Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 25, 2018 16:37:04 GMT -5
It's actually pretty simple to explain the gun cult. Guns are phallic symbols, and depict men's attempts to compensate for their own feelings of inadequacy or loss of power. The bigger and more powerful, the better. Displaying them openly is an attempt to intimidate. These men feel emasculated by civilized society which de-emphasizes what they consider to be their more masculine traits and qualities. They no longer have the economic power to truly take charge of and control their own lives. They no longer have the ability to dominate women, either economically or sexually. Their way to compensate, to create the illusion of power and control, is to adopt something that they believe shows their strength and power. You can even call it "virility" or "potency" if you wish. They don't realize that real power does not require such artificial reinforcement. Don't believe me? Think about it. Even a lot of the terminology is the same. If I had to guess, I'd say that most hard-core gun people... are firing blanks somewhere. Is it only men who love their fire arms and carry? Sheesh....wonder where that leaves me. I own 2, one a .380 and the other a 9MM. On edit: And I also have my carry permit. My carry gun is a Glock 43 9MM. Do you walk around with an AR-15 type rifle with a bump or slide fire modification in your purse or tucked into your clothes? If you don't, I know I don't care what your carry and most of America doesn't care either.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2018 16:42:30 GMT -5
It's actually pretty simple to explain the gun cult. Guns are phallic symbols, and depict men's attempts to compensate for their own feelings of inadequacy or loss of power. The bigger and more powerful, the better. Displaying them openly is an attempt to intimidate. These men feel emasculated by civilized society which de-emphasizes what they consider to be their more masculine traits and qualities. They no longer have the economic power to truly take charge of and control their own lives. They no longer have the ability to dominate women, either economically or sexually. Their way to compensate, to create the illusion of power and control, is to adopt something that they believe shows their strength and power. You can even call it "virility" or "potency" if you wish. They don't realize that real power does not require such artificial reinforcement. Don't believe me? Think about it. Even a lot of the terminology is the same. If I had to guess, I'd say that most hard-core gun people... are firing blanks somewhere. Is it only men who love their fire arms and carry? Sheesh.... wonder where that leaves me. I own 2, one a .380 and the other a 9MM. On edit: And I also have my carry permit. My carry gun is a Glock 43 9MM. Do you fit the profile that was referenced? No? Then don't worry about it.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 25, 2018 17:18:04 GMT -5
I say the same thing about cell phones...why can't people put those damn things down for even a twenty minute car ride? But no, instead we have these idiots talking and texting at 80 miles per hour and then killing other people on the road! So why aren't we banning cell phones? They also aren't needed and are killing more people than guns! When a nutcase can go into a classroom and slaughter children with a cell phone, I’ll agree with you. OK, so I guess that old saying is true: one death is a tragedy, a thousand deaths is a statistic... And, apparently, if someone is killed when a texting driver crosses the center lane, they had it coming?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 25, 2018 17:19:50 GMT -5
I say the same thing about cell phones...why can't people put those damn things down for even a twenty minute car ride? But no, instead we have these idiots talking and texting at 80 miles per hour and then killing other people on the road! So why aren't we banning cell phones? They also aren't needed and are killing more people than guns! The vast majority of Americans have no desire to take away your guns. Just tighter control (who can buy them and who cannot) of semi-automatic and assault firearms. Distracted driving Cellphones and texting lawsMarch 2018 Talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving is banned in 15 states and the District of Columbia. The use of all cellphones by novice drivers is restricted in 38 states and the District of Columbia. Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 47 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, novice drivers are banned from texting in one state (Missouri). Many localities have enacted their own bans on cellphones or text messaging. In some but not all states, local jurisdictions need specific statutory authority to do so. In addition, most school bus drivers are banned from texting and using hand-held cellphones by state code, regulation or school district policy. The table and maps below show the states that have cellphone laws, whether they specifically ban text messaging, and whether they are enforced as primary or secondary laws. Under secondary laws, an officer must have some other reason to stop a vehicle before citing a driver for using a cellphone. Laws without this restriction are called primary. Link to maps: linkIs this link to prove how more laws and regulations are pointless? Because that's pretty much what it does. All of these states' laws against talking/texting while driving and millions of people still do it.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 25, 2018 17:24:22 GMT -5
