"Ugh, nobody is talking about taking your guns."

[OakRiver]

Thank you for improving the quality of not only this discussion, but all in which you participate!

Thank you. I'm a relative newcomer to firearms and this site has some very knowledgeable people who contribute so I'm happy to be here.

Bill Lamb from WDRB just repeated the title of this thread in his "opinion". He's a ****ing idiot. He also repeated the theme that the new executive actions close the gun show loophole and require background checks for everyone.

What I have found puts anti-gunners or Fudds in a tailspin is asking them what exactly do they mean by "gun show loophole" and then explaining why they are wrong. I had someone insist that the loophole was that it was never designed to allow sellers to gather in large numbers. When I asked him how that was different to a classifieds section he nearly blew a gasket

 

[yepthatsme]

I just ran into an anti-gunner the other day that was using Hawaii as an example. That everyone needs to transfer firearm ownership through an FFL with a thorough background check, every firearm needs to be registered, and every gun owner needs to be insured. If any of these laws are violated, it should be a minimum sentence of 10 years.

He said that none of these laws would be an infringement on the Second Amendment. I suggested that since he thought these all these laws were so great and they didn't infringe upon our rights, then maybe, we should apply them to our other rights as well. He just looked at me like I was crazy. I told him that's exactly how I felt when he told me about applying those laws to our Second Amendment rights. I think he still doesn't quite get it yet. I didn't think of it at the time, but I should have mentioned to him about South Carolina introducing legislation to register journalists.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

“Moderate Democrat” State Senator Steve Glazer: I Want to Start Taking Your Guns (SB 880) (01/26/2016)

 

[Mycroft]

Joe Huffman runs Boomershoot in Idaho and has a blog "The View From North Central Idaho". He's been collecting lefty statements like that for quite a while. Here's the link: The View From North Central Idaho | Ramblings on explosives, guns, politics, and sex by a redneck farm boy who became a software engineer.

 

[Lowe0]

Joe Huffman runs Boomershoot in Idaho and has a blog "The View From North Central Idaho". He's been collecting lefty statements like that for quite a while. Here's the link: The View From North Central Idaho | Ramblings on explosives, guns, politics, and sex by a redneck farm boy who became a software engineer.

I read through the blog for a bit, and these two statements stood out, separated by only one post between:

"This is what they think of you. If you don’t think like them you must be crazy and it’s off to the psych ward for you. It’s what Stalin did and it’s what they will do if they get the chance.—Joe"

"Many anti-gun people have mental health issues."

Help me out here. What good does it do to push back against the implication that gun ownership is due to some personal failing on our part, only to immediately turn around and do the exact same thing to those who oppose gun ownership?

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

I read through the blog for a bit, and these two statements stood out, separated by only one post between:

"This is what they think of you. If you don’t think like them you must be crazy and it’s off to the psych ward for you. It’s what Stalin did and it’s what they will do if they get the chance.—Joe"

"Many anti-gun people have mental health issues."

Help me out here. What good does it do to push back against the implication that gun ownership is due to some personal failing on our part, only to immediately turn around and do the exact same thing to those who oppose gun ownership?

The word "many" is operant. It's something you'll see a lot of, once you realize and understand it: they'll project their own consciously or unconsciously self perceived "limitations" on us. This is the best explanation I've been able to come up with for the frequent penis envy fixation. Many of them will, in fact, consider you dangerously mentally ill merely for considering it appropriate to own a firearm.

However, when you examine the "logic" and perceptions from which they operate, there is little question that they're seriously unable to connect cause and effect intellectually, and that they're operating from fundamentally flawed perceptions in the first place. I've seen statements made that seriously left me wondering how the person was capable of living without supervision.

In addition, many of them will put everyone with a firearm into the same box, while we know that most of them are not mentally defective, just misinformed. The arguments aren't just "I know you are but what am I", but rather observations made with better or worse logic applied to better or worse perceptions.

 

[Lowe0]

The word "many" is operant. It's something you'll see a lot of, once you realize and understand it: they'll project their own consciously or unconsciously self perceived "limitations" on us. This is the best explanation I've been able to come up with for the frequent penis envy fixation. Many of them will, in fact, consider you dangerously mentally ill merely for considering it appropriate to own a firearm.

However, when you examine the "logic" and perceptions from which they operate, there is little question that they're seriously unable to connect cause and effect intellectually, and that they're operating from fundamentally flawed perceptions in the first place. I've seen statements made that seriously left me wondering how the person was capable of living without supervision.

In addition, many of them will put everyone with a firearm into the same box, while we know that most of them are not mentally defective, just misinformed. The arguments aren't just "I know you are but what am I", but rather observations made with better or worse logic applied to better or worse perceptions.

