Is Removing The Confederate Battle Flag A "Solution In Search Of A Problem"?

"We have decided to prohibit Confederate flags and many items containing this image because we believe it has become a contemporary symbol of divisiveness and racism", eBay said in a statement, echoing the sentiments of others in the aftermath of the fatal shooting last week of nine black parishioners in a South Carolina church and the arrest of a white suspect. (Confederate Flag Sales Soar as Retailers Pull Stock, the NYT 6/23/2015).

According to the Libertarian blogger Constitutional Insurgent it is. Or, removing it from retail stores is.

Constitutional Insurgent: So retailers from Walmart to Apple to Amazon to the National Park Service are falling over themselves in an attempt to not be the last entity selling or displaying the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. Oh the horror... Attempting to erase history to soothe the intellectually frail and those prone to the vapors isn't going to solve problems of racism or violence. The flag in question plays no role in these problems. It's an inanimate object and should be treated as such. But that's how our society reacts... erase a symbol and it will be proof of "doing something!" That's all that matters... the optics. The battle flag should no more be flown over a government facility, nor incorporated into a state flag. (Erasing history: Solutions in search of problems 6/25/2015).

This is a strawman that the blog host is using to bash people he calls "assclowns". As far as I know, most people are arguing that this flag should be moved to a museum. And nobody has suggested that private citizens be ordered to turn over their flags for destruction ("erasing").

So what the hell is this doofus whining about? He doesn't like it that PRIVATE businesses have decided to no longer sell the flag? I thought that what PRIVATE businesses sell is their prerogative? If retailers from Walmart to Apple to Amazon to the National Park Service have decided they no longer wish to sell the flag (because it is a divisive representation of discrimination), do they not have the right?

And, businesses usually pay attention to public sentiment. If these retailers have come to the conclusion that they might lose business if they continue selling this flag, then it is purely a business decision to pull it (and who would expect a business to NOT make a business decision?).

As for those who are "intellectually frail", the Insurgent is referring to people who might protest this symbol of racism continuing to be sold? Screw him. The flag is an "inanimate object", but that does not mean it plays no role. It absolutely does. Removing a symbol of hate is a good thing. A step toward fixing the problem.

Yes, the Insurgent refers to removal from retail stores (and agrees it should be removed from government property), but retailers no longer selling this flag is the right decision, IMO. Does this mean the flag will be "erased"? No. There are plenty of them out there, I am sure. And other retailers and manufacturers will likely continue to manufacture and sell the flag. And they will continue to exist (in museums and in private hands) for a very long time to come. This is hardly "erasing".

Of course "doing something" involves more than removing a symbol from government property. But it is a good start. As is large retailers removing them from their stores.

The Insurgent is wrong on removing the flags from retail stores, and wrong when he says (later, in the comment thread of his post) that "the left has given the Battle Flag far more prominence and import than racists could ever have". What utter bullshit.

It's prominence is being greatly reduced, dipshit. Further dipshittery is the claim that the Confederate battle flag "honor[s] the courage and sacrifice of Americans". The flag is a symbol of hate and oppression, proof that is the case is why and when the South began flying this flag over government buildings.

The Confederate battle flag is about to be taken down in South Carolina, but as it comes down, it seems important to remember when and why it was put up in the first place. Ostensibly it was raised to celebrate the centennial of South Carolina starting the Civil War with its attack on Fort Sumpter. But... that centennial just happened to coincide with an increase of civil rights protests in the Palmetto State. In January 1961 a group of 10 black students sat in at a lunch counter in Rock Hill, S.C. Nine of them refused to post bail, and they became known as the Friendship Nine. If the flag were raised only to commemorate the centennial of South Carolina's leading role in the Civil War, we can imagine that it would have been taken back down at the end of 1961. (The Confederate flag was raised in S.C. as civil rights movement began by Jarvis DeBerry. NOLA.com & The Times-Picayune 7/9/2015).

The flag was raised to send a message to the Ni**ers who might protest for their civil rights. The flag is a symbol of racism, not a symbol that honors those who fought for South, or a symbol that honors "heritage". That retailers are not going to sell them any longer has nothing to do with "intellectually frailty" and *does* represent "doing something".

More must be done, of course, but we don't need to continue making any more of these symbols of hate. Those who belong to private citizens are private property. They can keep them. I surely do not care if anyone wishes to fly them on their private property (and advertise their hate). But make more of them? I say no. And I say retailers who decided not to sell them any longer made the right decision.

