Schooling an Annoyed Librarian

librarian-shush

I stumbled across an interesting blog entry the other day. Posted by Annoyed Librarian (not pictured above) it was titled Those Dangerous Public Libraries and contains her plaints against us ‘gun nuts’ and the activity of some of our brethren in Windsor Colorado where a library was – horror of horrors! – made to obey the law. “ALib” starts out by mentioning some of the people she’s worked so hard to piss off recently: “A while ago it was the homeschooling creationists who homeschooled their children to keep them from learning any science later than the Middle Ages. Last week it was the earnest evangelicals who actually believed The Hiding Place was “banned” at a library…. This week, it might be the gun nuts. We’ll see.” Give her credit, though. She magnanimously makes it clear that there is a difference between ‘gun nuts’ and regular old gun owners . . .

Before we begin, it’s important to know who the gun nuts are. Because of the craziness of some of them, some people think anyone with a gun must be a nut. However, the vast majority of gun owners who hunt or shoot skeet or target shoot are unfairly represented by the nuts who show up to political rallies with machine guns assault rifles on their back.

I must give ALib kudos for correcting her post when someone pointed out that machine guns are not generally available. She did not, however, correct her terminology when someone pointed out that assault rifles, as opposed to so-called assault weapons are actually select-fire weapons capable of full-auto fire.

Beyond that, however, I find it distressing that ALib is willing to classify law-abiding citizens exercising rights protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech and assembly, petition for redress of grievances) and Second Amendment as “nuts”. If I were to protest at a book-burning while openly carrying Catch-22, the Canterbury Tales and some Harry Potter books[1] would she call me a “book nut”? Fortunately her next paragraph makes it clear that she would not brand me as such since:

The gun nuts are the ones who are obsessed with guns. They fantasize about them, devote their lives to them, and want to carry them everywhere. They’re gun fetishists, and fetishists are always a little creepy and a little crazy. …

Setting aside the sexual connotations of the word, the most common definitions I found for fetishists and fetishes include the belief that the object in question (in this case a gun) is inhabited by a spirit and/or has magical or supernatural powers. That sounds to me more like the beliefs held by the antis; that a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide; that the “mere presence” of a gun leads to domestic violence, and so on. Maybe instead of calling the hoplophobes we should call them gun fetishists?

Anyway, it would probably surprise ALib to know that I am not even close to being any sort of gun fetishist; I enjoy the aesthetics of a well-made firearm, just as I do a good knife or fine tools. I think what would make me a “gun nut” in her eyes is the fact that I actually believe that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution means what it says, and that, furthermore, L. Neil Smith had it exactly right when he said “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.” Maybe I am a gun rights nut.

Speaking of the Second Amendment, ALib continues:

Even they sometimes seem to realize that if they just come out and say this, everyone will know them for the crazy people they are, so while fondling their guns obsessively …

See above about the lack of fetishism in my case, but I am a little confused here; if we come out and say what precisely? That we imbue our firearms with magical powers (we don’t, that’s the Brady Campaign and their AstroTurf® buds)? That we fantasize about them? It’s not called ‘fantasizing’ dear, it is called forethought. Every time I get on a plane I make a note of where I am, where the heads are and where the exits are. I then sit there and mentally run through possible disaster scenarios because studies have shown that most survivors are people who have thought through what they will do if/when something bad happens.

As for obsessively “fondling” our guns, anyone who knows the 4 Rules knows that the more you futz with it the more likely you are to have an ND, so keep your weapon holstered until you are ready to shoot it. Or clean it. Or replace the factory trigger with a much smoother one, and pitch those crappy iron sights for a nice . . . umm, okay, maybe some folks do handle their guns a lot. I say handle because the word fondle has definite sexual connotations. I know a lot of gunnies, and not one of them has any sort of sexual relationship with their weapons.

Continuing:

… so while fondling their guns obsessively they like to prattle on about the second amendment or their right to self-protection.

According to Dictionary.com, Prattle: verb (used without object), prattled, prattling.

  1. to talk in a foolish or simple-minded way; chatter; babble.

If ALib is only hearing ‘foolish’ and ‘simple-minded’ arguments regarding the Second Amendment and self-defense, then she has obviously been hanging out with the wrong crowd. Maybe if she spent a little time on TTAG we could educate her. This, of course, presumes that she wants to be educated on the subject and going by her next paragraph she’s like my sister-in-law; her mind is made up and she doesn’t want to be distracted by facts[2]. Facts like those found in Dr. Lott’s More Guns; Less Crime which show that liberalized concealed carry laws lead to significant drops in violent crime; facts which have been verified in 20 separate peer-reviewed studies by criminologists and economists. Even the 11 such studies which found no significant effect showed no indication that easing CCW restrictions increased rates of murder, robbery or rape.

More non-prattle on the subject of self-defense: As shown in Gun Facts ver. 6.2, using a gun to defend yourself is the safest course of action when attacked; you are less likely to be injured, any injuries you do receive are likely to be less severe than if you had done nothing, defended yourself in some other fashion or even if you had cooperated with your attacker.

If you want to talk about a “war on women” don’t forget to mention that when a woman is armed with a gun or knife only 3% of attempted rapes are completed, compared to a 32% completion rate against unarmed women. Furthermore, between 1995 and 2003 Australia and the UK tightened gun laws and the USA loosened them; in the same period Aussie rape rates rose 26.5%, UK rates rose 59.8% and US rates dropped 13.5%[3]. Coincidence?

And if any outside gun nuts try to bombard the comment section trying to educate everyone on the second amendment, I’ll approve the comment if you can prove you’re a Constitutional lawyer.

I’m not sure what an “outside gun nut” is, but it is clear that ALib indeed does not want her pretty little preconceptions and misconceptions overset because you really don’t need to be a Constitutional lawyer to understand what the Second Amendment means. Thanks to Constitutional lawyer Alan Gura and SCOTUS you just need to be able to read American English in the form of the Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. The majority, Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito, stated it quite clearly:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

And Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer agreed in their dissent:

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

See? Simple English and no law degree required.

Next we come to the issue which irks ALib:

Guns and libraries are in the news again. … Now it’s Colorado, where the local gun nuts, I mean rights, group threatened to sue a library if they didn’t eliminate their “no guns” policy after the director asked a gun-toting patron to leave. The library reluctantly changed its policy.

So a library was violating the law and was called on it; this apparently was annoying to the Annoyed Librarian because, well, guns.

