Insanity
But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.
Wow.
42 Responses to “Insanity”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 28th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid….willing to let your fuckin CHILD die so you can tickle the nuts of Mao’s/Stalin’s and Marx’s ghost. What an evil fucking coward. I’m going to buy a gun today to offset his Collectivist Footprint.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:08 am
This guy shouldn’t be allowed near children, let alone have some of his own.
He should be raped with a bundle of barbed wire, then burned alive and then raped again.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Seems a little harsh, but I have a similar read. If you would not protect your own child how can you make any sane decesion.
He probably likes Avatar as well. BTW saw sherlock holmes over the weekend. Good flick…go see.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:17 am
In the comments at the link, several people think the entire post is a satire. They are wrong. The author really thinks self defense with a gun is, or should be, a crime. Amazing.
The former concentration camp inmate who gave his Va Tech class more time to escape by using his own body as a shield comes to mind. So do those who stopped school shootings, mall shootings, church shootings with their guns.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I hope no one informs this jerk’s kid that Daddy won’t get his hands dirty with a nasty old gun if it meant saving him/her from a murderer or rapist.
Nice going, Dad. Father of the Year award to you.
His remarks alone, in a rational society, would get his teaching credentials pulled.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:18 am
That isn’t even the worst quote.
“it unfairly rewards resourceful children who move to safety off-site more shrewdly and efficiently than others.
Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful”
Are you kidding me? Is it better to make everyone less safe just because some kids might be smarter/faster than other ones?
People like this not only should never be allowed to teach, they should never be allowed to breed either.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:38 am
“Wow” is right.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:45 am
The letter sure does read like a parody.
He is either a brilliant satirist or a madman.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Meanwhile in Knoxville we searched the world over to find a new school superintendent, guess where he came from?
Boston, of course.
And we pay him $250,000 a year. So after a full year what has he done? Told us we don’t spend enough money on education. Created a five million dollar computerized report card system. And placed a new school on one of Ragsdale’s best pals land.
Who is wearing the Dunce Cap?
December 28th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I hope the whole thing is satire, but I fear that there are those whose thinking is foreign enough to me that it could be legit.
I really fear that he is not a mad man, but is instead but a sample of a much larger section of society who truly believes in being a good, equal victim is worth more than personal responsibility or the possibility of harming others.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
pacifist n. (1) a person so devoid of moral compass that they actually believe nothing good is worth fighting for.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
If a person makes his own decision to die on his knees begging for his life, that’s fine by me because it’s his decision. The problem is, like all self-styled “progressives” (read: left-wing radical), this gomer would impose his decision upon others: his child, his neighbor, you and me.
He knows best–better than the little people. He has plenty of brethren in D.C. right now, and they’re not all in the majority party.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
this is obviously a hilarious parody. “a level barrel is fair to all fish”. i really like that guy
December 28th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
So what did we learn from this?
1. self-defense is a crime
2. since some victims might not have the ability to escape, it’s better that no victim have the chance to do so.
I’ve see it all now.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
[Curses, Foiled Again! >> The Mind Boggles…] at this insanity.
December 28th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
He’s a progressive. He has no children.
The children he wishes to put to rest are your children.
December 28th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Hope this works! Would you not love being this guys neighbor?
link
December 28th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Trying again…
link
December 28th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
This type of attitude is not uncommon in the education field. These are the same people that brought you “whole language” and “the new math”.
December 28th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
This is clearly satire.
“Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful. A level *barrel* is fair to all *fish*.”
Hello!?
December 28th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
That is some first-class trollery. I betcha epic lulz are being enjoyed by Mr. Van G. What’s scary is that some seem both to believe and to agree with the letter. Unless maybe some of those people are he, too, or his confederates.
December 28th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I gotta go with satire/trollery.. the letter he appears to have written to the Patriot-Ledger earlier in December is similarly over the top. The only “Doug Van Gorder” I found in MA was an 8th Grade honors student, but maybe my google-fu is weak..
December 28th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Sickening if not satire.
December 28th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I’d rather be a criminal than lay either of my sons, or my wife, to rest.
December 28th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I vote satire.
December 28th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
The way I’m reading this is that it means the opposite of what most of you are thinking.
