Check this from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence’s blog [bolded text de-bolded]: “Robert Farago, a pro-gun blogger at ‘The Truth About Guns,’ has also been on a crusade against MDA because of their focus on domestic violence, writing a series of angry posts on October 7, October 9, and October 20. “There’s no level of emotional manipulation to which they won’t sink to achieve [their] goal,” Farago wrote in his October 7th post, to which commenter “niceguns” responded, “Moms demand action. we reserve the right to be bitches without any repercutions. How would you like to be married to one of those bitches.” You see what they did there? Well for one thing they linked to TTAG. Yay us! But they also used a comment to undermine any constructive criticism. And they did it again . . .
On October 9th, Farago decried an editorial (“Time to Block Gun Violence Against Women”) that MDA founder Shannon Watts wrote for Reuters along with Chelsea Parsons of the Center for American Progress.A commenter calling himself “Dirk Diggler” then posted Shannon’s home address and suggested gun owners go there. Farago let that comment stand, along with others that were sexually aggressive in nature.
Farago got down and dirty with his audience in his October 20th post, which dealt with his participation in the “Line in the Sand” rally organized by Open Carry Texas and other insurrectionist pro-gun groups at the Alamo on October 19, 2013. At that event, Farago encountered a Moms Demand Action activist who stopped by (MDA was holding its own rally that day in San Antonio) “At first I thought the Mom from Moms Demand Action was just being a bitch,” Farago recalled, referencing the fact that the MDA activist refused to consent to an interview with him for his blog. Farago then mocked her for confessing that she was frightened by the sight of hundreds of heavily armed Americans preaching armed revolution at the famed battle site. Referring to her as a “hoplohphobe”—a term made up by misogynist/ultra-racist NRA board member Jeff Cooper to describe an individual with an “irrational” fear of guns—Farago explained that she sought him out that day because she “want[ed] an alpha to take control.”
Perhaps Farago is unaware that violence—like his pointed accusations—is used as a way of demeaning and controlling women, to keep them in a subordinate position to men. Or maybe he simply fails to appreciate irony.
Oh please. I did not mock the Mom in any way, shape or form. In fact, I humanized her for a normally antagonistic audience. And, of course, I know that violence is a way of demeaning and controlling women. As it is for men and children. A method used by criminals, governments and (especially) criminal governments. Which is why I’m for arming all free people.
Anyway, the antis’ post raises an important question: should we delete comments that flame people who advocate for civilian disarmament?
TTAG’s current flaming policy is clear: no flaming the site, its authors or fellow commentators. On occasion, I extend that to remove comment about non-community members: those who would curtail or eliminate Americans natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. I usually save the delete key for those times when the comment is sexist, racist or just plain nasty. But most of the time I let it slide. I figure The People of the Gun need a safe place to vent.
The CSGV post highlights the danger of this editorial freedom: gun control advocates can use anti-gun control flames to accuse gun rights supporters of being Neanderthals whose arguments are not worthy of consideration. On one hand, who cares? The CSVG is an echo chamber. Anyone reading their site already holds that opinion. On the other hand, shouldn’t we seek the moral high ground?
Truth be told, TTAG’s a bit of an echo chamber too. Although we never censor comments for editorial slant and protect pro-gun control commentators from flames, there aren’t a whole lot of MikeB302000’s around (if you know what I mean). By elevating the tone of our comments—by removing ones that play in the gutter—we might attract more fence-straddlers.
I dunno. I like you guys. I appreciate the anger and vitriol against gun control advocates. They are, after all, putting our lives and the lives of our loved ones in peril. Their agenda threatens the liberty for which our ancestors fought and died. For which many members of our curent military fight. But maybe we need to police ourselves a little better to show that we won’t sink to their level. [Note: I know exactly how nasty the grabbers can be.] What’s your take on this?