After prattling on about how paranoid we gun nuts are, how safe libraries are and how we gun nuts should not shoot noisy teenagers or masturbating creepy guys, she finishes up with this:

So the people who can’t go into a public library without carrying their guns are either a) gun fetishists, and thus crazy, or 2) suffering from extreme paranoia, and thus crazy.

And that, gun nuts, is why people don’t want you carrying guns in their public libraries. You see the public library as a dangerous place, and everyone else agrees, at least when you’re there.

Well yes, everyone knows how dangerous permit-holders are; just look at the Violence Policy Center’s Concealed Carry Killers report. From May of 2007 to August 2014, 659 people have been killed by permit holders. We can discount the 230 permit holders who committed suicide which leaves 429. Of course that includes a number of people who just plain didn’t have permits, but let’s be generous and give them all of those. In fact, let’s round it up to 435, which gives us a nice even 60 CCKs a year. According to Dr. Lott, as of April of this year there were 11 million permit holders in the US, and according to NBC News in June of 2010 there were 6 million of us. So let’s go small and figure there were an average of 6 million permit holders over the last 7 ¼ years, committing 60 killings per year which gives us a rate of 1 CCK per 100,000.

Now according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports Expanded Homicide Data Table 3, in 2012 there were 14,581 “Murder Offenders”. Pulling the 618 who were under 18 and the 60 CCKs leaves 13,903 non-CCKs. Census data says we had 234,719,000 people 18 and older in 2012 which gives us a general population killer rate of 5.9 non-CCKs per 100,000 or 5.9 times the CCK rate.

Well, maybe ALib has her knickers in a knot because of just violent crime in general, not specifically murder. Fortunately the State of Florida has kept moderately detailed records of permit-holders and lost licenses for the past quarter century or so, and according to their latest numbers, of the 2,684,337 licenses issued during that time, 168 have been revoked for using their gun in a crime. This gives us an overall crime rate of 6.25 per 100,000 permit holders. Going back to the FBI’s numbers we find that “[i]n 2012, an estimated 1,214,462 violent crimes occurred nationwide” and using a the lowball over 18 population figure gives us a non-CCW violent crime rate of 517 per 100,000 or about eighty times the permit holder rate.

In short ALib can relax, the sky is not falling and things will be okay. Really.

 

[1] All of which have been banned someplace in the US at some point

[2] And yes, my sister-in-law actually had the integrity to admit that.

[3] These numbers are also from Gun Facts ver. 6.2

comments

  1. avatar Grindstone says:

    If loving guns makes me a nut, then loving cars makes people nuts? Loving good stories makes one a book nut? Classifying people with a passion for their hobby as a “nut” is disingenuous and illogical.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      More to the point, if you love books and devote yourself to them and spend your life surrounded by them and fondle them all day long, does that make you a book fetishist?

      1. avatar Richard In WA says:

        That copy of Catcher in the Rye is just penile compensation.

        1. avatar DJ9 says:

          Annoying Librarian is just another lefty/prog/lib with a smidgeon of power in her tiny fiefdom, and that power has gone straight to her head. Dare to disagree with her? No voice here for you!

          The funny part is her bragging about exercising what is, in effect, ironclad censorship over responses to her blog posts. Most librarians are strictly opposed to censorship of darn near any type being applied to their books or public computers, no matter the results, but apparently some of them sure like to wield it when it suits them.

          Hope she enjoys ruling her little bubble.

          Nothing new to see there, really. Move along, now…

      2. avatar JimmyDelta says:

        You beat me to that one. I’d even say “authoritarian book fetishist” consumed with monitoring what books interest others.

      3. avatar IdahoPete says:

        “They’re gun fetishists, and fetishists are always a little creepy and a little crazy. …”

        From a psychological standpoint, this is called “projection”. “Psychological projection” is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

        1. avatar John Galt says:

          Perhaps also some narcissistic personality disorder is in play.

          Reading through her other posts, together with the “About” page, paints a revealing portrait.

          About Annoyed Librarian
          http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/about-annoyed-librarian/

          “The Annoyed Librarian is possibly the most successful, respected, and desirable librarian of her generation.

          She has no other interest than to bring her wit and wisdom to the huddled librarian masses yearning to breathe free.

          The Annoyed Librarian is a free spirit and you are lucky to have her.”

          ——————————

          Narcissistic Personality Disorder Symptoms (PsychCentral.com)
          http://psychcentral.com/disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder-symptoms/

          “Narcissistic Personality Disorder is characterized by a long-standing pattern of grandiosity (either in fantasy or actual behavior), an overwhelming need for admiration, and usually a complete lack of empathy toward others. People with this disorder often believe they are of primary importance in everybody’s life or to anyone they meet. While this pattern of behavior may be appropriate for a king in 16th Century England, it is generally considered inappropriate for most ordinary people today.

          People with narcissistic personality disorder often display snobbish, disdainful, or patronizing attitudes. For example, an individual with this disorder may complain about a clumsy waiter’s “rudeness” or “stupidity” or conclude a medical evaluation with a condescending evaluation of the physician.

          Symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder

          In order for a person to be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) they must meet five or more of the following symptoms:

          * Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
          * Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
          * Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
          * Requires excessive admiration
          * Has a very strong sense of entitlement, e.g., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
          * Is exploitative of others, e.g., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
          * Lacks empathy, e.g., is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
          * Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
          * Regularly shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes”

        2. avatar GuyFromV says:

          With a dash of Borderline and Schizoid to boot.

    2. avatar Geoff says:

      I fully admit to being a Bibliophile, I love to read books, a good story can tie me up all day to get to the end of it. To whit I am also not afraid to admit that going to the range has a similar effect on me…

  2. avatar Accur81 says:

    On a non-gun note, I get really annoyed by liberal progressives who think creationists are too stupid to understand science. We celebrate Steve Jobs, John Moses Browning, Eugene Stoner, and others for their brilliant designs. Is it really so far-fetched to think that a human being, a design far more complicated than a phone, could have been Inteligently Designed?

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      I was watching a show on History channel a couple of weeks ago about Stonehenge and I had an epiphany. Stonehenge wasn’t made by men. It was just a natural phenomenon. One big happy accident. I mean if something as complicated as say the human brain just accidentally happened then why would we think that a few rocks piled up on top of each other was any different?

