And as is often the case, if
someone writes a particularly lame article and they happen to have a twitter
account, I let them know in a kind and respectful way:
So, @garonsen you think the Jews of Germany BENEFITTED from being disarmed? allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2013/01/mother… #guncontrol #guncontrolnow #nowaynra
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 11, 2013
Okay, okay, I heckle them. So it started with me having a lot of fun at
his expense.
I mean with only a few guns, the jews of Warsaw held of the Nazis longer than the entire nation of Poland. @garonsen allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2013/01/mother…
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 11, 2013
Isn't there a chance that an armed, fierce resistance by the jews of german might have saved lives? @garonsen allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2013/01/mother…
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 11, 2013
& if i was a Jew facing holocaust, i might want to take a few of the nazi bastards with me @garonsen allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2013/01/mother…
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 11, 2013
And if the jews had no chance with armed resistance, why did Hitler bother to disarm them in Kristallnacht? @garonsen allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2013/01/mother…
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 11, 2013
And for once the target of the
hecking responded! Let the fun begin.
@aaronworthing You're just pretending that single sentence is my entire article.
— Gavin Aronsen (@garonsen) January 11, 2013
No, i am singling out the most preposterous part of your article, @garonsen, that Jews were better off unarmed against the Nazis.
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 11, 2013
@aaronworthing I already agreed that Spitzer's point is debatable. Beyond that you're just misrepresenting my article.
— Gavin Aronsen (@garonsen) January 11, 2013
That’s of course not a point he
made in the article. So we had a less
interesting back and forth asking when he said it was debatable. The answer was here:
@johneastborough I'll concede that Spitzer's "demise" point is clearly debatable, butlargely irrelevant to the validity of the argument.
— Gavin Aronsen (@garonsen) January 11, 2013
Okay, so then I asked:
Okay, I found it. twitter.com/garonsen/statu… @garonsen So doesn't admitting it is debatable undermine your whole point?
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
.@garonsen I mean if your point is that the holocaust wasn't at encouraged by disarming the jews, its undermined when you admit (cont)
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
(cont) that gee, it might have done them some good to have guns. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
Bottom line is that Hitler actively disarmed the jews. Logic suggests he did that to facilitate their slaughter. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
And if you agree with that bottom line, it undermines everything your article says. or if you just think my view is reasonable. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
@aaronworthing No.
— Gavin Aronsen (@garonsen) January 12, 2013
@aaronworthing In any event, it seems clear that you're ultimately just rationalizing comparing Obama to Hitler bit.ly/V20hAn
— Gavin Aronsen (@garonsen) January 12, 2013
Which is getting things exactly
backwards. I have felt that acting by
executive fiat, and taking guns away was Hitler-like, or more precisely standard
operating procedure for all dictators.
And then when Biden suggested Obama was thinking of doing exactly that,
I applied my pre-formed principles to the present (albeit only suspected right
now) facts. And believe you me, if
George W. Bush had done this, I would have said the same thing about him too.
So I wasn’t going to let this
sit:
No, we are pointing out that guns protect your lives and your freedom in the face of tyranny. @garonsen #guncontrolnow #nowaynra #guncontrol
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
Btw, was Judge Kozinsky of the 9th Circuit "rationalizing comparing Obama to Hitler" in 2003? @garonsen scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c…
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
What you are doing here, with your attempt to paint Alex Jones as typical of the right to tarring people who have (cont) @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
(cont) supported the right to bear arms as conspiracy minded crazies. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
But constitutional protections are not built for one day and for immeidate dangers, but for dangers that might be far away. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
Okay, so I had a dyslexic moment
on the spelling of “immediate.”
Seriously, do u think I only started liking the 2nd A in 2008? Or that i never noticed they disarmed the jews in germany in 2008? @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
Now i will admit i appreciate the 2nd A even more now i am being stalked, but i ALWAYS supported it. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
I mean my God, Kristallnacht was a gun siezure. And you think its invalid to cite nazi germany in opposing gun control? @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
So I was calling him out on the
first part of the article, citing Alex Jones.
Was it my imagination that he was trying to tar the whole right with
that? Well, first he denies it:
@aaronworthing Jones was just a news peg for the story, not an attempt to smear. But invoking Hitler w/r/t US gun laws is pretty paranoid.