I say the same thing about cell phones...why can't people put those damn things down for even a twenty minute car ride? But no, instead we have these idiots talking and texting at 80 miles per hour and then killing other people on the road! So why aren't we banning cell phones? They also aren't needed and are killing more people than guns! Actually...and it is a great example of how some regulations on a topic does not have to be a game ender or big changer....in Connecticut it is against the law to use a cell to the ear and drive...and they will stop and issue tickets..good sixe fine...possible other States too but Ct I know is a fact...U can do a hands off communication...many cars have that feature I believe..I know my son uses that feature...my daughter too...she is in Mass. ...am guessing grand kids too... You are correct that it is a very dangerous thing...all States should have that on their books....same as the seat belt law...think all states have that as a law...if not then for shame on them... Alright then if someone uses an assault-style rifle to attack someone, then we'll give them a hefty fine. We already have laws on the books if someone murders someone else no matter what weapon they use.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 25, 2018 17:58:48 GMT -5
The vast majority of Americans have no desire to take away your guns. Just tighter control (who can buy them and who cannot) of semi-automatic and assault firearms. Distracted driving Cellphones and texting lawsMarch 2018 Talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving is banned in 15 states and the District of Columbia. The use of all cellphones by novice drivers is restricted in 38 states and the District of Columbia. Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 47 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, novice drivers are banned from texting in one state (Missouri). Many localities have enacted their own bans on cellphones or text messaging. In some but not all states, local jurisdictions need specific statutory authority to do so. In addition, most school bus drivers are banned from texting and using hand-held cellphones by state code, regulation or school district policy. The table and maps below show the states that have cellphone laws, whether they specifically ban text messaging, and whether they are enforced as primary or secondary laws. Under secondary laws, an officer must have some other reason to stop a vehicle before citing a driver for using a cellphone. Laws without this restriction are called primary. Link to maps: linkIs this link to prove how more laws and regulations are pointless? Because that's pretty much what it does. All of these states' laws against talking/texting while driving and millions of people still do it. You said we aren't banning cell phones. We are banning the use of cell phones while driving. That people still do is against the law. Prosecure them when caught.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 0:50:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 18:43:58 GMT -5
I say the same thing about cell phones...why can't people put those damn things down for even a twenty minute car ride? But no, instead we have these idiots talking and texting at 80 miles per hour and then killing other people on the road! So why aren't we banning cell phones? They also aren't needed and are killing more people than guns! When a nutcase can go into a classroom and slaughter children with a cell phone, I’ll agree with you. Ask and ye shall receive... Google "cell phone bomb trigger". There you go. Some nutcase can slaughter children via cell phone.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 0:50:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 18:49:46 GMT -5
Chasing and imaginary threat!!! So what is next when they find that they managed to bring guns under control, people still manage to kill each other? They will find comfort that the body count is less. Unless it's not less, of course... then what?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 25, 2018 18:54:13 GMT -5
They will find comfort that the body count is less. Unless it's not less, of course... then what? Unicorns.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 0:50:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2018 19:08:01 GMT -5