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        There are actually some pretty amazing natural stone formations in the world. The Giant’s Causeway, Goblin Valley, The Old Man of the Mountain, etc

        http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/07/22/18-natural-formations-that-look-man-made/

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          No doubt. But Stonehenge isn’t one of them. But it is interesting to think of how the scientific community would treat one of their own who made the claim that something as simple as Stonehenge was a mere natural phenomenon. He’d be mocked as badly as a scientist claiming that something as complex as the human brain could not have been a natural phenomenon. It’s more of a lesson about human nature than the natural world. Scientist are, after all, humans first and scientists second.

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          Considering the copious proof we have showing Stonehenge *is* man-made, it would make sense to mock someone claiming otherwise. Like we mock those who claim “aliens”.

          Yes, you are correct that scientists are still human, but that is the whole reason behind the Scientific Method, as a check against those human biases. And it works, too.

        3. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Provided of course that the scientific method is used, which is my whole issue with the theory of evolution. Some things can’t be tested, at least with our current state of technology, and if it can’t be proved we should be humble enough to say we don’t know. For more specificity, scroll down and read my reply to Hannibal.

        4. avatar Grindstone says:

          Actually, scientists say “we don’t know” all the time. Including abiogenesis. It is the creationists who claim to know everything from a collection of stories written by desert tribes that had no knowledge of microbiology.
          Again, as I posted in my reply to your reply to Hannibal, I urge you to actually research into the matter. I’ll help you start off: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

        5. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Personally I wouldn’t give much credence to those who pick and choose which scriptures are to be taken literally and which not. IMHO there are a lot of scriptures that are obviously not to be taken literally. I would include the first chapter of Genesis in that lot myself. Is the earth 6000 years old? I doubt it. Perhaps God (capital G) could have made the earth in 144 hours, but I don’t see why he would leave so much evidence as to point to it being much older. Conversely I don’t put much more stock in the scientific community. Perhaps the earth is 4.5 billion years old, perhaps it’s only 4.5 million, or maybe 4.5 trillion. I wasn’t there, I don’t know. But I’m humble enough to admit it.

          Perhaps we’re both looking at the most extreme opinions from the other side and painting everyone of different opinions with the same brush though.

    2. avatar Grindstone says:

      It is if you believe humans evolved slowly over an excruciatingly long period of time. They did not start out as complex organisms. Then there’s the whole problem of ID starting with a conclusion from a story written by people who didn’t know that disease was caused by microorganisms (including those similar to primordial life) and forming the evidence to match, rather than finding the evidence and forming the theory to match.

    3. avatar Lurker_OF_Lurkiness says:

      Creationist, double majoring in computer science and physics.

      As a creationist I try to know more about evolution than most of my peers (excepting bio majors).

      Newton was a Christian.
      Descarte was a Christian
      Heck the dude who came up with the big bang was a Priest, and saw it as how God created the universe ex-nihlo

      Edited to add:

      For bonus points I was homeschooled trolololololololololololololo

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        So was Galileo Galilei, and look how that turned out.

        1. avatar Noah says:

          To be fair, Galileo was also an extremely arrogant man. The Church didn’t order him to stop publishing ideas, but rather to stop asserting that they were undoubtedly true. He was only placed under house arrest when he wrote one final book in the same way, and in the process, called the Pope an idiot.

      2. avatar former water walker says:

        Hate to disagree with you lurker but Newton was a deiest who did not believe in a triune Godhead. He also spent much of his life to alchemy. But you are STILL right. Professing themselves to be wise they became fools. And all that unlikely bible prophecy is coming to pass .

        1. avatar Lurker_OF_Lurkiness says:

          Admittedly I haven’t studied Newton’s reliious views much; but based on the wikipedia article, I assume he was A Christian with some messed up doctrine, but a Christian none the less…… Still I never met the guy so what do I know?

        2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          The deists did believe in god though. They just thought that god did not interfere or influence the daily affairs of man, which probably made them look like atheists in the 18th century.

    4. avatar Hannibal says:

      Science is a process of observation and experimentation. The theory of and evidence surrounding evolution is overwhelming. It is science. Sitting in a room comparing human beings to iPhones is not. It’s perfectly fine to believe in creation by a divine maker of some sort, but don’t conflate it with science.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Unfortunately, there has been absolutely NO direct observation or successful experimentation to support the theory of evolution. No one has ever witnessed a species mutating into another species. No one has ever successfully forced a species to mutate into another species. No one has ever successfully created life out of a non-living substance in a laboratory. All we have as a very sparse fossil record which is open to wildly differing opinions. Darwin used the examples of domesticated dogs to support his theory. Yet in 5000 years of deliberate breeding, there is not one dog that has ever birthed an animal that was not a dog. Aside from the obvious logistics, a 6 pound chihuahua is perfectly capable of breeding with a 200 pound great dane and producing fertile offspring. What do you suppose the scientists would think if dogs had gone extinct a million years ago and they found a chihuahua fossil and a great dane fossil? Do you think they’d proclaim them to be the same species? No, they’d claim they were different species and they’d be wrong.

        Until such a time as observation or experimentation can prove the theory all they have is good old human bias.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          “No one has ever successfully created life out of a non-living substance in a laboratory.”

          This is abiogensis, not evolution. Two different things.

          “Yet in 5000 years of deliberate breeding, there is not one dog that has ever birthed an animal that was not a dog. ”

          This just demonstrates your own ignorance of how evolution works. I’m not using ignorance in a malicious manner, mind you. The mechanics of evolution take place over extremely long periods of time involving *gradual* change. The argument that evolution is one species just giving birth to another is just flat out wrong and completely disingenuous. I urge you to actually research evolution. wwww.talkorigins.org is a great tool to start out from.

          “What do you suppose the scientists would think if dogs had gone extinct a million years ago and they found a chihuahua fossil and a great dane fossil? Do you think they’d proclaim them to be the same species? No, they’d claim they were different species and they’d be wrong. ”

          Any good biologist can see special similarities even among size differences. Canines have unique bone and muscle structures, among other differences from other species, even among different breeds.

          Sir, I understand where you’re coming from. But the problem is that you do not have a full picture of the science. I really do urge you to take a more objective look and do some research into the matter beyond that which supports only your personal bias and preconceived notions.

        2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          I read a while back that whales evolved from dogs because the bones in their inner ears were similar. Forget the fact that an intelligent designer could have very well used similar designs for different animals, kind of like Chevys and Toyotas use similar automatic transmissions but neither evolved from the other. It is now more ‘scientific’ to believe that the fish crawled out of the sea and grew paws and boobies only to crawl back into the sea and grow back fins.

