MikeB30200 made this comment to one of the newer members of TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia. “Rebecca, I know you’re new around here. I remember you’re first comment last week or so. I’m gonna take a shot here. The other guys who read and write here are definitely too far gone, but maybe there’s hope for you and your partner. GET RID OF THE GUNS NOW, before it’s too late, before they get into your blood and under your skin, before you get addicted to that false sense of safety and security. Please read some of the reports the guys around here like to ridicule and use your common sense to see if they make sense to you. Guns do more harm than good. That’s the fact.” Facts, schmacts. Is there anyone who really believes that gun control advocates don’t want to disarm Americans—for their own good?
MikeB30200 is clearly deep in the throes of hoplophobia. As I am trained in neither physical medicine nor psychology, I feel I must prescribe range time and patient education. Even a person as far gone as MikeB30200 deserves a chance to live.
It won’t work, been there, done that.
And then, of course, some horses just refuse to drink. Doesn’t matter how thirsty they are or how cool and clear the water is.
I read that silly post yesterday, and Rebecca had a great reply without flaming our resident TR**l.
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2011/07/quote-of-the-day-mikeb302000.html
“Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go.”
Fairly obvious.
After years of denying it, it’s nice to see him finally own up to his true intentions.
Maybe the zombies will reach him first.
MikeB lives in Merrie Olde Englande, right? Perhaps it’s just a bad case of mass hypnosis (of the masses). Or a Reality Distortion Field run amuck. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s what I find in so many Progressives – the attitude that they “know better” how we should all live our lives, and insist that we listen to them.
Short answer: Yes, gun control advocates want to disarm all of us, for their own peace of mind.
England, eh? One in UK, not New England? If so, he already lives in country with “guns banned”, what else he wants?
No. MikeB resides in Italy, despite having a UK email adddress.
Maybe he’s a spy, like 003 1/2.
Brad, My avatar is The Polish Rider. Maybe I’m writing from Warsaw.
I and most gun control folks I know don’t want to disarm all of you, just some.
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2011/07/quote-of-the-day-mikeb302000.html
“Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go.”
This will follow you to the end of days, hypocrite.
“I and most gun control folks I know don’t want to disarm all of you, just some.”
Now I’m confused. Is this a lie or another exaggeration?
I and most gun control folks I know don’t want to disarm all of you, just some.
As always, the questions come down to: WHO DECIDES? Who chooses who is eligible to own a gun, and who isn’t? By what process, Mike? Who watches the watchers?
You’re a one-trick pony, and you don’t even do that very well.
Now, Rebecca, what that little throw-away put down really necessary?
Yes. Yes it was. See, I’ve read your posts for a few weeks now, and I get that you like to prance through here with the rubber nose and big shoes. What I’ve come to realize since I actually started posting – I haven’t forgotten your order to get rid of my guns – that you’re a nasty, smarmy little control freak who wants nothing more than to take guns away from law-abiding citizens and then, with your like-minded “friends”, take over this country.
Whoa. Wait a minute, *I*’m a liberal myself. What am I doing berating you like this for???
Oh, right. You ARE trying to take away our guns, and you’ll do it in a passive-aggressive way. You’re mean-spirited, but you try to put on the happy face and try to talk about what is “good” and “right” and our owning guns is “bad” and “wrong”. Screw that.
Remember how Margaret told you that you could try to come take our guns? What she said goes double with me.
And Robert: if I’m going way over the line with this, I apologize for doing so and you may remove it. But I mean every word.
“I and most gun control folks I know don’t want to disarm all of you, just some.”
Liar.
It’s not a lie. Unless you’re paranoid, you know it’s the truth. Rebecca made the right point. Who decides? That’s the question.
If things go my way, if I can get the traffic high enough on my blog, I’m planning on volunteering for the position in Obama’s second term. I promise I’ll be fair.
YOU may not, WILL NOT be the decider.
Sounds like a little kid throwing a tantrum because he lost another one to us gun nuts.
Rebecca- it’s just just another extension of the nanny state philosophy. “we know what’s better for you, so you might as well stop resisting and join us”
the history of the world’s oppressed prove what MikeB says is false. Sorry, MikeB:
Guns do more good than harm, and THAT is the FACT
and by the way, I will keep my incandescent light bulbs, thank you very much
I plan to shoot styrofoam while I spray aerosol cans.