He says “But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.”
Taking apart the end of that sentence, “succumb” means to “give in to,” so he is saying that he would rather XXX than “give into the belief” that using a gun for self-defense is not in itself a gun crime. That means he’s refusing to believe using a gun for self-defense is a gun crime.
The rest of the sentence is superfluous.
Cleverly written. The “barrel” portion of the letter clearly points to satire. LOL at the responses, both here and in the newspaper.
December 28th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
It’s satire.
Very well aimed satire. About the only thing that would sneak in past that paper’s leftoid thought police … it completely snuck in under their wire.
Those that didn’t get it would either have an easy target to rail against … or a completely impossible hill to defend.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Two things: One, that piece has GOT to be a plant, and two, it’s just believable enough because we all know one or more “progressives” who think like that, but would never actually articulate it.
C’mon: “An alternative to lockdown is immediate exodus via announcement. Although this removes potential hostages and makes it nearly impossible for the shooter to acquire preselected targets, it unfairly rewards resourceful children who move to safety off-site more shrewdly and efficiently than others.”?
Or: “A level barrel is fair to all fish.”?
No, that’s somebody writing satire. Bad satire, but satire.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Read Doug’s letter. Satire-? Joke-? Doug knows. There is another course of action that he and like thinking progressives could take. At the first sign of trouble all like thinking progressives will move toward the threat, thereby supplying enough targets to slow down the shooter and giving students a greater chance of escape. Is my statement satire-? joke-? let Doug decide.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
It matters less that it could be satire than it does that a fairly prominent paper published it.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
*shrugs* Yeah, I’ll use a gun—or any other implement—to defend my life or thine. So I’m evil, at least in this turnip’s view. I’ve been called much worse by far better people.
December 28th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
That letter is right up there with the most egregious hilariously magnificent exploits of the GNAA, or the /b/tards.
December 28th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
The only reason I don’t automatically call it satire is due to personal knowledge of an insane progressive.
She illegally carried a handgun throughout collage. She is firmly against firearms and believes they should be illegal.
She is a teacher.
I can’t fathom the insanity required to illegal carry a gun for self defense for years and still want to ban all firearms.
This sort of insanity is not as far fetched as it would seem.
December 28th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Uncle, here’s another blast from the not so distant past of Doug’s wisdom;
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=66163
This guy has to be doing this in jest.
December 28th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I think author of the linked opinion hijacked the name of a 6th grade honor student.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/quincy/news/education/x588821223/Central-Middle-School-Honor-Roll
December 28th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I believed it based on the “lay my child’s life down” quote, but the “level barrel” and “unfairly rewards resourceful children” parts are just too perfect to be anything but satire. Reading the “diversity at all costs” letter that Cemetary posted above just confirms it. This guy is great. We need more Doug Van Gorders.
December 28th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Satire? I don’t know.
But I have heard a left winger make the claim that it is wrong to shoot back at someone shooting at you.
I would not be surprised if it is a serious commentary.
December 28th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
FYI; There is, in fact, a Doug Van Gorders that is a math teacher at Brockton High School and he is listed on the city’s website under the city payroll. I wouldn’t be at all suprised that the 6th grade honors student in Quincy is his son.
I think the guy is having a pretty good chuckle at the Boston Globe’s expense.
December 28th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
As others have said, I too have met people who honestly believe that crap. They would rather be killed than kill another in defense of themselves or their families.
It’s brilliant satire, because it’s so believable. Especially coming from Massachusetts.
December 29th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Earlier articles from Van Gorder, which seems to support the satire theory:
READER’S VIEWS: Gun editorial
Patriot Ledger, The (Quincy, MA) – Saturday, April 21, 2007
Author: DOUG VAN GORDER , Quincy
Eliminating handguns seems to be the solution to preventing incidents like that at Virginia Tech, especially in the minds of people who consider only the sensational …a deranged gunman, a mass murder, a picture of a Glock.
Some understand only horrific images and are blind to the subtle, far more significant side of gun ownership that occurs, the unspectacular, daily prevention of crime that occurs because law abiding citizens are allowed not only to own but to carry handguns for self-defense.
