Anti-gunners say...

[2tonic]

Hmmmm.....lHmmmm.....lectures on responsibility from a protein module who probably doesn't pay his Netflix bill on time.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I bet that his mother wouldn’t let him play with the original "Colonial Viper” and “Cylon Raider” models that actually launched plastic missiles (too dangerous for Andy-baby).

I have to remove this excuse. When I was a kid, both my parents were very liberal, to the point that a regular request from me each December was for a "real gun". I wasn't even allowed a BB gun (probably from fears of "You'll shoot your eye out!" or similar) My mother is still unhappy that I carry now, not that she still gets a say in the matter, not for many years. She also, when I voiced once my regret that I had not signed up to serve when I was young enough to do so, replied, "You mean you could have gone off and gotten killed!" Not to disparage them, I can't fault people who showed the love for their children in the best way they knew how, but rather to set the stage to say that what toys you were and were not allowed does not automatically mark you as an anti. In short, some things you can blame on Mommy and Daddy, but at some point, you become responsible for your own choices, and in his case, his own idiocy. In my case, I realized my errors and why they were such, too late to make a difference in that area of my life, but I did see the value of personal responsibility far younger, and learned not to project my own irrationalities and/or shortcomings onto others.


And no, I didn't start carrying to spite the restrictions of my childhood. :-D I started carrying because I didn't want to be the victim of others who had yet to learn that the playing of stupid games results in the winning of stupid prizes. I mean, who wants as a prize, a small chunk of lead moving rapidly in one's direction?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[2A_Tom]

My dad was a liberal democrat pacifist, If he said it to me once he said it a million times, "Tommy, every stick yu pick up is a gun".

The first gun I ever fired was an M 16 and the first pistol was a M1911A1.

 

[MCgrease08]

Someone please tell me this is satire. If not, this may be the most idiotic argument for repeal of the Second Amendment I have ever read. And that's saying a lot.

This guy is in Indiana too. Geez.

Column: Firearms have no place in civilized society. We should repeal the 2nd Amendment

Guest columnist argues the only way to address gun violence in the U.S. is to rewrite gun laws, starting with repealing the Second Amendment.

amp.heraldtimesonline.com

 

[actaeon277]

Someone please tell me this is satire. If not, this may be the most idiotic argument for repeal of the Second Amendment I have ever read. And that's saying a lot.

This guy is in Indiana too. Geez.

Column: Firearms have no place in civilized society. We should repeal the 2nd Amendment

Guest columnist argues the only way to address gun violence in the U.S. is to rewrite gun laws, starting with repealing the Second Amendment.

amp.heraldtimesonline.com

Nope. Serious.
A youtuber even commented about it.


Someone should point out to him..

Why the gun is civilization.

America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership

jpfo.org

Why the Gun is Civilization.​

By Marko Kloos​

Reproduced by permission of the author.​

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.


In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.


When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.


There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.


Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.


When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

 

[2tonic]

Only by the grace if God, or the luck of fools, could a person with that unformed a sense of humanity, that lack of self perception, that unwound a spring of logic, that opaque a view of reality, survive more than a year beyond the date on which parental caretaking ceased.
His pointless existence is validated by his complete inability to grasp the order of nature, the definition of a "right", and the Socratic method of constructing an argument.
Like all leftwits........
He's right because he says he's right. DON'T YOU GET IT?




Edit to add: referring to Mr.Shriver from post #404

 

[Mikey1911]

Only by the grace if God, or the luck of fools, could a person with that unformed a sense of humanity, that lack of self perception, that unwound a spring of logic, that opaque a view of reality, survive more than a year beyond the date on which parental caretaking ceased.
His pointless existence is validated by his complete inability to grasp the order of nature, the definition of a "right", and the Socratic method of constructing an argument.
Like all leftwits........
He's right because he says he's right. DON'T YOU GET IT?




Edit to add: referring to Mr.Shriver from post #404

What we have in "Paul Shriver, EdD" is proof of something about which Calvin Coolidge warned:

" . . . the world is full of educated derelicts."