          Belief in an atheistic evolution takes as much if not more faith than belief in a creator.

        3. avatar Grindstone says:

          You haven’t read a single word I’ve said or any information that I’ve linked.

        4. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          The problem is that you are trying to convince me that there cannot be a creator, which you cannot prove and I am trying to prove to you that there could be a creator, which I cannot prove.

        5. avatar Grindstone says:

          To the contrary. I’ve never once said there is no god or anything to that end. I am only discussing the topic of evolution and intelligent design. I never once said that the evidence for evolution is evidence for no god. If you believe evolution and science to be mutually exclusive from your religion of choice, then that’s up to you.

        6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Grindstone,

          You do realize that DNA, the genetic building blocks of the cells of all life, have millions of chemical elements. Do tell … precisely which chemical elements of DNA does someone or something manipulate to subtly alter an animal’s DNA to move closer from something like a monkey to an ape? Which elements do you change, add, or delete? Please explain what does that chemical splicing and how it does it without killing the host. Most importantly, please explain how that change affects the DNA in an egg or sperm because that is the only place that such a change can take place that can be genetically inherited.

          Oh, and please explain how the specific egg or sperm that is genetically altered is the one (out of thousands of eggs and millions of sperm in an animal) that is fertilized during reproduction. And I almost forgot … please explain how that genetically altered offspring is not sterile. Come to think of it, you also have to explain how such events happen billions of times which is necessary to gradually change millions of species thousands of times.

          Since evolution is “fact”, the answers to those questions are readily available and documented, correct? And since the answers to those questions are “fact” documented, anyone sufficiently motivated and financed can observe and reproduce those “facts”, correct? Because if no one has actually observed them, and no one can actually reproduce them, then evolution is not science — it is at best philosophy and at worst a religion.

        7. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          I completely fail to see where those who espouse an agnostic view of evolution would have an issue with intelligent design. On one hand I have religious opinions and on the other hand I have scientific opinions. My scientific opinion is that atheism and the atheistic view of evolution is not likely and in fact takes more faith to believe in than it does to believe in a creator. You claim that abiogenesis is different than evolution, but it is absolutely essential to the atheistic view of evolution. There is (or at least happened once) abiogenesis or there is a creator. If life did not spontaneously spring from non organic substances than life must have existed indefinitely, before the earth, before the big bang. There isn’t a third option.

          So if your opinion is that there may or may not be a god, but you think that the fossil record shows that this animal begat that animal and you don’t know how that came about, why would you have an issue with someone saying, ‘maybe it was a creator’? I will concede that there are those who wish to push their religious beliefs in the name of intelligent design, but that is not the entirety of the philosophy. My religious opinion is that this is not the way simple life became complex life, but scientifically I have to admit to the plausibility of it. Just that when I look at the fossil record I see it more as subjective than objective. People with different opinions will look at the same thing and conclude different conclusions. For science to be proven you must convince people of different opinions that one thing and only one thing could have happened.

        8. avatar Grindstone says:

          uncommon_sense, you do know what “genetic mutations” are, right? That’s all evolution boils down to. Very gradual genetic mutations over extremely long periods of time. One little change in the code at a time is all it takes. The argument that a dog gives birth to a whale is a strawman argument and an argument from ignorance. Your questions are answered numerous times if you actually cared to research them.

        9. avatar Grindstone says:

          “So if your opinion is that there may or may not be a god, but you think that the fossil record shows that this animal begat that animal and you don’t know how that came about, why would you have an issue with someone saying, ‘maybe it was a creator’? ”

          Mel, I have an issue with someone saying “maybe it was a creator” because there is no evidence to support it. That is the difference. Again, the idea of a creator comes from a time before microbiology and has no evidence to support. This is where scientists say “I don’t know, but here’s an idea and here’s the evidence we have *so far* to support that idea”. Verses the creationist plea “there is a creator and we’ve known that for thousands of years” (before we even knew that disease is caused by microorganisms). No, science does not claim to have all the answers, but to place a god of the gaps when we are still learning is just intellectual laziness.

          Again, I plead for you to actually read the evidence for yourself. It’s the most honest way you can learn about evolution and the science and evidence behind it.

        10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Grindstone,

          Who observed and documented the specific mutations in some specific animal’s DNA that moves it closer to the next “link”? Who independently reproduced that mutation and the next “link”?

          A multi-acre computer server farm is wildly complex (it has trillions of electronic components): we can document it and reproduce it. We can even manipulate it to function differently and achieve different outcomes … and reproduce those outcomes. Surely someone has been able to determine which chemicals to change in DNA to move an animal closer to the next “link” and others can reproduce it.

          Are you also ready to claim that random change agents can randomly reorganize the electronic components in the server farm (and even bring in additional outside components) millions of times and make it faster, more efficient, and more robust to its environment?

        11. avatar Jake Palmer says:

          William –
          I take issue with your comments regarding evolution. First of all, we have witnessed that species actively evolve. For example, try last year’s flu shot and see how that works out for you. Or observe the genetic links between different species, then reference plate tectonics and archeological studies regarding ancestral species to the aforementioned contemporary species. Or, simply observe the fact that human beings have several different skin colors. That’s a gross simplification of SOME of the science, but my point stands the same; there is a mountain of objective evidence outlining the constant conjunction of natural selection and the process of “evolution.” If you’re familiar with Hume’s writings, you’ll understand why I say constant conjunction. That’s what gives leeway for not saying “proof,” but realistically and rationally, we can accept natural selection and the theory of evolution as reliable scientific theories. I invite you to try and disprove them (without using religious scripture), and that’s not being facetious; it’s what science is all about. It’s an ethical responsibility to initially look at a theory with an equal chance of being true and false, and that’s what the spirit of science is! Finding the truth the best we can. Without questioning one’s assumptions, preconceptions and the like, that person is doing exactly what the lady in the above article is doing: being ignorant! Willfully, consciously, and very foolishly ignorant. Open thy darn mind! You’re more than entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Anyway thank you for sharing your opinions, and I hope you take mine into consideration. Best wishes,
          Jake

        12. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Jake, I’m not out to disprove evolution as a theory. But people like the librarian despise people like me for questioning the ‘science’. The science is subjective not objective. The same evidence points in completely opposite directions to people of different opinions. The flu virus changes only enough for our immune systems to stop recognizing it as a flu virus, but it never stops being a flu virus. Granted there are new viruses that come along from time to time but we don’t have any evidence as to whether those viruses are actually new or just new to us. Variety within the species does not constitute evolution. Blacks can breed with whites and produce fertile human babies. Chihuahuas and great danes, both are dogs. It doesn’t mean that evolution doesn’t exist, it just means that there is no more proof (IMHO) for it than against it. But ‘creationists’ are mocked for being unscientific.