Thousands of little stories depicting thwarted crimes do not warrant the wall to wall coverage that Virginia Tech did. And how do we measure the amount of deterrence that effective self-defense creates in the minds of would-be assailants who learn of an attacker being shot?
Abolish, not handgun ownership, but bad policies like those at Virginia Tech prohibiting even licensed gun owners from carrying handguns on campus. Establish instead pro-active policies which encourage people to carry for self-defense …in the mall, the work place, and, indeed, on campus.
READER’S VIEW: Bad Quincy gun policies
Patriot Ledger, The (Quincy, MA) – Wednesday, September 7, 2005
Author: DOUG VAN GORDER , Quincy
A recent Patriot Ledger article informed readers that Quincy residents are planning a rally across from the police station on Sept. 17. They do so to protest Chief Crowley’s policy that Quincy residents should be denied the right to carry firearms in Massachusetts for what he terms generic self-defense.
Criminals must applaud the chief in his attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the general population. They find it hard enough to prey upon the innocent without having to worry that a potential victim might be capable of adequately defending herself.
Through his no-permits-for-self-defense policy, Crowley extends to criminals a professional courtesy … one which proliferates crime.
Quincy needs a police chief who is one with law-abiding citizens, who will allow them to protect themselves, rather than strip them defenseless.
READER’S VIEW: Citizens have a right to carry guns
Patriot Ledger, The (Quincy, MA) – Wednesday, January 5, 2005
Author: DOUG VAN GORDER , Quincy
Picture a young woman walking late at night followed to her car in a parking garage by two men intent on committing your worst fears. Does anyone seriously believe that the police can protect her?
Police protect society at large by bringing to justice rapists, murderers, et al, only after they have committed their crimes.
In doing so, they provide deterrence, not protection. Save for the occasional chance appearance of ‘‘a cop when you need one,” law enforcement is not designed to directly prevent crime against any given individual at any given moment in time.
The duty of protecting oneself, therefore, falls squarely on the individual. To hold the police accountable for injury from crime is to harbor unreasonable, even childlike, expectations of their responsibility and capacity. We must consider this when we separate their duties from ours.
But this is the last thing Quincy Police Chief Robert Crowley wants you to consider as he seeks to greatly curtail the number of gun permits he grants.
He is a member of the governmental elite, the upper decision-making echelons of authoritative governmental organizations.
The governmental elite enthrone themselves over a public overwhelmingly composed of unarmed, defenseless innocents reliant upon police protection (or believing in the myth thereof).
The myth of police protection propels the salaries and powers of the upper administrative levels of police departments in direct proportion to the increase in sizes of police forces that it generates.
And never are the elite themselves left unprotected. They grant themselves permission to carry guns while judging you, the little people, to be too rash, too unsophisticated and too unimportant to merit the same right.
Moreover, the governmental elite function as the ultimate lobby for criminal rights by ensuring that those on whom criminals prey remain defenseless. They tell us that in a society antiseptically cleansed of guns from everyone (or at least from those who obey laws, e.g. laws telling us we cannot carry guns), it is better that our young woman in the parking garage suffer whatever bodily harm, including death, may come to her in order to support the goal of minimizing handgun violence – even against assailants.
To Chief Crowley and his equals, we are but pawns to be sacrificed to the greater goal of attaining some utopian world that can never be, but which the pursuit of is a self-sustaining (and highly paid) endeavor for them.
Should criminals be welcomed to a Quincy largely free from guns in the hands of law abiding citizens who have no criminal or psychiatric record? Chief Crowley evidently believes the answer is ‘‘Absolutely!”
December 30th, 2009 at 12:22 am
“Could be” satire, my [insert symbol of Democrat Party here]. It is obvious satire. Bad satire, but satire nonetheless.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:13 am
“Two things: One, that piece has GOT to be a plant, and two, it’s just believable enough because we all know one or more “progressives” who think like that, but would never actually articulate it.”
Actually Kevin, I know quite a few that think that way, and are quite willing to say so whenever the topic comes up. My entire step-family believes this, which is part of why we haven’t spoken in years.
My stepmother actually stated once that she would rather be raped and murdered than use a gun to defend herself, because using guns is evil.