There's a difference between being wrong and being mentally ill. It sinks the individual making such implications to the same level as those who ascribe gun enthusiasm to penis size.

 

[oldpink]

There's a difference between being wrong and being mentally ill. It sinks the individual making such implications to the same level as those who ascribe gun enthusiasm to penis size.

What else would you use to describe someone who projects his own warped psychology onto others?

 

[jamil]

I think if we're going to call it anything, probably "intellectual dishonesty" is the surest label.

 

[Lowe0]

What else would you use to describe someone who projects his own warped psychology onto others?

Why would I call them anything? They have a different opinion than I do. It happens.

Shouldn't someone be the bigger person?

 

[jamil]

Why would I call them anything? They have a different opinion than I do. It happens.

Shouldn't someone be the bigger person?

If they're saying that gun owners are mentally ill I don't think it's a bad thing to point out their folly and label them as intellectually dishonest.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

The thing is, and I tried to get at it a little, is there is a range of wrongness, from merely misinformed to what I don't have a problem speculating to be an actual mental defect or illness. The mentally ill are not the most of them, but many of the ones that bring attention to themselves have something wrong in the brain. I don't call names in that context, in fact I stay out of it, but saying that some of them are so round the bend that I think they need supervision is not an exaggeration. Just callin' 'em as I sees 'em.

 

[actaeon277]

If someone says no one wants your guns, point them to the CSGV comments on their Facebook page.

 

[oldpink]

Why would I call them anything? They have a different opinion than I do. It happens.

Shouldn't someone be the bigger person?

Look, I get it; you like playing nice with leftist scumbags, especially considering that you are very much a man of the left.
Have fun, knock yourself out.
I'm not joining you.

 

[Lowe0]

Look, I get it; you like playing nice with leftist scumbags, especially considering that you are very much a man of the left.
Have fun, knock yourself out.
I'm not joining you.

I think you're missing the point. Comments like "gun owners are compensating for small penises" harm the credibility of their arguments. Why give up an own-goal by doing the exact same thing?

 

[OakRiver]

If someone says no one wants your guns, point them to the CSGV comments on their Facebook page.

I'm worried it will give them ideas. Now they'll want our guns, and to SWAT us

 

[BugI02]

Look, I get it; you like playing nice with leftist scumbags, especially considering that you are very much a man of the left.
Have fun, knock yourself out.
I'm not joining you.

+1 oldpink

I think you're missing the point. Comments like "gun owners are compensating for small penises" harm the credibility of their arguments. Why give up an own-goal by doing the exact same thing?

When ones opponent fails to adhere to the rules of chivalry, then the constraints on ones own behavior are loosed as well

 

[Lowe0]

When ones opponent fails to adhere to the rules of chivalry, then the constraints on ones own behavior are loosed as well

Nonsense. That's the kind of argument 5 year olds make - "but they started it!". That's not the level of maturity I'd expect from someone bearing a lethal weapon.

And just when I thought I'd said my piece on this, Kurt Schlichter serves up more juvenile nonsense:

"And you’re infuriating people like that sanctimonious, Second Amendment-hating incompetent infesting the White House, which is great."

No, it isn't. There are plenty of positive reasons to own firearms. Enjoying the sport of shooting. Participating in family and national traditions of hunting and marksmanship. Being prepared for the worst case scenario. With so many positive reasons, why delight in annoying someone else?

"The über-beta editor of a well-known liberal website once chided me on Twitter for pointing out the fact that civilization walks on a tightrope over a chasm of chaos, telling me I was essentially nuts for thinking this could all fall apart much faster and much more violently than any of us imagine."

I find it difficult to take seriously anyone using the whole alpha/beta male schtick non-ironically, but really, what's the difference between referring to non-enthusiasts as insufficiently male, vs. the whole penis size thing again?

 

[BugI02]

But Lowe, the rules governing small scale conflict ARE the tightrope over the chaos you mention. You can fight bareknuckle using the Marquis de Queensbury's framework. You can fight with very deadly weapons indeed under the aegis of Chivalry or Bushido. But if your opponent is without honor, the code does not require your forebearance.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would like to suggest that there is plenty of room in the middle of the street here. I will readily agree that we cannot win if we allow ourselves to be forced into a sort of Marquis of Queensbury type of rules defined by Political Correctness while the other side recognizes no rules whatsoever and often relies on the most base forms of ad hominem and ridicule in substitution for an actual point. On the other hand, while it may be necessary to color outside, often well outside, of those arbitrary lines that the other side wishes to impose on us while not recognizing themselves, that does not mean that we cannot effectively combat the lowest common denominator without becoming the lowest common denominator. I am inclined to believe that a major part of effectively dealing with this situation is to set the rules regarding the standard of admission at the adult table, part of which is the abandonment of penile measurement as a substitution for having a relevant point regarding the actual issue under consideration.