        13. avatar Luciferian says:

          Try feeding “observed speciation” to Google and see what it spits back at you.

      2. avatar Another Robert says:

        I’ll admit the theory is overwhelming, but I’m not convinced about the evidence. Maybe when you can find an actual evolutionary fossil progression in the appropriate geological strata. Or when you quit constructing an entire species or sub-species from a bone fragment the size of a quarter, when there are no complete or near-complete or even significantly close to complete fossilized remains to be found. Or when you find some of those transitional forms , like between reptiles and birds or reptiles and mammals, that haven’t been constructed by Chinese peasants to sell to , ahhh, scientists. It actually sounds kind of presumptuous to announce as settled scientific fact a process that no one was able to observe, that cannot be observed today, and that has , to say the least, less than complete support in the observed fossil/geological record. Not that I necessarily accept the creationist/ID version either.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          There is a large list of evidence if you’re actually interested in learning.
          http://www.talkorigins.org is comprehensive and easy to digest if you take the time.

      3. avatar Lurker_OF_Lurkiness says:

        If I recall science has to be Repeatable and Falsifiable.

        As far as I can tell evolution fails at repeatability. (but I welcome evidence to the contrary)

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          As I recall, we are assured that biological evolution is such a gradual process that it would not be observable even over the period comprised of all of recorded human history. In other words, as it stands now, by definition it is not observable, repeatable etc. It is at best a theory. Folks who regard it as proven, or as the only possibly valid theory, are indulging as much faith and personal bias as any Baptist fundamentalist.

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          So then you’re cool with not updating your flu vaccine? Because that involves evolution.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Another Robert,

          Actually, we cannot even call evolution a theory: it is only a hypothesis for the reasons that you stated.

          Of course we have to be extremely careful with the word “evolution”. When the word “evolution” is a supposed explanation for all life for all history on our planet, it can never be a matter of science because no one observed all of our planet’s history and no one can reproduce that.

        4. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Yet the flu virus remains the flu virus. There has never been a documented case of a flu virus transforming into a chicken pox virus, now has there? This is no different than the chihuahua, great dane analogy I mentioned before, they are still dogs. Just because your immune system doesn’t recognize a chihuahua as a dog doesn’t mean that chihuahuas aren’t dogs. It’s called ‘variety within the species’.

        5. avatar Grindstone says:

          uncommon_sense, it is a theory because the scientific use of the word means a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. And evolution is the explanation for the diversity of species on the planet. Please read below.

          Gov. William J. Le Petomane, I’ve already explained that to you and offered links to further educate yourself on the matter.

          Again I present http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ for your consideration.

        6. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Grindstone, I went to your little website and hit ‘browse’ and I found this; Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all known living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related.

          What?!? H-Y-P-O-T-H-E-S-I-S?!? I thought this was FACT? I don’t have a problem with hypotheses. I have a problem with people insisting hypotheses are facts.

        7. avatar Grindstone says:

          So you didn’t read all the information and instead latched onto and misinterpreted one word.

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          @Grindstone:

          So then you’re cool with not updating your flu vaccine? Because that involves evolution.

          So, you conflate intra-species genetic mutation with speciation, and expect anything you have to say to be taken seriously?

          Anyone who claims that speciation is “fact” either doesn’t understand the Scientific Method, or does, and merely ignores it. As has been said, speciation is neither observable, repeatable, nor falsifiable. It is merely a hypothesis.

          The blatant toward intelligent design is likewise telling. If speciation is to be challenged beyond hypothesis, then the null hypothesis would be that species did not develop by random chance, but rather by intentional design. Again, anyone who respects the Scientific Method would understand that. Even Darwin understood it, and introduced the falsification of irreducible complexity.

          Most people maligned as creationists merely object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact, rather than as hypothesis. Most people who malign creationists understand that, if evolution were properly taught as scientific hypothesis, merely conceding that it is but a hypothesis requires recognition of the existence of a null hypothesis. And as those in this comment thread have demonstrated, admitting that a null hypothesis exists is a bridge too far for atheists hostile to even the mention of a hypothetical intelligent designer.

          (By the way: let me know when evolutionary hypothesis comes up with even an implausible explanation for human consciousness.)

    5. avatar CarlosT says:

      The evidence doesn’t support the idea, and there are a lot of chains of evidence that point the other direction.

      To take just one narrow example, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which connects the brain to the larynx, in mammals runs from the brain, down the neck, into the chest, loops under the aorta, back up the front of the chest and back into the throat.

      It’s at least a couple feet of routing to connect up a four inch distance, and that’s in a human. In a giraffe it’s more like 15 ft to connect a span of about a foot. There’s no logical reason for it to be like that by design.

      The equivalent structures in fish, the nerve, the gill arch that’s homologous to the aorta, and the homologous structures to the larynx don’t interfere with each other in the same way. The nerve slips behind the arch in a completely straight shot, efficient as you could like.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Kind of like the fleas arguing over who owns the dog. We can barely comprehend the complexity of mammalian biology, yet we jump on the single thing that doesn’t make sense to us and declare it as evidence that we know exactly what we’re talking about. If life came about by intelligent design, I’m quite sure that intelligence was superior to ours.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          Bingo.

          I’m also a Zoology / Sociology / Biological Aspects of Conservation major. There is plenty of room in science for – wait for it – the scientific method. My stepfather is a embryologist at a medical college. A full time, tenured professor. There exists a wealth of scientific evidence, as well as significant gaps within the fossil record. While I’m at best a fringe member of the scientific community, I am fully capable of analyzing most data on my own.

          Some here have not even understood the vast difference between micro evolution and macroevolution. One can be observed and the other is speculation.

          Regardless, we simply cannot observe geologic time as humans who have an 80-120 year life span. As others have said, an Intelligent Designer exists who is orders of magnitude beyond humanity in intellectual capacity. Hence why we aren’t cranking out Homo Sapien 2.0 along with the iPhone 6 plus. We lack the engineering capability to create human life in a lab. Humanity perpetuates by joining gametes.