Unless it's not less, of course... then what? Unicorns. Perfect answer. A fantasy response for a fantasy solution. Limiting gun ownership by the law abiding will have ZERO impact on people intent upon breaking the law. Maybe we should send unicorns to round up the lawbreakers.... it would be just as useful as more anti-gun laws.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 25, 2018 19:30:10 GMT -5
Chicago, Has all the gun laws in place, it is that imaginary gun free safe place, That makes it one of the safest places in the World, Right?? Tell me again how this gun control thing is going to work. Oh come on! Surely, even you can understand why a "gun-free city" can't possibly work! Are there border guards surrounding the city, checking everything that goes in or out, like the Canada-US border crossing, where cars are searched for weapons coming in to Canada? And then confiscated? Or can any idiot with a truck full of weaponry just drive into the city, as easy as you please? If it's the latter, what the hell is the point? It's a meaningless designation which does absolutely nothing. A few weeks ago we were discussing the fact that any gang, crime syndicate, or lone wolf with $50K in capital can machine a high-quality pistol every 6-8 hours in perpetuity. Europe has some of the toughest gun control laws on Earth, and the perpetrators of the many terrorist acts over there (including the one from last week) are invariably armed with high-powered pistols and machine guns. Do you honestly think nationwide gun laws in the US will stop Chicago gang bangers from obtaining high-powered firearms? That's not a rhetorical question.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 25, 2018 19:40:31 GMT -5
It's actually pretty simple to explain the gun cult. Guns are phallic symbols, and depict men's attempts to compensate for their own feelings of inadequacy or loss of power. The bigger and more powerful, the better. Displaying them openly is an attempt to intimidate. These men feel emasculated by civilized society which de-emphasizes what they consider to be their more masculine traits and qualities. They no longer have the economic power to truly take charge of and control their own lives. They no longer have the ability to dominate women, either economically or sexually. Their way to compensate, to create the illusion of power and control, is to adopt something that they believe shows their strength and power. You can even call it "virility" or "potency" if you wish. They don't realize that real power does not require such artificial reinforcement. Don't believe me? Think about it. Even a lot of the terminology is the same. If I had to guess, I'd say that most hard-core gun people... are firing blanks somewhere. Is it only men who love their fire arms and carry? Sheesh....wonder where that leaves me. I own 2, one a .380 and the other a 9MM. On edit: And I also have my carry permit. My carry gun is a Glock 43 9MM. Your guns are a symbol of perky, empowered breasts, and they depict your attempt to compensate for your feelings of inadequacy and powerlessness. You feel you're not manly enough, and packing heat is your means of turning yourself into a man. You lack the power to truly take charge and control your own life. You can no longer dominate men, either economically or sexually. Your way of compensating, to create the illusion of power and control, is by adopting something you believe shows your strength and power. You could even call it "fertility" if you wish. Don't believe me? Good. This is my impression of Tall channeling Sigmund Freud. Everything was phalluses, perky breasts, and oedipal complexes in his world too.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 25, 2018 19:47:22 GMT -5
Not even close, but you know that.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 25, 2018 21:34:02 GMT -5
I say the same thing about cell phones...why can't people put those damn things down for even a twenty minute car ride? But no, instead we have these idiots talking and texting at 80 miles per hour and then killing other people on the road! So why aren't we banning cell phones? They also aren't needed and are killing more people than guns! The vast majority of Americans have no desire to take away your guns. Just tighter control (who can buy them and who cannot) of semi-automatic and assault firearms. Distracted driving Cellphones and texting lawsMarch 2018 Talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving is banned in 15 states and the District of Columbia. The use of all cellphones by novice drivers is restricted in 38 states and the District of Columbia. Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 47 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, novice drivers are banned from texting in one state (Missouri). Many localities have enacted their own bans on cellphones or text messaging. In some but not all states, local jurisdictions need specific statutory authority to do so. In addition, most school bus drivers are banned from texting and using hand-held cellphones by state code, regulation or school district policy. The table and maps below show the states that have cellphone laws, whether they specifically ban text messaging, and whether they are enforced as primary or secondary laws. Under secondary laws, an officer must have some other reason to stop a vehicle before citing a driver for using a cellphone. Laws without this restriction are called primary. Link to maps: linkWhat Would we do without laws that keep people from texting?? What a joke, the truck I drive sits high, the number of people texting is unbelievable, on top of that they are speeding, Yea,, those laws really work..LOL.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 25, 2018 21:40:13 GMT -5