This in no way qualifies as a "solution in search of a problem", nobody who pushed for removal of this flag from retail stores is "intellectually frail", the symbol isn't being "erased", and optics are an important part of "doing something".

SWTD #296

America Great Due To Easy Availability For Purchase Of Firearms By Racist Rightwing Gun Nutty Murderers Sez Dennis Marks

...there's no serious case that President Obama is trying to take people's guns. Guess what grade the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gave Obama after one year in office? He got an "F" for his gun stance, or lack of same. This after the NRA predicted that he would be the most anti-gun president in history ~ Timothy Egan, writing for the NYT opinion pages. Excerpted from the article Gun Nuts in a Rut 12/1/2011.

Yes, you read that right... Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) believes America is great because of the 2nd Amendment. Specifically the misinterpretation of it by the gun nut Right... via a pretending that the phrase "well regulated militia" is absent from it.

First, before the gun nuttery from the confirmed gun nut Dennis, the news story that prompted said nuttery.

Charleston SC... A 21-year-old white man [Dylann Storm Roof] has been charged with nine counts of murder in connection with an attack on a historic black South Carolina church... and media reports said he had hoped to incite a race war in the United States. ...U.S. President Barack Obama said Thursday the attack stirred up "a dark part" of U.S. history and showed the continuing dangers of liberal gun laws. (Families of South Carolina church massacre victims offer forgiveness by Edward McAllister, Harriet McLeod and Alana Wise. Reuters 6/19/2015).

In response to the comment by our president concerning our liberal gun laws, a Libertarian gun nuts blogger posted an angry commentary on his gun nut blog.

Constitutional Insurgent: Waving the bloody shirt... The bodies in the tragic South Carolina shooting have barely cooled, when POTUS took to the airwaves, and without a shred of reporting as to how the firearm in question was obtained, lambasted the allegedly "easy availability of guns" and went on to use the event as a lazy political jab at those who would see our Constitutional rights infringed beyond recognition. The jackass couldn't even follow his own script when he stated "Now is the time for mourning and for healing". Apparently not Mr. President... apparently its time to play politics. Stay classy Obama... (6/18/2015 AT 4:19pm via the blog Libertas And Latte).

And, in a comment attached to this blog post is where Dennis made his comment about what he thinks makes America great.

Dennis Marks: Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, [the 2nd amendment is] what makes this country. great. What's a shame is that some very wrongheaded politicians act with apparently glee when incidents like this happen and try to use them to push their agenda of confiscation, and harassment of people who never did anything wrong. (6/19/2015 AT 7:05am via the blog Libertas And Latte).

What utter nonsense. Exceeding offensive nonsense. Dennis and the Insurgent believe that the 2nd amendment allows for no restrictions on gun ownership AT ALL. And Dennis and the Insurgent go after our president with a vile lie about the agenda of the non-gun-nutters including them being "gleeful" at the loss of life? OK, so the Insurgent draws a line at "gleeful", he simply says the "jackass" (President Obama) is "playing politics".

The "agenda" being a life-saving agenda, BTW. Although Dennis refers to this agenda aimed at saving lives (by decreasing gun violence) as "harassment of people who never did anything wrong".

Our president pointing to the easy availability of guns as playing a part in yet another gun massacre is NOT "playing politics"! And pointing to the fact that we should do something about the gun violence surely does not make Obama a "jackass". The actual jackasses are those who say people concerned about gun violence and think we should do something about it are "playing politics" or "gleeful" about the deaths (gleeful because they think it will further their gun confiscation agenda, I gather).

Except for the fact that the side that wishes to reduce gun violence is losing. Even after the slaughter of 20 children and 6 adult staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School on 12/14/2012 in Newtown CT - nothing was done. There was talk of closing the gun show loophole, but in the end the NRA and it's agenda of selling as many guns as possible (and lying about gun violence being a price America must pay due to the 2nd amendment) won out.

This continued failure as a result of the NRA bribing our elected officials to further their money-making agenda of death brings SADNESS, not glee! And, for an extreme gun nut like Dennis to proclaim that our president felt GLEE over these death is beyond sickening.

That the pro-gun-murder lobbyists (lead by the NRA) and their dupes (gun nuts like Dennis Marks and the Insurgent) have the gall to suggest that the anti-gun-murder side is "gleeful" or "playing politics" when their agenda is saving lives is something the rest of the world does not understand.

