Yesterday RF highlighted yet another anti-gunner’s cri de coeur, asking when the government is going to finally get off its bureaucratic duff and ventilate a few “gun nuts” to demonstrate who’s boss. Susie Madrak posted her polemic at crooksandliars.com where’s she’s the managing editor. But to hear Susie tell it, we’re going to need a Kickstarter fundraiser to send Robert back to Tufts for a little remedial reading comprehension work. She says he totally missed the point of her post . . .
Here are the missives she posted in the comment section:
Susie Madrak says:
June 25, 2014 at 10:21
Hey, thanks for completely missing the point, since I’m a lifelong pacifist. What I was actually saying that there aren’t a lot of options to deal with people who defy the legal government — short of those that seem to inevitably lead to all-out violence, as we saw in Ruby Ridge and Waco. If you think I was advocating violence, you’re wrong.
Susie Madrak says:
June 25, 2014 at 14:12 (Edit)
Look: The post was in response to another article, chiding the federal government for backing down at the Bundy ranch. My response was to show that there were no good options here, and mentioned Ruby Ridge and Waco as examples of government overreaction. Do I wish the feds hadn’t backed away at the Bundy ranch? Yes. It’s dangerous when random citizens start making their own laws. Do I think the feds should have gone in and killed everyone? Of course not.
But it’s also a problem when so many armed people claim they want a revolution. At what point do we simply stop enforcing laws so they won’t start shooting? That’s a hell of a way to run a country.
It’s very surreal to be defending myself against the idea that I want to kill people when I do not.
Gee. Susie’s a pacifist. We must have screwed up. After she posted her comments, I went back and re-read her piece. But I had a problem. How do you take lines like, “…at what point does the federal government literally go to war with its own citizens?” and, “…what line has to be crossed in the good old U.S. of A. before we start mowing them down to make our point?” any other way?
Could I be suffering from the same dearth of comprehension that’s afflicting RF? Just to be sure, I emailed Ms. Madrak last night to invite her to write a post for TTAG explaining exactly what she really meant. And she promptly answered me in an email she asked not be reprinted. Without violating her wishes, she told me she’d spent the entire day after our post went up yesterday trying to
walk back engage in a “constructive dialogue” over the meaning of her post. Apparently without much luck.
In short, her answer to our offer was thanks, but no thanks. We guess a lifelong pacifist — one whose web site features a drawing of her firing a machine gun and lobbing hand grenades — can’t be bothered to explain how her article wondering if it’s time to “…just get it over with (start a civil war)? You know, settle the burning question about whose is bigger,” doesn’t really mean what everyone thinks it means. We’re so confused.