, it will be 20 times more likely that I (or my wife/kids) will be killed by a shot from that gun than that I will kill with it. Insofar as we cannot be certain of the outcome of owning a gun, to me it seems unwise to disregard the striking odds that go against gun owners. There may be factors that I am unfamiliar with that could change my view, however.
Ananda - Unwise unless the real desire is not to protect oneself and one’s family, as is so often professed, but something else, something more libidinal and fun and ramboid.
Actually, Ananda, I am a wife. I suppose you must’ve thought I was a man, given my opinions on aforementioned topics. And, yes, I suppose the probability of me being shot with a gun that does exist in the home far outweighs the possibility of my being shot with said gun when it doesn’t exist in the home. Kind of like saying, I won’t own a car so my chances of being killed in a car accident will drop.
I feel much safer knowing that I am far more prepared to protect myself in the event of an intruder or attacker. Living in downtown Wilmington, I’m all too familiar with some of the more dangerous elements of our community. I have a gun that is registered. I have a gun that is locked in a safe location and away from the hands of children. I have a gun that I know how to use. That is because I believe in the law. I also believe that people who don’t believe in the law will have a gun whether the law says they can or not.
My point in bringing up the right to bear arms is that if you’re going to use the constitution of the united states to back up an argument, well then, you can’t just take the pieces of it that you fancy.
TX1138,
I guess that’s the point - the feeling of safety is a cognitive illusion. The data suggest, if I understand them correctly (which is questionable), that you are actually much less safer if you own a gun, even if you are well-trained in handling it.
Ian,
I think you are probably on to something. Going back to the Adams column, recall that the election of Obama triggered in him the urge to purchase a slew of high-powered weapons to add to his already substantial arsenal. Now he could probably only use one weapon at a time while defending himself. What are the other weapons in his arsenal to be used for? And why does he focus on the Big Ones and toss in the smooth description of the little hand gun that he describes as the “girl’s choice”? That’s some strong forensic psychology that you are tapping into, Ian.
“much less safer”? Yikes! my bad.
Cool Hand,
I’m sorry, I guess you are right, I didn’t understand your take on marriage. I think the 14th amendment entitles people to equal protection of the laws, meaning if I can marry legally so can gays and lesbians. Why should people seek a lawyer? What is wrong with the current system of legally marrying? My point is that whatever the laws are, they should apply to all people, not just straight people. Do you agree?
On guns, I am in the middle of the road. I grew up around hunters and big gun cabinets. We never had any accidents and never shot any intruders. Just skeet and targets, mostly. But automatic weapons? They should be banned, since they are weapons of mass destruction. If you can have a machine gun, can you have a nuclear weapon? Cluster bomb? TX, why not keep your locked-up, registered handgun, but support automatic weapons bans? Middle path.
Anyway… I am happier with my big can of bear spray, that stuff is powerful and non-lethal.
and TX, thanks for reminding me not to be a sheep, hope to never be one. That would be a sad day, if I couldn’t think for myself.
prefacing here; coming from someone who was born a baptist, does not go to church on sundays and believes in god or a higher power, I’d hardly say that I’m a devout christian. also, i don’t believe that if gays marry that it affects my marriage whatsoever, so… i feel like i can look at this issue from somewhat of an outside perspective and live on just fine, no matter what happens.
anyhow, i’d say there’s a lot wrong with current system given all of the controversy surrounding gay marriage now. what you didn’t mention, was the religious aspect. sure i believe in equal rights, i think most everybody does and technically, being straight, i have the same rights as gays, as in i don’t have the right to marry someone of the same gender either, leastways in NC. But anyway, It seems to me that forcing a religious body(christians) to recognize or believe in something (lifestyle or beliefs) that they don’t believe in is not a good thing. currently, we do have civil unions and both parties have openly said that they oppose gay marriage but are for civil unions…with that in place, i question the motive of whether or not that gays are just seeking acceptance from christians? if that’s right, then why? who cares what each side thinks about each other? anyhow, i think to separate the religious aspect from the laws would be a viable solution. make civil unions apply to straight and gay, and make marriage personal and under god, not under government. but i’m sure it’s so intertwined with bureaucracy that it’s about as likely to change as trying changing our tax code or social security system.
This is awesome! Where’s this Mike guy anyway? I’m amazed he hasn’t stumbled onto this yet… ya out there Mike?
Amy, I can agree with you on the topic of automatic weapons. I think they’re unnecessary. However, I do not believe that outlawing automatic weapons is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Even still, I don’t think there’s a need for the average person to have one and I don’t want one in my home. I do have a concern that a gradual ban on types of guns could slowly become more pervasive until we are very limited on the types of weapons we can own, and ultimately whether we can own any at all. Pro-choice advocates voice a similar concern when speaking about anti-abortion laws in association with partial birth abortion. It becomes a blanket statement. You’re either Pro-gun or Anti-gun. You’re either Pro-choice or Pro-Life. As if there’s no room for gray areas. All I’m saying is It can be a slippery slope. Take Christmas. We began by wanting to include all types of Holiday celebrations in order to make everyone more aware of cultures and religions. Awesome idea to most, including me! Then, the term Merry Christmas was discouraged for fear of offending those who are not Christian. Okay, it’s a bitter pill, but I can swallow it. Now, kids can’t sing Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer and the Christmas tree, a pagan symbol, has been deemed politically incorrect! Seriously? A tree? Rudolph?