You can keep your incandescents if you like. I’m using CFLs (compact fluourescent lighting) everywhere in my home, and I’ve cut my electric bill by about 1/3. Once decent LED lighting comes out, I’m switching to those to save another 1/2 or more. Incandescents waste 70% of their energy simply producing heat. CFLs and LED lighting mostly produce light, saving money. You like saving money, don’t you?
I have LED in the kitchen-blinding. The other bulbs kept blowing.
But I still plan to shoot these styrofoam heads I have-zombie practice.
it’s not about the bulbs saving money..and while that may be true, at what cost? in my view, the cost of the nanny mandating to me what bulb I can use in my own home… is that really what you want? this is about freedom…
Well, I haven’t check latest bulbs prices in your area, but, unlike on Amazon, here CFL are pricier than incandescent ones. However, usually their longevity and brightness pays well, despite some claims that their light isn’t that “warm and safe to eyes”. My records show that in frequently turn-on/off room, such bulbs serves for 10-14 months, somewhere on par with incandescent ones. In rooms with “constant lights” – they serves for years, so I can’t say that incandescent ones have greater lifecycle. (1911/Glock design argument :)).
Plus CFLs has two different “coloration” – cold/bluish, I use them in working area, and warm/yellowish, that’s for living rooms. One only drawback here – you can’t just throw’em to dumpster; they contain mercury, so they needed to be transported to proper facility for disassembly and recycle.
But if you like incandescent – that is your right and though I doubt I will fight for you to keep’em (I’m overseas, you know), I’m glad you can use what you want. 😉
Just don’t break CFLs, they explode.
Like incandescent. Only with mercury. Unlike incandescent.
Sorry, couldn’t resist. 🙂
I *hate* the warm-white bulbs. They’re meant to imitate the candle light from before electricity was used to light our homes, and then the incandescent bulbs that were originally used. We live in the 21st century now, and my preference is to attempt to mimic the noon-day sun inside using full-spectrum bulbs. *Much* better lighting IMO.
What you mean as “noon-day sun “? 6500K you mentioned elsewhere? If yes, than my “warm” are 6700K. So go figure those markings. 🙂
From http://cflbulbs.com/compact-fluorescent-bulbs-faq.php I get this info:
“The color temperature of light is rated in degrees Kelvin (K). For example, a candle is rated at 1500 degrees Kelvin and produces a “warm” light with a red tint. The typical incandescent bulb is 2700 degrees Kelvin and produces a more “yellow” light. At 4000 Kelvin, a “Cool White” Fluorescent light is considered neutral. A “daylight” fluorescent light is rated at 6500 Kelvin and provides cool light with a blue tint.
“Typically, you’ll find the color temperature of the bulb rated on the package in degrees Kelvin or as Cool, Neutral or Warm. To stay close to the light you’re accustomed to from incandescent bulbs, you’ll want to purchase CFL’s in the 2700 Kelvin (or neutral) range. Some people prefer cool bulbs for reading lamps.”
Same here, use CFL almost everywhere. Not sure that I was able to cut my bills 1/3 – our “electric company” raised prices. 😀
Anyway, I like LEDs and think they will conquer place in our houses (like polymer guns conquered places in your holsters), but they are barely present here, plus their prices are exorbitant.
So I stick to my Petzl headlamp instead. Not fair, I know.
I like saving money, but CFLs give me headaches. My office at work is dark because I had to remove the CFLs in order to make it through a full day, so now I just have a lamp for light.
I like LEDs and have a few in my home already, the power consumption is nice, but they have some drawbacks too. For example, even though the lumen ranking for the LEDs is less than the lumens for the bulbs I replace them with, the LEDs are much brighter. Sometimes painfully so! I attribute this to two things, incandescent and fluorescents because of the heat usually get a dark film (like baked on dust or something) that makes them go dull. The longer they are used; the more film. The LEDs don’t seem to do that. Have had several LED flood lights for 4 years now, lots of use, no film, still very bright.