World shocked at enduring racism, gun violence in US (article excerpt) ...the attack renewed perceptions that Americans have too many guns and have yet to overcome racial tensions. ... Especially in Australia and northeast Asia, where firearms are strictly controlled and gun violence almost unheard of, many were baffled by the determination among many Americans to own guns despite repeated mass shootings... "The USA is completely out of step with the rest of the world. We've tightened our gun laws and have seen a reduction", said Claire Taylor, the director of media and public relations at Gun Free South Africa (AP article by Christopher Bodeen. 6/19/2015).

We're "great" because the gun plutocrats and gun nut dupes have perverted the 2nd amendment to our Constitution to protect (1) their ability to make money off death, and (2) insane nuttery that involves tossing "well regulated" from it? This is not a "greatness" the rest of the world agrees with. It is also not a "greatness" the let's-do-something-about-all-the-gun-murdering-already contingent within the US agrees with.

A contingent that is a majority, according to the polls. Yet the gun plutocrats, due to their money, are forcing their agenda of death down our throats. One (deliberately?) flawed Pew poll not withstanding, Americans support reasonable gun control regulations that save lives... as such laws have done in other countries.

Yet it will not happen. This act of racist terrorism - the attack on a Black church by a White shooter who said he was there to kill Black people (which Fox Nooz attempted to spin as an attack on Christianity) - will not result in any change in our our gun laws at all. Because of the power of the NRA, but also due to some whining by extremely duped individuals like Insurgent and Dennis. Which, while I agree that our Bill of Rights does make us great, is not great (that the NRA has so much power). It isn't great at all that big money interests have perverted one of our Bill of Rights amendments to further an agenda of profit and death.

It is, in fact, the exact opposite of great. Also far from great is this regurgitation of NRA talking points by dupes like Insurgent and Dennis. If anyone is gleeful it is the gun manufacturers and their lobbying arm, the NRA. Gleeful that they have been able to exert so much control over the US political process, and gleeful over their duping of the gun nuts. Nuts who race out to buy more of their product because they fear Democratic/Obama "confiscation". F*cking dumbsh*ts.

Image: A cartoon depiction of the Constitutional Insurgent worrying that Obama is coming for his guns? Or is is dmarks?

SWTD #292, dDel #23. See also TADM #68.

Kicked Off Blog Of Mentally Ill Gun Nut (Re Assault Weapon "Intellectual Dishonesty")

The first thing to remember about the Gun Nuts'/Ammosexuals' intellectual dishonesty is a logical fallacy known as "special pleading", which can also be called "stacking the deck" or "ignoring the counterevidence". The GNs/Ammosexuals do this by completely ignoring or editing out the first 13 words. Those first 13 words, in law and grammar, are known as a "qualifier": "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Then, the GNs strictly interpret the rest of it, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This allows the GNs to use the "all or nothing" logical fallacy, whereby there are only two choices... a total gun ban or nothing, leave no third option or any middle ground ~ Andrew Rei Facebook posting excerpt.

This commentary has to do with me getting the boot on another blog. This time I expected from the beginning that I *might* end up being asked to leave, but when it actually happened it was rather abrupt and arbitrary. The blog proprietor, an obviously mentally ill gun nut who calls himself Constitutional Insurgent, decided he had had enough when he asked me a question and I politely answered it.

According to The Insurgent, the term "assault weapon" has been expanded by the "anti gun lobby" to include features that are purely "cosmetic" or "ergonomic". I disagreed, based on the fact that assault weapons have been previously banned. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on 9/13/1994 and expired on 9/13/2004 (due to a sunset provision). The law was upheld in spite of numerous court challenges.

The important point is that the legislation banned certain "assault weapons" as well as "large capacity" magazines. So what is an "assault weapon" and what is "large capacity"? Obviously the word "large" does not refer to a SPECIFIC number. The legislation defined what "large capacity" meant, same as it defined what it was talking about with the term "assault weapon".

So, there you have it. "Assault weapon" has already been defined in legislation that was in place for 10 years. Legislation that was challenged in court and found to be Constitutional. I did not feel that I needed to say any more on the subject than that.

The Insurgent, however, pressed me for an answer. So I did some Googling and found a response to the "cosmetic" question that sounded reasonable (Note that I needed to search for this answer because I am not an expert when it comes to the "assault weapon" debate).

Nothing on a gun is cosmetic except the color. Every part has a purpose. The features of an assault weapon that look different from a sporting gun were carefully designed to maximize lethality on the battlefield. Assault weapons look different because they are different. (About Military-Style Assault Weapons: Gun Messaging. Excerpted from the Progressive Majority website).

