Standard leftist doctrine: "Don't blame him, YOU

twisted/changed/overemphasized what he said!"
Nozzofast, Guido:
Now, if you are aware of what Loomis actually did, you know it wasn’t just one Tweet (“head on a stick”) that got him in hot water.
As Professor Donald Douglas has explained, before Loomis deleted his Twitter account, it “was practically flooded with blood from all the violent tweets and retweets he’d been sending out.” Unless you consider Tweeting “Fuck the NRA” and re-Tweeting messages about “fuckers” deserving to be “beaten to death” to be appropriate forms of expression for an assistant professor of history, this meltdown was . . . well, arguably problematic.
When I said that the mentally ill should be in institutions, public universities weren’t the kind of institutions I had in mind.
 Oh, but they fit in so well there...
So the operative principle is clear: (A) it would be a crime against human liberty for Erik Loomis to be denied tenure at the University of Rhode Island merely because he’s a demented kook, and (B) no fair trying to talk back to Commissar Farley and the LG&M politburo.
“Intimidation,” anyone?


 Never forget what we're dealing with:
The exchange, during which Pratt remains admirably calm, pretty accurately reflects the general tenor of the current gun control debate, with raw emotionalism and invective pitted against skepticism and an attempt at rational argument. I am not saying that every supporter of gun control is a raving bully on the order of Piers Morgan, or even that Pratt is right. (You can judge that for yourself.) But proponents of new gun restrictions are countingon emotional appeals for victory, which is why they insist that action must be taken immediately, before the grief and outrage provoked by Adam Lanza's crimes starts to fade.
And they've got to be bleeding from the anus in outrage that, instead of falling into line, people are buying.  A lot.  And don't think "WE MUST BAN!!!" is the best idea.


Why are leftists, gun bigots and hoplophobes so violent?


In which AOL proves it doesn't know what the hell it's talking about, but wants to play anyway.
Second, we're joining with 750 mayors and other leaders in the Demand a Plan campaign to ban high volume assault weapons and require criminal background checks for firearms. This is a sensible idea and is in line with our commitment to family safety.
For anyone who might wander by who doesn't know, 'high volume assault weapons' is a phrase that really doesn't make sense, and if you go to a store to buy a firearm, YOU'VE HAD TO GO THROUGH A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR DECADES.
AOL, you can't even get credit for trying when you put up crap like this.


That nasty little twit Piers Morgan, who lies a lot and insults when presented with facts,
A: Doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, and
B: Seems to go with the standard gun-bigot theme of wanting to yell ONLY about deaths involving firearms; it's like being stabbed or beaten or strangled to death just doesn't count...