 

[Vodnik4]

Nope. Serious.
A youtuber even commented about it.


Someone should point out to him..

Why the gun is civilization.

America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership

jpfo.org

Why the Gun is Civilization.​

By Marko Kloos​

Reproduced by permission of the author.​

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.


In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.


When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.


There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.


Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.


When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Compare the two pieces.
One is smug, devoid of any information or reasoning, and as mentioned above, claims “I’m right because I’m right”. That crap can’t even be argued against.
The other piece is well-thought out, with multiple historical examples. But because it’s real, it can be shouted down and argued with. That’s why we lose — we are too decent.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Someone please tell me this is satire. If not, this may be the most idiotic argument for repeal of the Second Amendment I have ever read. And that's saying a lot.

This guy is in Indiana too. Geez.

Column: Firearms have no place in civilized society. We should repeal the 2nd Amendment

Guest columnist argues the only way to address gun violence in the U.S. is to rewrite gun laws, starting with repealing the Second Amendment.

amp.heraldtimesonline.com

He is a psychologist, and many of his colleagues are also of similar mind. Interestingly, it is anecdotally said that many who enter mental health do so to analyze themselves. I leave it to others to decide if those two ideas are related..

At one time, my late wife was in the office of a psychiatrist. Not knowing the leanings of such people, and knowing that many physicians are in fact, gun owners, I made a general, somewhat vague comment about obtaining a LTCH. {which my wife either recently had or was in the process of obtaining.) The doctor very clearly voiced that if she ever became aware of any of her patients having received that license, she would immediately contact the state and have it revoked. Blanket policy, facts or details unimportant. The fact was that she didn't like guns and so was not above abusing her authority to ensure that as many people as possible would be denied the ability to lawfully carry them. I did not at the time consider that she might have thought that doing this prevented people from obtaining them lawfully, but it would not surprise me.

(I was in the grocery today and someone there referred to us as "little Chicago", referring to it being windy. I replied that I did not believe we would ever be such, as too many here are willing and able to lawfully defend what is theirs. It turned out that her son was shot at some point, with some fairly massive organ damage. She went on to explain that he had obtained a gun somehow and that it was "not registered". I answered as probably many of us would, that there is no gun registration in Indiana, which seemed to both shock and frighten her. She thought it must be a new thing, and I told her it had been at least 14 years, and I thought closer to roughly 10 times that. (the 14 was what I knew personally) Then I really blew her mind with the mention of Constitutional carry (though that was perhaps less than appropriate, given that her son is incarcerated at the moment.... I didn't get why, and was not going to recommend any of our attorneys here, as she had commented that he had a public defender, and I know none of ours work for free, nor should they. I did tell her that his case probably could be appealed, and left it at that.

I can't imagine the quandary of being a parent who either knows nothing of guns and is frightened by his/her own ignorance, or being against guns, with or without valid rationale, but wanting to protect your child. It must be a horrible feeling to be so utterly helpless and vulnerable because of the beliefs with which you have shackled yourself.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[grillak]

Someone please tell me this is satire. If not, this may be the most idiotic argument for repeal of the Second Amendment I have ever read. And that's saying a lot.

This guy is in Indiana too. Geez.

Column: Firearms have no place in civilized society. We should repeal the 2nd Amendment

Guest columnist argues the only way to address gun violence in the U.S. is to rewrite gun laws, starting with repealing the Second Amendment.

amp.heraldtimesonline.com

i had just read this "article" when this thread started. i couldn't find it again.

this idiot doesn't even believe his own bs. the more times i read it, the more i realised how demented this dood (as in someone who sniffs bycicle seats) really is.

the kind of guy who thinks "is anybody there?" is the appropriate response when a rapists breaks in his house in the middle of the night

 

[grillak]

He is a psychologist, and many of his colleagues are also of similar mind. Interestingly, it is anecdotally said that many who enter mental health do so to analyze themselves. I leave it to others to decide if those two ideas are related..