The Insurgent used the terms "cosmetic" as well as "ergonomic"; words that have different definitions. The pro-gun lobby uses the term "cosmetic" because they're implying that the feature only affects the way the weapon LOOKS. An ergonomic feature, on the other hand, is a feature designed to enable easier use of the weapon by the user.

A weapon that is easier to use can be fired more rapidly. This is the reason weapons that borrow features from fully automatic military weapons were added to the 1994 assault weapons ban. They enabled the user to fire the weapon more rapidly. However, when discussing how rapidly a weapon can be fired, the gun nuts focus exclusively on the firing mechanism of the gun (is it semi-automatic or fully automatic) and ignore features that allow the user to fire more rapidly.

"Is the weapon fully automatic?" the gun nut will ask. "No? Then it isn't an assault weapon". End of discussion. This is why the Insurgent declared I was "done" on his blog. Because I "read from the script" with my definition (a definition previously codified in US law) that included weapons with ergonomic features which allow the user to fire more rapidly. For this transgression the Insurgent labeled me "intellectually dishonest".

We should also keep in mind here that the firearms with features borrowed from military weapons that The Insurgent believes are not "assault weapons" - were originally labeled by the gun industry itself as "assault weapons".

...before the gun industry trade association attempted to rebrand assault weapons as "modern sporting rifles" in 2009 - a change in terminology also adopted by the NRA - the gun industry and firearm publications routinely used the term assault weapon to describe the very military-style semi-automatic rifles that would be covered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons ban. (What Right-Wing Media Won't Tell You About Assault Weapons by Timothy Johnson. Media Matters, 2/6/2013).

So it was the gun industry, the NRA and firearm publications that adopted the term "assault weapon" in reference to military-style semi-automatic rifles. They used this word to refer to weapons that incorporated ergonomic features from military weapons into a weapon manufactured for civilian use. Now that the term they used to sell the weapon is being used in a manner they don't like? They're attempting a rebrand. And pretending someone else originated the term (or "fabricated" it).

Who might that someone else be? Why, it was "anti-gun" Democrats, of course! As well as clueless and "intellectually dishonest" Leftists. Right. Now that the term went from being a marketing ploy used to entice gun nuts to buy their product - to one that those who might want to ban them are using? Now the term is a "myth".

The Insurgent is one of the gun nuts who uses the gun industry/NRA script that attributes the origination of "assault weapons" to the wrong party. As well as the script that incorporating ergonomic features from military weapons into weapons manufactured for civilian use results in a product that has "cosmetic" differences only.

And *I'm* being "intellectually dishonest"?! By the way, the "intellectually dishonest" accusation has been levied at me before by another Libertarian (Willis Hart) who banned me from his blog. Because I am the "the most intellectually dishonest person that [Willis] ever had to deal with" (SWTD #160). Willis also said I was "done".

This made me wonder. Two Libertarians both using this term? They could not simply say they disagreed, but had to accuse me of being a liar? Why? I'm convinced the reason is arrogance. As well as mental illness.

The term "intellectual honesty" refers to "an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude". These Libertarians view their positions as being reached in this manner (through the use of "intellectual honesty"). Therefore there is absolutely no way they can be wrong. It is *so* obvious that they are right too. That being the case, anyone who disagrees is clearly a dirty rotten liar.

"Vermin" is a word The Insurgent used in the commentary he wrote after banning me (Children on the Internet). Because (in his mind) I lied and I knew I was lying. Except that I did not lie. I reviewed the information and decided the term "assault weapon" (as originated by the gun industry/publications/NRA and adopted by those seeking reasonable gun control measures) is being appropriately utilized.

Anyway, I think that explains why I've been banned on three Libertarian blogs thus far. I'm a liar (in the minds of the blog hosts) and they (again, in their minds) are only interested in honest debate. Although I don't know how you can debate honestly if you have a habit of accusing your debate opponent of lying simply for disagreeing. In my case answering a question The Insurgent specifically asked me!

But they obviously let some "lies" slide. Other commenters who disagree (in my experience) are allowed to do so, as long as the blog host gets the last word. That way the debate can be concluded with the host "correcting" the "false" information presented by whoever offered a differing opinion. My downfall in these situations is that I frequently will not let a subject drop. Thereby annoying the host with my continued "intellectual dishonesty".