Also LEDs are stronger in some aspects, but much weaker in others, the other two produce tons of heat, LEDs produce very little heat but are extremely susceptible to the heat. Unfortunately lights tend to be in the higher places of a dwelling, and since heat rises, they can be adversely affected by heat from other devices. Put an LED in the light for a ceiling fan that happened to sit directly above 4 computers on a rack, the biggest and therefore hottest of the computers had a blowhole fan that blew right on the bulb from about a foot below it, it did not last long, and since I paid 40 bucks for it, this did not make me happy.
Which brings us to the last problem, LEDs are so dang expensive.
So, now with the Nany state telling me what kind of bulbs I can use, and primarily those being bulbs that cause me headaches, I have to stock up on incandescents and save up for expensive LEDs.
Yeah, I can’t be around many flourescents. They’ll trigger a migraine in no time.
Headaches? Ouch. I’ve heard some colleagues claims they have headaches from CFLs, but when we replace them (CFLs, not colleagues :)) with different brand, coloration and frequency (well, at least those letters on box said so :)), colleagues says it’s Ok. Maybe there is same solution for you? Anyway, I have little choice here, truth be told, we not only prohibited from handguns, but from high power (no pun intended, though, who knows! :)) incandescent bulbs, which I need, since I work with drawings and large sheets of paper, which requires bright even light everywhere. Especially when those skinflints use economy print on A1 size blueprint.
And for LED protection – not sure about US, but here we have very thick glass covers for bulbs, sort of “unbreakable, sealed, waterproof” ones. They are heavy, but works well even in boiler room, temperatures where are far from being “room”. More of sauna like.
It’s the flickering and the bright light. Since the accident I had to have special sunglasses made, polarized inside and outside-and wrapping all the way around. Regular sunlight will do it. I have night vision like a cat, though.
Oh Brother, headaches and migraines are two different animals. Sometimes I almost go blind for a while, I throw up, I can feel light on my skin and face. My hearing is so sensitive during one that the sound of pouring dog food in the pup’s bowl will make me throw up. You can actually get a stroke, if it pushes up your blood pressure too much. I did in 2006.
There are definitely problems with LED lighting right now, and you’ve mentioned a few of them: the light is too directive, the luminosity is far too low, and yes, they’re a bit pricy right now. Those reasons and the fact that they’re all so far warm-white, and I’m not buying any yet. When they come out with 6500K (daylight) or full-spectrum LED bulbs, and the light is more diffuse and brighter, *then* I’ll start buying them.
Just don’t break one, the cost of the Haz Mat team will more than offset that savings.
When that happens — as it invariably will — the federal EPA recommends:
* The immediate evacuation of all people and pets from the affected room, which then should be aired out for at least 10 minutes.
* The shutdown of all air conditioners for several hours — to avoid spreading mercury vapor.
* The use of tape and damp rags to pick up broken glass — but not the use of a vacuum, because that would spread mercury, too.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/comes_the_darkness_GmJyeYk8rLz9qC4037No6J#ixzz1RN77o9iO
How did we get on to light bulbs? Btw, I was confused for a couple of seconds because CFL, to me, means Canadian Football League! LOL!
Mike, I am sure the phrase ‘live and let live’ means something to you. You should really read the work done by John R. Lott Jr before you drown in your own rabid foam.
I assume folks saw my response to MikeB, yes? *looks around, sees nodding* Good. =)
In an online liberal forum where I am a member – indeed, I am an assistant mod there, so I’m pretty active in it – I have gotten lambasted for advocating for rights, lately. Gun rights, the right to choose whether to wear a helmet when riding motorcycles, etc. They do indeed want to take guns away from us. Even if I never, ever kill a person with my gun, which I hope I never have to, the mere fact that I have it, train with it, and have it handy at my bedside in my gunvault, I am accused of wanting to murder someone.
The fact is that I don’t ever want to have to use it to kill – or even injure – a Human Being. But if that is what it takes to preserve my life and the life of those I love, you damn betcha I will.
As for MikeB, I don’t know that range time and education can help him. Maybe it can. But with all irrational fears, it’s going to take a lot of work to just get him past the need to take all guns out of the hands of good citizens.
I’d give it up. My soon-to-be-ex went back to England. She use to argue with me how violent we are. I said yes, but I have good teeth. Shows me for having Irish in me and marrying a Briton.
Britain’s violent crime rate is much higher then ours. They just rape and beat you rather then kill you.
Oh, yeah, she just loved to argue. She was a hard liner about Australia too.