— Gavin Aronsen (@garonsen) January 12, 2013
Now up until now in this piece I have strictly
stayed in chronological order, but I think it is worthwhile to go and follow
this specific thread of conversation. So
my first response to that was:
Yeah, which is why you tied him to Drudge, right? @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
@aaronworthing Drudge routinely links to Infowars.
— Gavin Aronsen (@garonsen) January 12, 2013
Infowars is Alex Jones’ paranoid
den. I don’t know if that is true (I saw
him do it once, that’s it), but assuming it was true...
So the answer is yes, you are trying to say Drudge buys into Alex Jones' truther-inspired silliness. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
This is your MO. try to paint those who want to protect us against tyranny as paranoid nutjobs. you just did that to me (cont) @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
(cont) and you did it to @tweetdrudge. you tried to say i thought Obama was hitler, you tried to say i thought he was (cont) @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
(cont) planning the overthrow of Democracy, even though the tweet you replied to implied the opposite. This isn't about (cont) @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
(cont) honest reporting with you, this is about scoring points on the other side. That is why you didn't even contradict (cont) @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
(cont) your expert who said that it was a good thing for the jews to be disarmed by the nazis. because you were blinded by (cont) @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
(cont) the need to score a point against the conservatives. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
@aaronworthing I have no interest in scoring cheap points against anyone. It's pretty apparent you're just trolling me.
— Gavin Aronsen (@garonsen) January 12, 2013
Yeah, right. And his excuse for needing a news peg was
bogus too:
And you didn't need Alex Jones to tie anything into the news, btw.you could have cited the drudge report banner alone. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
So we will come back to that in a
bit, but I think it was pretty clear that he pretty much admitted to what I
accused him of, that he was trying to smear the whole right as being like Alex
“Nutball” Jones.
But let’s backtrack to that
“paranoid” comment.
Btw, do you think Judge Kozinsky of the 9th Circuit is paranoid? scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c… @garonsen he invoked hitler in the same context.
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
And now you are pretending i said Obama wants to be a dictator. read the tweet again and again until you get it. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
you don't have to believe OBAMA wants to be a dictator to believe we should have protections against dictatorship. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
What you are doing is falsely implying that people who believe in constitutional protections for democracy are paranod. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
They really need to make it
possible to correct your spelling in a tweet.
Was Madison paranoid? Jefferson? Washington. They wrote these protections. and they feared federal tyranny down the road. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
And of course you know I can’t
let his claim I am trolling him pass:
No, you are trolling the entire right. You are trying to tar us as all being Alex Jones, all paranoid types. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
Btw, trutherism has always been more at home on the left. so who is paranoid? @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
People like you think that your family, friends and neighbors will go all "murdery" if they have a gun. Exactly who is paranoid? @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
Okay, I admit it. I have used that line before. Because it is a good line. To believe regular people can’t be trusted
with a gun is pretty paranoid.
What you call trolling is me attacking your article with facts and logical argument. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
Indeed you admitted that the lamest bit of your piece was "debatable." And then you call me a troll for pointing that out? @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
No what you call "trolling" is me challenging you and showing you to be full of it. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
Btw, @garonsen do you think Judge Kozinsky, a russian jew, had a right to invoke Stalin and the holocaust? scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c…
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
@aaronworthing Of course, why wouldn't I?
— Gavin Aronsen (@garonsen) January 12, 2013
Read Kozinsky's dissent. He's making the exact same point I am. and after Heller, it is controlling law. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
@aaronworthing I don't think it stands up to scrutiny for reasons I outlined in my article. I'm not trying to censor anyone. Nice chatting.
— Gavin Aronsen (@garonsen) January 12, 2013
Ah, so now you think Kozinsky SHOULDN'T have written that. it was invalid. @garonsen
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) January 12, 2013
Why do I get the feeling he didn't even read the link?
So what are we left with? Well, originally
his thesis was that “Of course, attempts to equate gun control with fascism are
bogus.” Now he admits a key component of
that argument—that taking guns from Jews paved the way for the holocaust—was a
debatable point. You can judge for
yourself who got the better of that “debate.”
And we have him essentially
admitting to what I accused him of right in the beginning of my post on this:
using Alex Jones to tar the right.
Combined that pretty
significantly undermines his piece.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs
due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an
attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up
to ten years. I know that claim sounds
fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these
claims using documentary and video evidence.
If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin
accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing,
mostly for snark and site updates. And
you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent
History here.
And you can read a little more about my novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of
reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the
appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something
else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t
believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
No comments:
Post a Comment