In regards to this I say "oh well". And I don't give a f*ck either. This is likely why Willis Hart says this is "a classic example of why nobody likes you" ("Nobody" being the Libertarians Willis Hart, Dennis Marks, Lester Nation, The Insurgent as well as the Conservative Rusty Schmuckelford). Willis was sorry, however. So he might have been worried that his "honest" observation would cause me to cry my eyes out. You know, given that "nobody" likes me.

For the record, although I will say that I agree with how the term "assault weapon" is currently being utilized (by Democrats like Dianne Feinstein), I will also acknowledge that whether or not the original assault weapons ban (authored by Dianne Feinstein and signed by President Clinton) was effective is debatable.

Duke University public policy experts Philip Cook says "There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives" although this "should not be interpreted to mean that in general bans don't work" because "Feinstein's updated version of the ban, which she proposed in 2013 and is more restrictive [and] might be more effective". Cook also noted that "An American assault weapons ban might also have an impact on drug and gang-related violence in Mexico" (Fact-Checking Feinstein on the Assault Weapons Ban by Lois Beckett. Pro Publica, 9/24/2014).

10 years isn't a lot of time, given that the original bill only banned the manufacture and sale of new assault weapons. All the existing assault weapons were not confiscated. They were still out there and able to be used for whatever purpose the owner desired (legal or illegal). In any case, I never argued in favor of bringing back the ban on The Insurgent's blog. I did note that a 2004 report from The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence determined that the ban resulted in a decline of 45% in regards to assault weapons traced to crime - as per crime gun traces the ATF conducted nationwide.

And another report (under the same heading on the same Wikipedia page as the report above) says the ban WAS effective.

[Research published in 2013] in the American Political Science Review suggests that lifting the U.S. Assault Weapons Ban increased homicides in Mexico. The 2004 expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban appeared to exert a spillover on gun availability in Mexican municipalities near Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, but not near California, which retained a state-level ban. The authors state "We find substantial increases in homicides as well as homicides tied specifically to guns. Homicides rose by 60% more in municipios at the non-California entry ports, as compared to municipios 100 miles away, suggesting that the policy change induced at least 238 additional deaths annually in the area located within 100 miles of the border ports" (link).

I'm inclined to believe the ban worked. And I support the Feinstein bill that would reinstate the ban. Not that I believe it has any chance of passing, however. And I did not argue for reinstating the ban on The Insurgent's blog.

My "intellectual dishonesty" appears to come down to me agreeing with the definition of "assault weapon" as originally laid out by the gun industry, NRA, firearm publications, the 1994 ban signed by Clinton and the current Feinstein legislation that won't go anywhere (Note: the 1994 ban was also authored by Feinstein). Additionally, The Insurgent did not seem to like that I called Wayne LaPierre a terrorist (an assertion I stand by).

The Insurgent closes by stating "I have no time for prolific posting of absurdities", but I dispute this, given the fact that gun nut absurdities are the primary focus of his blog. That, and he had the time to reply to every one of my comments.

OK, so that is ANOTHER blog I'm banned from, although fellow gun nut dmarks lies when he says "this is like the 5th or 6th blog [Dervish Sanders] has stalked me to... and most of the time he gets banned from the blogs". dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) likes to imagine I'm "stalking" him, but this is nothing but pure delusion. I've encountered him on a few blogs, both Libertarian and Progressive.

And I do get annoyed when he drops his blatant falsehoods into conversations and other commenters allow them to slide. So I respond. I will admit to that. But that is not "stalking". I have no idea what 5 or 6 blogs he's referring to. I did, as a result of commenting on the blog of Willis Hart look into 2 other blogs (rAtional nAtion uSA and Libertas and Latte). Willis' blog is where I first encountered Dennis, so you could say I "followed" him from there to these two other blogs (where both proprietors banned me). And I "followed" Dennis to his own (now shuttered) blog as well. So that's 3 that I can think of.

Finally, as far as a "constitutional insurgent" is concerned... I'm sure he does not mean it literally, but the name does suggest he'd be into overthrowing our government in order to "restore" the 2nd amendment to a state that would be more to his liking. Which would be NO restrictions what-so-ever. No ban on fully automatic weapons (I'm guessing) and not even any background checks (no need to guess, as The Insurgent explicitly expressed support for this).

Which basically means the dude whose Blogger ID suggests he'd join an armed revolution to overthrow our government is in favor of granting easy firearm access to violent criminals. Something that (A) is NEVER going to happen, and (B) qualifies as EXTREME gun nuttery!

Note: In regards to me quoting Wikipedia in my article above... Wikipedia is "my speed", according to The Insurgent.

SWTD #278, dDel #22.