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          You start off presenting your supposed credentials as an attempt for Argument from Authority and close with a statement as if it were fact with no evidence to support. What school did you earn those degrees from, again?

        3. avatar Accur81 says:

          @Grindstone,

          Feeling a little cocky, are we?

          My “position of Authority” is really more of a position of interest. I’m still waiting for my factual mistake, because you certainly haven’t pointed one out. At all. We lack the engineering capacity to create humans. Period. Snap a selfie of your clone in the basement if I’m wrong. Also let me know if you can observe geologic time. My educated guess is that you’ll have a lifespan of 80-120 years. That leaves you a few billion years short. Let me also know if you observe abiogenesis, because you haven’t. Prove me wrong on that and you can really make a stir in the scientific community.

          Macroevolution: Typically refers to speciation and evolution at and above the species level.

          Microevolution: Typically refers to evolutionary changes within a species.

          Gametes, in the case of humans, are egg and sperm. It’s how people are made.

          Yes, Macroevolution can deal with changes in allele frequency, but is indeed the broad spectrum change of one distinct species to the next. The entire concept occurs through geologic time. Let me know the next time you can spend 3.8 billions years in a lab.

          While evolution, mutation, and genetic information are complicated concepts, the idea of a species is not.

          University of Wisconsin-Madison from 1995-1999. The triple major took 5 years. Why would I lie about a Bachelor’s degree? It’s not like I’m trying to pose as a doctor. Anyways, macro and microevolution where taught with great enthusiasm. The concept of Intelligent Design was treated with open contempt. Gun ownership was also treated with contempt. Minds open? At the professor level, not so much. One of my core values of disdain for the liberal progressive agenda and the system of higher education (which tends to worship liberalism) was made during those 5 years. I also got really good at drinking.

          The next time you “school” me about being “wrong” you might want to be right first.

      2. avatar Grindstone says:

        Not to mention just how terribly bad the human knee is.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          You cannot truly appreciate the wonders of the human knee until yours has been damaged. Twenty years ago I had a head on collision on a motorcycle with a car at a combined closing speed of 85mph where I just barely cleared my front wheel leaving the full force of the impact directly applied to my left knee. Trust me, my right knee is a truly wonderfully designed piece of technology.

          Come to think of it, the fact that I can still walk like a normal human, so is my left knee.

      3. avatar Paelorian says:

        But it works, doesn’t it? I would think God would be more predisposed than evolution toward “perfection”. Of course, there’s always the argument that when we don’t understand what God did or why he did it, it only means we’re incapable of understanding God’s actions since God is infallible. Phooey. The implicit message is “stop thinking and just do what you’re told”. I think it’s more virtuous and moral to thoughtfully consider the merits of everything and to not accept something as true, false, good, or bad without knowing why.

        Why does God kill and make suffer countless righteous and innocent people? He must have had a good reason beyond human comprehension. Or maybe he’s a sinner. Or maybe those people all died of natural or human causes and God refuses to intercede in the world. If he’s divested, why worship him? Personally, I derive my morality from reason. Reason may conflict with religious law, but I’ll take a reasoned morality over a law I reason to be false. Human reasoning will sometimes be mistaken. So be it. I will treat others well, and my morality does not fundamentally conflict with most religious morality, including Judeo-Christian morality.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          Two concepts:

          1. Free will. Humanity clearly has it. Sometimes evil is simply a choice. God can be good and simultaneously allow free will. Why? Because he has a thing for freedom. So do I.

          2. Christianity is not intellectual laziness. I would not accuse either of us as being intellectually lazy. CS Lewis offered an excellent intellectual defense in “Mere Christianity.”

          Theism, atheism, humanism, etc. all require faith. I respect any man who can answer for his faith. I’m certainly capable of answering for mine. If there is a God, you better believe that an answer will be expected of us.

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          Accur81, atheism requires faith the same way a TV requires power to be off. Or that abstinence requires a condom.

        3. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Grindstone, atheism requires faith that there is no power or authority in the universe that you will ever have to answer to. I’d say it not only requires faith, but arrogance too.

        4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Gov. William J. Le Petomane,

          Atheism is the ultimate expression of arrogance: it is an authoritative claim that God does not exist and an authoritative claim that something does not exist absolutely requires that the claimants are all knowing of all things in the universe and outside the universe.

          Remember, we cannot prove a negative. We can only prove that something exists with evidence. Lack of evidence does not mean that something cannot exist.

        5. avatar Grindstone says:

          Sir, you are playing with semantics. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. That is it. Period.

        6. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Absolutely Uc_S, preaching to the choir here. So to speak.

          And Grindstone, a lack of belief in deities is called ‘agnosticism’.

        7. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Paelorian,

          The Judeo-Christian depiction of God is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinitely holy, and infinitely loving. I think it is pretty safe to say that our tiny, feeble brains will not completely understand many of God’s choices and actions (or inaction).

          It might help to consider God and ourselves like parents and toddlers. Toddlers just want to have fun and don’t always understand why good parents do what good parents do. “But mom, that bottle of red liquid (poison) looks so good! Why can’t I have it?!?!? You’re mean! I don’t like you!” Does that toddler’s perspective make the parent’s action improper?

      4. avatar Geoff says:

        I love how entrenched people are on one side of the argument or the other. Is it impossible that both could be true? Could God who is infinitely powerful and intelligent, have set up a system so vast and complex that spawned a universe full of discrete systems and internally consistent rules. That this system would spawn intelligent life that would through curiosity seek to understand and explain the universe. Evolution can be part of intelligent design and so can Quantum Physics. All it takes is an open mind not closed to either side of the “Debate”.

        1. avatar DerryM says:

          Thanks. Geoff! Your comment is a breath of fresh air in a thread that was making me think these comments were copied from Post “Origin of Species” Victorian England and the Middle Ages.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Is it impossible that both could be true?

          I think that you will find that, while many Christians hold certain beliefs, they accept that God is ultimately beyond our comprehension, and is capable of using whatever means He deemed necessary to bring about creation.

          Further, you will find that the only ones utterly unwilling to consider even the possibility, much less allow the possibility to be discussed, are the militant atheists who malign those who believe in the possibility of intelligent design as unsophisticated, unintelligent rubes who bitterly cling to archaic writings of sand cults (or something).