I am a Liberal and there are guns in my house. We are in a rural area & the guns are used for hunting (for food, not sport). I refused to allow guns in the house while my son was young. The guns are also secured, locked in a gun safe, with the ammo kept in a separate location in the house. As I've also said before, my hubby agreed with all of this because his younger brother was accidentally shot by a friend when he was a teen. gun control isn't "coming to take everyone's gun". No matter how many times people try to claim it is. Another liberal (leaning) here who also owns guns. Was brought up with guns in the house and so was my son. We have lived rural most of our lives, but not always, but there have always been guns in the house and NOT locked up cause they won't do me any good if I need one in a hurry. Some are distributed through the house in various places. I, my son and my grandchildren were all taught to shoot, how to do it safely, how to break down & clean each gun and NOT to shoot at anyone at any time unless your life was in danger. My son learned a hard lesson when he was young....he pointed his bb rifle at a cousin, his Dad took it from him & bent the barrel by hitting the side of a wheelbarrow with it. He didn't get another bb gun until he understood he would NEVER point it at anyone. I have been robbed by gun point in a grocery store, I've used a long gun to dissuade a trespasser, I carry a gun in my vehicle as some parts of town I drive through are NOT safe (drugs), my parents both died by suicide with guns (Mother when I was 4-5 & Father when I was 15). First hubby hunted, present one doesn't....but we live at least 30 min. from the local sheriff's station and could be dead before they get here if we can't protect ourselves. We do have dangerous critters around though...such as rattle snakes and possible rabid foxes or coons, so DH often carries here on our land. I totally agree with strong gun control, especially background checks & even mental health procedures too! There is NO training required to get licensed in my state...you go fill out the forms, get finger printed, they run a background check, you pay your $$$ and it will come in the mail in a couple of weeks. Good for you!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 25, 2018 21:40:57 GMT -5
... What Would we do without laws that keep people from texting?? What a joke, the truck I drive sits high, the number of people texting is unbelievable, on top of that they are speeding, Yea,, those laws really work..LOL. You are in Arizona aren't you?
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,481
|
Post by NastyWoman on Mar 25, 2018 23:53:24 GMT -5
The vast majority of Americans have no desire to take away your guns. Just tighter control (who can buy them and who cannot) of semi-automatic and assault firearms. Distracted driving Cellphones and texting lawsMarch 2018 Talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving is banned in 15 states and the District of Columbia. The use of all cellphones by novice drivers is restricted in 38 states and the District of Columbia. Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 47 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, novice drivers are banned from texting in one state (Missouri). Many localities have enacted their own bans on cellphones or text messaging. In some but not all states, local jurisdictions need specific statutory authority to do so. In addition, most school bus drivers are banned from texting and using hand-held cellphones by state code, regulation or school district policy. The table and maps below show the states that have cellphone laws, whether they specifically ban text messaging, and whether they are enforced as primary or secondary laws. Under secondary laws, an officer must have some other reason to stop a vehicle before citing a driver for using a cellphone. Laws without this restriction are called primary. Link to maps: linkWhat Would we do without laws that keep people from texting?? What a joke, the truck I drive sits high, the number of people texting is unbelievable, on top of that they are speeding, Yea,, those laws really work..LOL. By that reasoning why have any laws at all? Let us rip up all laws and see what that brings us. And lest we forget, the Constitution is the grand daddy of all laws of the land. Out with it...