At one time, my late wife was in the office of a psychiatrist. Not knowing the leanings of such people, and knowing that many physicians are in fact, gun owners, I made a general, somewhat vague comment about obtaining a LTCH. {which my wife either recently had or was in the process of obtaining.) The doctor very clearly voiced that if she ever became aware of any of her patients having received that license, she would immediately contact the state and have it revoked. Blanket policy, facts or details unimportant. The fact was that she didn't like guns and so was not above abusing her authority to ensure that as many people as possible would be denied the ability to lawfully carry them. I did not at the time consider that she might have thought that doing this prevented people from obtaining them lawfully, but it would not surprise me.

Blessings,
Bill

abuse of authority is exactly what that is.

i'm not a lawyer (although i have played the defendant a few times), but the shrink just let you know that she is willing to disregard her oath of confidentiality.

i would have reported her.

 

[grillak]

over the past several years, my lawful carrying of a firearm has convinced a few muggers and robbers that i would be the bad decision to f*** with.

their decision to bypass any confrontation with me was not based on the fact that i had train and fought in several brutal styles if martial arts for years. it had nothing to do with me being, in the words of my gbabies "huge", or as my best gal puts it "big and angry".

it had everything to do with sister sig and the 230 grns of got gooey goodness riding on my hip.

i hear these wusses talk about noone needs a gun. i question where they live. they have never experienced the violent tendencies of criminals.

 

[2A_Tom]

The inmate thinks he runs the asylum!

Paul Shriver, EdD, is a forensic and clinical psychologist. He lives in Monroe County.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Someone please tell me this is satire. If not, this may be the most idiotic argument for repeal of the Second Amendment I have ever read. And that's saying a lot.

This guy is in Indiana too. Geez.

Column: Firearms have no place in civilized society. We should repeal the 2nd Amendment

Guest columnist argues the only way to address gun violence in the U.S. is to rewrite gun laws, starting with repealing the Second Amendment.

amp.heraldtimesonline.com

I was listening to Cam Edwards' podcast yesterday and this article was discussed there as well. The failure of our public schools are evident.

 

[Bill of Rights]

abuse of authority is exactly what that is.

i'm not a lawyer (although i have played the defendant a few times), but the shrink just let you know that she is willing to disregard her oath of confidentiality.

i would have reported her.

Her oath of confidentiality does not prohibit her from reporting concerns she has. As an example, if in the course of treatment, a patient were to state that they either had committed or were about to commit a kidnapping, or that they had horrible thoughts regarding a specific child or group of children, the doctor is bound by law to report such things. If she can articulate that a patient, diagnosed with Bipolar disorder and thus, prone to mood swings, is a danger to herself or others because she is in possession of a firearm, she is within her authority to make such report.

I don't like it, but I recognize it.

By the same token, I am bound by my own honor and sense of poetic justice to prevent good people from falling into that trap, so I tell that story whenever the situation arises. I don't know what has happened to that shrink, but she does not appear to be in my general area any longer. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Hawkeye]

Someone please tell me this is satire. If not, this may be the most idiotic argument for repeal of the Second Amendment I have ever read. And that's saying a lot.

This guy is in Indiana too. Geez.

Column: Firearms have no place in civilized society. We should repeal the 2nd Amendment

Guest columnist argues the only way to address gun violence in the U.S. is to rewrite gun laws, starting with repealing the Second Amendment.

amp.heraldtimesonline.com

Let me guess. A Phd in "Education" and lives in Bloomington. Right?

 

[marvin02]

Thought this was interesting:

 

[JEBland]

Thought this was interesting:

While I agree with the bulk of his argument's content, the way he frames his arguments is always off-putting to me.

Edit: Just wanted to add, I did actually watch it.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[actaeon277]

Every rule... EVERY RULE doesn't work, so then they need ANOTHER RULE.
and so on
and so on
and so on