    6. avatar Jesus says:

      I always love these sanctimonious rants from ammosexuals and the unwashed on the far right that can’t even spell words like “intelligent.” At least with liberal rants they can usually spell and have some original thoughts. Not this group; everyone here gets their political views straight out of Faux News. And their spelling from home schooling, it would appear.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        @Jesus:

        I always love these sanctimonious rants…

        Actually, the author schooled the Annoyed Lib Librarian on matters of law and fact, not morality. But don’t let pesky things like definitions interfere with your typical, liberal projection.

        …from ammosexuals…

        Speaking of which: rather than projecting your own sexual fetishes as a means to express your bigotry, perhaps you should consider professional help?

        …And their spelling from home schooling, it would appear.

        My daughters are home-schooled. My seven-year-old can read, write, and spell better than the representative sample of progressive internet commenters that find their way here from the fever swamp. And she’s a pretty good shot, as well.

  3. avatar ChuckN says:

    “And if any outside gun nuts try to bombard the comment
    section trying to educate everyone on the second
    amendment, I’ll approve the comment if you can prove
    you’re a Constitutional lawyer.”

    I know there are a few lawyers here on TTAG, could you
    comment to Annoyed Librarian’s article; especially if
    you’re a constitutional lawyer. I’d love to here her reaction.
    Assuming she allows and acknowledges you, of course.

    1. avatar Brad says:

      I wonder if Annoyed Librarian has a degree as a Constitutional lawyer. If not, by her own logic, she is disqualified from commenting on the second amendment.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        That was my thought as well. Either:

        1) All of her commenters are gun-control-advocating constitutional scholars
        2) She’s a hypocrite who wants to live in an echo chamber

  4. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Sounds like she’s got barrel envy. Or maybe it’s her rate of fire that’s left her wanting?

  5. avatar Buzzlefutt says:

    Librarians want a Constitution Free zone.

  6. avatar Jug says:

    Gun free zones are mass murderer’s wet dreams.

    Gun free zones are far the most dangerous places one can be in.

  7. avatar publius2 says:

    Thanks Bruce. Once again a comprehensive and enlightening discourse, bookmarked for future reference. A library item, you might say.

    Whenever a gun grabber starts using the term “gun nuts” I think, yep- “nuts” is absolutely right- and this lady librarian is just another example.

  8. avatar Another Robert says:

    Truly, anyone can write a blog, even a living, breathing, keyboard-stroking stereotype like this smugly-superior liberal “intellectual” who is as wedded to her own fact-averse cosmology as any Hottentot animist. But at least the Hottentots have an excuse.

  9. avatar Challengr says:

    So, I am not a constitutional lawyer yet, but I will be in a couple of months. Think I should pay her misguided post a visit?

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Why bother?

  10. avatar John Galt says:

    What is it with libraries and guns?

    Maybe it’s that guns represent things that are loud and could disturb librarians’ vivid imagination.

    In Virginia, we’ve had a delegate sponsor a bill every year trying to get guns banned from libraries statewide.

    Thankfully, every year it never makes it out of subcommittee.

    Shhhhh!

  11. avatar Nigil says:

    This is not sarcasm:
    If an assault rifle is defined as a lightweight, single man weapon, with an intermediate cartridge, and is capable of select fire; what would you call the Vietnam-era M14’s with pinned selectors (because full auto was too hold to control)?
    I bring this up to point out that I don’t think an “assault rifle” has to be capable of select fire. I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with a citizen having an assault rifle, they’re not just for assaulting encamped defenses.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      1) 7.62×51 is not an intermediate cartridge, 2) the M-14, like the FALL, was therefore classed as a battle rifle.

    2. avatar ropingdown says:

      She did not, however, correct her terminology when someone pointed out that assault rifles, as opposed to so-called assault weapons are actually select-fire weapons capable of full-auto fire.

      I had thought an assault weapon was, by definition, capable of full-auto fire, though of lesser power (and usually length) than an assault rifle or battle rifle. I considered a patrol rifle or patrol carbine, also called a modern sporting rifle, a firearm much like an assault weapon in appearance, but one that was not capable of full-auto fire. I consider an M-16A2 or M4 an assault weapon. I consider the M14 an assault rifle. I consider my little friend a patrol carbine or MSR. Are my definitions idiosyncratic?

      1. avatar Paelorian says:

        “Assault weapon” is a purely political term. It means nothing in weapons terminology. It is not a specific term. It means whatever the politicians are seeking to ban, and varies from Assault Weapons Ban to Assault Weapons Ban. Weapons that are not assault rifles are widely considered “Assault Weapons” in such laws. The primary distinguishing features of an assault rifles are select fire, being chambered for an intermediate cartridge, and being a shouldered weapon (i.e. having a stock). That is a cartridge between what have historically been considered “pistol power” and “rifle power” cartridges. Sometimes feeding from a detachable magazine and having an effective range of at least 300 meters are also considered defining features of an assault rifle.

  12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    The beauty is that we can just skip to the chase now. Gun grabbers keep claiming that gun owners — especially concealed carry licensees — are crazy, paranoid, corrupt, criminal, nuts, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. We have to throw that back at them with a simple question: so you (gun grabber) believe that one out of every 15 adults are crazy, paranoid, corrupt, criminal, nuts, right? Wait for their response. If they him and haw or ask additional questions, cut them off and say, “It is a simple question, yes or no. What is your response?”

    This puts them in a real bind because about one in every 15 adults has a concealed carry license in shall-issue states that have had their shall-issue laws in place for several years. Now the gun grabber has to admit that their claim is silly. Or the gun grabber has to prepare themselves mentally to doubt/fear pretty much everyone. At that point you can tell them, “And you claim that I am crazy, paranoid, corrupt, criminal, and/or nuts? Take a look in the mirror.”

  13. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    In another life, Shannon was a librarian with her hair up in a bun shhhhhhushing kids and getting excited about collecting fines for overdue books.

    1. avatar Gunr says:

      “getting excited about collecting fines” I guess that explains the stains on her nighty when she wakes up in the morning.

    2. avatar ropingdown says:

      ….or a French maid replete with costume, playing to a vulnerable public on behalf of her seignior, Monsieur Bloomberg. She offers to serve you lunch, but insists on taking your gun “for safe-keeping, so long as you are visiting Monsieur’s maison,” which maison is the entire damned country. She treats you like a guest in his house, not a citizen. She treats you like a fool.