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Mar 26, 2018 0:03:20 GMT -5
Actually...and it is a great example of how some regulations on a topic does not have to be a game ender or big changer....in Connecticut it is against the law to use a cell to the ear and drive...and they will stop and issue tickets..good sixe fine...possible other States too but Ct I know is a fact...U can do a hands off communication...many cars have that feature I believe..I know my son uses that feature...my daughter too...she is in Mass. ...am guessing grand kids too... You are correct that it is a very dangerous thing...all States should have that on their books....same as the seat belt law...think all states have that as a law...if not then for shame on them... Alright then if someone uses an assault-style rifle to attack someone, then we'll give them a hefty fine. We already have laws on the books if someone murders someone else no matter what weapon they use. I was under the impression we were here to have real, logical discussions..not to just snap at each other like children....your comment makes no sense and u know it.....there are millions taking time out to demonstrate that they want some kind of action regarding firearms here in the country... Few are asking to taking fire arms away from the populace...just controls like we have on many aspects of our lives.....U need a license and have to demonstrate proficiency in the use of vehicles..Doctors, Lawyers , CPA's and many other professions need to pass tests showing their proficiencies in these field...also need license to practice their profession... So they are asking for back ground checks for those obtaining weapons....limiting certain type of weapon from being obtained by civiliens...We have had machine guns being unavailable for decades....no biggie...so why not some other restrictions... Second amendment was written in 1790's...it's now 2018...quite a bit of changes in that time ....so what is so wrong in tweaking and protecting us from some advances in the field that we have seen have caused horrific losses to the youngest of our citizens.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 26, 2018 7:03:40 GMT -5
What Would we do without laws that keep people from texting?? What a joke, the truck I drive sits high, the number of people texting is unbelievable, on top of that they are speeding, Yea,, those laws really work..LOL. By that reasoning why have any laws at all? Let us rip up all laws and see what that brings us. And lest we forget, the Constitution is the grand daddy of all laws of the land. Out with it... Laws are only as good as the people that obey that law, So the solution is to add more laws that the same people that did not obey in the first place won't obey those laws either. My stance on gun laws is any thing that erode my right as a law bidding person, I will fight. It is real simple, those that break the law will continue to break the law!! Comments like "we aren't going to take your guns away" Clinton, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Feinstein, and a host of other have stated exactly that if given the power they will take my guns!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2018 8:08:49 GMT -5
Not even close, but you know that. I changed male to female and reproduced your post point-for-point.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 26, 2018 9:17:00 GMT -5
Not even close, but you know that. I changed male to female and reproduced your post point-for-point. It was an excellent post Virgil It most certainly showed the hypocrisy that is present on this board!
|
|
Cheesy FL-Vol
Junior Associate
"Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." -- Helen Keller
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:13:50 GMT -5
Posts: 6,815
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":""}
|
Post by Cheesy FL-Vol on Mar 26, 2018 9:29:09 GMT -5
I say the same thing about cell phones...why can't people put those damn things down for even a twenty minute car ride? But no, instead we have these idiots talking and texting at 80 miles per hour and then killing other people on the road! So why aren't we banning cell phones? They also aren't needed and are killing more people than guns! Actually...and it is a great example of how some regulations on a topic does not have to be a game ender or big changer....in Connecticut it is against the law to use a cell to the ear and drive...and they will stop and issue tickets..good sixe fine...possible other States too but Ct I know is a fact...U can do a hands off communication...many cars have that feature I believe..I know my son uses that feature...my daughter too...she is in Mass. ...am guessing grand kids too... You are correct that it is a very dangerous thing...all States should have that on their books....same as the seat belt law... think all states have that as a law...if not then for shame on them... Not NH: www.lfda.org/issues/seat-belt-law
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,481
|
Post by NastyWoman on Mar 26, 2018 10:02:40 GMT -5
By that reasoning why have any laws at all? Let us rip up all laws and see what that brings us. And lest we forget, the Constitution is the grand daddy of all laws of the land. Out with it... Laws are only as good as the people that obey that law, So the solution is to add more laws that the same people that did not obey in the first place won't obey those laws either. My stance on gun laws is any thing that erode my right as a law bidding person, I will fight. It is real simple, those that break the law will continue to break the law!! Comments like "we aren't going to take your guns away" Clinton, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Feinstein, and a host of other have stated exactly that if given the power they will take my guns! Again, by that token why have any law? It is illegal to murder someone, yet people do it. Having sex with a minor is illegal, yet people do it. It is illegal to speed, yet people do it. And I could go on and on. Show me a law and someone will have broken it. The interesting part of your statement though is that you oppose any law that would potentially curb the power of another law. Go figure
