Harold Fish Supporters and Gun Nuts Fire Back, and Help Prove My Point

picresized_1249132168_handguns.jpg
The NRA fanatics believe they can do whatever they want when they're packin'...

Crazy gun call #1

Crazy gun call #2

Crazy gun call #3

Crazy gun call #4? (Not clear, but maybe.)

Supporters of Harold Fish, the man I wrote about in this week's lead Bird item "Right to Kill," have been calling me with their outrage. Most are gun nuts incensed at my opinion of Fish and firearms wackos like themselves. So far, they've been spewing some venom on my phone mail, then hanging up. Check out the recordings up above.

In a couple of cases, they didn't block their phone numbers, so I was able to call them back. I left a message for one fella, asking him to return the favor and give me his last name so I could post it with his recording. He hasn't called back yet.

The second man I dialed picked up, but angrily refused to give me his name, hanging up on me when I suggested this was (ahem) less than courageous.

Interestingly, these knuckle-draggers have proved my point with their phone calls, being that they walk tall, carry a big gun, then wuss out when it comes to going on the record. It's far easier to make an anonymous call, yell into the phone, and hang up, rather then engage.

Many of the comments to the story have had the same effect as the callers. I particularly like the one by GT Hildebrand, who remarked the following:

"The gentleman [Fish] had a gun that protected him from the victims dogs. He didn't kill them he `dispersed' them. Then after he had clearly demonstrated he was armed the victim charged him? My thought would have been `He thinks he has something that trumps a pistol!'"

Essentially, GT is saying that because Grant Kuenzli was running toward Fish, and Fish was clearly armed, Kuenzli deserved to die. Kuenzli himself was not armed. No, I don't count the screwdriver he had in his pocket on that fateful day, any more than I would count someone's Swiss Army Knife or the keys on their key ring. And I don't count the dogs. They had been "dispersed,' as GT points out.

No, Fish did the cowardly thing when in 2004 he saw a man rushing toward him. He shot him three times in the chest. Fish was afraid of being hit with a clenched fist. That's not quite the same as someone wielding a gun, a knife or even a screwdriver.

Too many gun owners believe that might makes right, that because they have firepower, they are the law. Not in this society, they're not. That's why AG Terry Goddard is correct to try and return Harold Fish to the pen for the remainder of his ten years. (He was released recently after serving three.)

I should mention that I do know gun enthusiasts who are not aggro wackjobs. I have no problem with people owning guns for self defense, or whatever. But I have a problem when they assert that they have more rights than those who do not carry, as they are doing in the case of Harold Fish.

Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
2 comments
Andy
Andy

A New Times columnist you will forever be. You are a whining faggot that knows nothing about self defense. The New Times......for liberal nonsense and ads for the best deals on car audio equipment. You are a joke.

Itsquitepossible
Itsquitepossible

Dear Mr. Lemons,

I hardly doubt their complete agitation came from your opinion on firearms-- rather how you assert your opinions on firearms:

"gun nuts", 'wackos', "knuckle-draggers", 'wuss', 'aggro wackjobs', "was afraid of being hit with a clenched fist",

Nearly every paragraph in your article is laced with a demeaning adjective or a personal attack without actually stating a point that follows. Logic doesn't work like:

All X are Z,Y is an X,Therefore, Y is a gun-nut, whacko, knucle-dragger, wuss, angry wackjob and afraid of being hit with a clenched fist.

It's self-defeating to question another person's intelligence or state of mind while imitating that very same state of mind while doing it. You want constructive debate? Drop the emotionalism and state your points/assertions using objective vocabulary and proper syntax:

All X are Z,Y is a X,Therefore, Y is a Z.

Don't want constructive debate and prefers debate for debate's sake? Move along then-- nothing to see here.

Sincerely,Reality

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...