      Truth be told, Bloomberg isn’t even offering you a lunch. He’s only offering you, to paraphrase The Venerable Bede, “a life of servility, and calling it a life of safety.” It is not difficult to comprehend why billionaires and their political servants are so eager to disarm everyone else, though unwilling to relinquish to us their control over the police forces and law-makers. They view themselves as eminently more capable of running your life, through the instrumentality of their Armed Guardian Corp, than you are. And more truthfully, they want to assure that no unthinking rabble might disenfranchise big-money politics, the buying of legislators and voters. Money that can buy laws is much more valuable than money that can merely buy yachts. There are no mysteries in political life, only realities hidden for the moment behind veils of man-made complexity.

  14. avatar Stinkeye says:

    Sounds like somebody’s just cranky that her chosen career will be obsolete before her student loans are paid off.

    1. avatar John Galt says:

      Reminds me of The Library Cop.

  15. avatar Chadwick P. says:

    Don’t burn catch-22!!! I love that book haha but seriously that’s the scariest part of this article. Well that and how dumb people are but I knew that already.

  16. avatar William says:

    I work in a library (no MLS, that’s my wife) and responded so we can see if my post makes it. I pointed out a few of the reasons I carry when I go as a patron rather than employee.

  17. avatar Lurker_OF_Lurkiness says:

    [joke] What do you need all those books for? Are you compensating for a small brain? [/joke]

  18. avatar Kyle says:

    Librarians generally are pretty left-wing. So things like guns are not something they are probably too fond of, I’d imagine. Unfortunately, this librarian is a victim of seeing open-carry advocates and not understanding them as often happens with many people and thinking they are nutcases and extremists.

  19. avatar Misnomer says:

    “And that, gun nuts, is why people don’t want you carrying guns in their public libraries. You see the public library as a dangerous place, and everyone else agrees, at least when you’re there.”

    This is a common fallacy with the anti-gunners. While it is possible an attack could take place in a library, I see this as more of a practical thing.

    Let’s say you put on your holster/gun in the morning and go about your day, which may or may not involve going into dangerous places. How practical is it for you to need to constantly take the holster off, and put it back on depending on where you go? What are the chances you are going to accidentally forget you’re wearing it when you walk into an establishment that doesn’t permit it? Nevermind the wonderful opportunity for a thief to get your firearm by breaking into your car (funny enough they like to blame gun owners for ‘allowing’ their guns to get stolen, but then force them to leave them in cars, which are very often targets for theft).

    Places restricting the natural right to bear arms just because they don’t see “need” are placing an onerous burden on those that choose to exercise it, for no reason. “Because it is cumbersome” may not be a great reason on its own, but it trumps the “why do you need it” argument in my opinion.

  20. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…And if any outside gun nuts try to bombard the comment section trying to educate everyone on the second amendment, I’ll approve the comment if you can prove you’re a Constitutional lawyer.”

    That seems an odd requirement. Is she only willing to discuss fire extinguishers with certified fire fighters? Or only willing to discuss auto safety with winning NASCAR drivers?

    And more importantly, what credentials has she offered us to convince us we should listen to a word she has to say?

    1. avatar DJ9 says:

      “And more importantly, what credentials has she offered us to convince us we should listen to a word she has to say?”

      Her degree, and vaunted position of gatekeeper to the depository of knowledge, of course!

      It sure isn’t based on personal experience of the subject matter…

  21. avatar AndrewinDC says:

    The author of Annoyed Librarian is an embarrassment to my profession.

  22. avatar British Gun Guy says:

    Posted a link to this article in the comments section. Hopefully, this paranoid wreck will read it and become better educated for the next time he/she/it decides to rant on about things they know nothing about.

  23. avatar Shire-man says:

    I’m a librarian. There are way too many authoritarians working in libraries. I don’t know how they got into this field but their attitude is antithetical to the job. Hopefully as they retire and die they will be replaced by people who actually value liberty and the free-exchange of knowledge and ideas or not be replaced at all because along with their authoritarianism they carry a huge stick up their rears that prevents them from adapting and will soon enough make them all obsolete.

  24. avatar New Chris says:

    As a public employee, I can’t take your opinion on gun seriously.

    You are paid because people with guns threaten to kill people and take their stuff if they don’t pay.

    I don’t consider the preferences of extortionists in my self defense calculations.

  25. avatar Parnell says:

    “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.” Doesn’t “shall not be infringed” explain the scope?

  26. avatar DerryM says:

    Isn’t it interesting how petty tyranny insinuates itself into every nook and cranny of society? I suppose it is caused by some innate need people have to self-aggrandize and thereby justify their existence. I wonder how much better our society would be if people just recognized that their existence is justified by the simple fact that they exist. Perhaps the Jewish God said it best, “I am that I am.”
    The root of all evil in human society is this “need” to have power over others and thereby make oneself feel “worthy”. Prime example is occupying the White House today.

  27. avatar 2maik7 says:

    “A while ago it was the homeschooling creationists who homeschooled their children to keep them from learning any science later than the Middle Ages.”

    Good! I’m always for throwing a little annoying facts in the face of people who create the next gereration of ant science, anti intellectual, brainwashed religous zealots who have no respect for science and facts when it contradicts their religous ideology.

    1. avatar Lucas D. says:

      Get back under your bridge, Troll.

  28. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    “Book ban” is largely a misnomer. Banned? Really? From what? From a required reading list? Every book ever written, save the several on any given required reading list, are “banned” by that standard. Banned from a public library? A school library? Same situation. There’s only so much shelf space to go around and many millions of books, for many millions of reasons, don’t make the cut.

    Now, if you’re talking about banning, under threat of violence backed by government agents with guns, anyone from owning, possessing, transporting or otherwise using a given work, even in the privacy of their own home, then you have something. After all, that would more closely resemble true bans on arms.

    A contemporary example would be preferred, however, not something from half+ century ago. Although, even in “Catcher’s” case, the the book every faux-bannerloved to “ban”, nevertheless was a New York Times Best Seller and readily available at bookstores. That not-really-banned-ness is kinda sorta how it was available to become a best seller.

    Anyway, a very nice article and a smashing rebuttal of the bibliosoph-ist’s prattling. Always a fan, Bruce. Just have to watch out for outsized analogies in points and counterpoints.

  29. avatar Jon says:

    Annoyed Librarian: says a lot about her.

    If I called myself Permanently-Pissed Restaurant Critic, should anyone really listen to what I have to say?… http://tinyurl.com/ny48wwm

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email