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2018 10:26:08 GMT -5
I changed male to female and reproduced your post point-for-point. It was an excellent post Virgil It most certainly showed the hypocrisy that is present on this board! It's not that Tall doesn't have a point (Freudian crap about phallic symbols and sexual domination notwithstanding). I'm sure we've all witnessed the insecurity and gun-related machismo he's describing at one time or another. The "idjit with muh gun" with an M-16 and 70 pounds of ordnance strapped to his body, strutting around basking in the attention of an uneasy public. But to proffer it as a general explanation for firearm hobbyism with no disclaimers: no different than AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP 's demonization of liberals, which Tall despises.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 0:50:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2018 12:35:09 GMT -5
... The day you can show me, we have a problem with guns running around shooting people by themselves,,, then I will listen to your gun control argument.. ... You contradict yourself. You give critique of gun control arguments. You can't do that without first listening to them. I immediately saw the error, in the premise that removing inanimate objects was common sense. (From the OP's first line, as a gun control/safety, argument.) That needs to be addressed first. Edit; Everything that followed seemed to be the usual tit for tat on this subject.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 26, 2018 13:39:16 GMT -5
Not even close, but you know that. I changed male to female and reproduced your post point-for-point. I quoted a segment which should have adequately shown to anyone objective about the issue the subset of gun owners being referenced. You were unsure so asked for clarification. I further clarified it so that there should have been no doubt. I also saw the other post and stated that the poster was not part of that profile. You then responded to that same poster twisting the example to try and make it apply when I already stated that it didn't. That seems reasonable and responsible to you? It is no more logically valid than to ask if your family doctor scheduled your mammogram and Pap smear, or asked about your IUD. I just changed female (your wife) to male (you) and reproduced the conversation point-for-point. Same logic you are using. Same stupid result. This stupid sh** you try to do may work on some people. Has there been anything in our long history that has ever suggested it would ever work on me? There were multiple disclaimers. Did you miss them? I specifically stated that it was not a general rule for all gun owners, but merely a subset.
|
|
Artemis Windsong
Senior Associate
The love in me salutes the love in you. M. Williamson
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:32:12 GMT -5
Posts: 12,347
Today's Mood: Twinkling
Location: Wishing Star
Favorite Drink: Fresh, clean cold bottled water.
|
Post by Artemis Windsong on Mar 26, 2018 15:40:59 GMT -5
Common sense is for the generation that is using gun violence to solve their inner demons to find respect for their fellow man.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 26, 2018 17:21:12 GMT -5
I changed male to female and reproduced your post point-for-point. I quoted a segment which should have adequately shown to anyone objective about the issue the subset of gun owners being referenced. You were unsure so asked for clarification. I further clarified it so that there should have been no doubt. I also saw the other post and stated that the poster was not part of that profile. You then responded to that same poster twisting the example to try and make it apply when I already stated that it didn't. That seems reasonable and responsible to you? It is no more logically valid than to ask if your family doctor scheduled your mammogram and Pap smear, or asked about your IUD. I just changed female (your wife) to male (you) and reproduced the conversation point-for-point. Same logic you are using. Same stupid result. This stupid sh** you try to do may work on some people. Has there been anything in our long history that has ever suggested it would ever work on me? There were multiple disclaimers. Did you miss them? I specifically stated that it was not a general rule for all gun owners, but merely a subset. My friend: - The scope of your diatribe wasn't "adequately shown" when posted, and came with no disclaimers, hence my statement.
- Your post is ridiculous, whether it refers to "hard-core, assault-type weapon, open-carry statement-makers" or not. Swapping the gender of the group you were psychoanalyzing seemed the quickest way to demonstrate this. You wouldn't be caught dead using comparable language to describe a group of women, and I hoped you'd realize it's no more reasonable when applied to a group of men.
Having said this, I shouldn't have posted the parody in the second person as a reply to BG. You did clearly except her.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 27, 2018 8:38:06 GMT -5
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 27, 2018 9:02:38 GMT -5
|
|