All I was doing was looking for a girl with a supported chamber.
I heard that clubs are often used over there now. They break in not caring if anyone is home, because they know the owner doesn’t have a gun, and if someone is home and tries to stop them, they beat them to death with a club.
I would rather be shot and have it be over quick than spend fifteen minutes of pure torture and agony knowing I am going to eventually die while getting my bones broken by some thug with a bat. Maybe it’s just me, but no thanks.
Or stabbed. I’ve been cut badly three times, it’s bunches of stitches and a mess. Always had a thing about being gutted. I’ve had my hand sliced open to an artery, my inner forearm opened and my upper lip sliced.
Rebecca, I can’t put into words how welcome you are here!
Schweet! Thanks! =)
Rebecca, I see that my original thought about you was quite wrong, you are too far gone. I hope you’ve got a little bit of a sense of humor, at least.
I hope you never shoot yourself in the leg, you saw that post where everybody agreed it can happen to anybody. I hope you never get depressed and decide on a permanent solution to a temporary problem. I hope you never shoot your partner mistaking her for an intruder in the middle of the night.
The problem is all those things are more likely to happen than that someday you’ll use that gun to save the day. To me, that makes deciding to keep a gun the stupidest thing one can do.
I wish you all the best, I really do. And although I feel it would be better if no civilian had a gun, I don’t think legislating them away is a plausible answer. So, no I don’t want to take your guns away unless you need to have them taken away.
So disarming Americans is desirable but not plausible. Huh. Would you then agree that stricter gun control legislation represents your desire to move Americans towards your ideal (disarmament)?
Hmmm. Let me think about that. It sounds like a trick question.
“I hope you never shoot yourself in the leg, you saw that post where everybody agreed it can happen to anybody. I hope you never get depressed and decide on a permanent solution to a temporary problem. I hope you never shoot your partner mistaking her for an intruder in the middle of the night.
The problem is all those things are more likely to happen than that someday you’ll use that gun to save the day.”
Source? Unbiased, please, if such is available.
Ah the internet! Allowing equal opportunity to be a pompous ass on multiple continents.
I hope you never shoot yourself in the leg, you saw that post where everybody agreed it can happen to anybody.
That’s funny, Mike, because I’m on that post right now reading the comments, and NOBODY is saying that “it can happen to anybody.” The consensus seems to be that 1) Tex got complacent, and 2) more training with a single retention holster is required to get muscle memory going better. Mike zero, gun enthusiasts one.
I hope you’ve got a little bit of a sense of humor, at least.
I do. I keep it in a ziplock baggie, in a box in my closet, up on the top shelf.
I hope you never get depressed and decide on a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
I came close to that a decade ago, when I first came out of the closet. I lost my husband, my son, my biological family, work, church, friends – all of it. I worked through it, I’ve looked into the abyss. I’m no longer afraid of death, though *today* I shall live. Get over yourself, Mike.
I hope you never shoot your partner mistaking her for an intruder in the middle of the night.
What a Nervous Nellie you are! Someone breaking into the apartment is going to sound a LOT different from the sound of my partner wandering through. The likelyhood of me shooting her is near nil. Don’t let it worry your pea-pickin’ little brain ever again.
The problem is all those things are more likely to happen than that someday you’ll use that gun to save the day.
In this day of massive cultural change, people are getting spooky nutz and more attacks on LGBT folk are happening. If anyone attempts to attack us, they’re going to discover that LGBT folk also have TEETH. THIS lesbian couple is not going down without a fight.
And although I feel it would be better if no civilian had a gun, I don’t think legislating them away is a plausible answer.
Poor Mike can’t have his way, so he’s all pouty. *moves finger against thumb* Here’s the world’s smallest phonograph playing, “My Heart Bleeds For You”.
Hey, Mike? Get a life. Me? I’m going to go ride my motorcycle.
*applauds*
Rebecca, have you ever checked out Pink Pistols? I think you and your partner may enjoy the company.
Tried to check them out. Seems there’s a sign on the “building” but there’s just caretaker wandering about. *shrug*
The question comes up, I’m going to state it clearly and plainly. Just like others do about *their* families. Don’t like it? Tough.
ENCORE! -applause- Well said.
I’m not “pouty” and I don’t need to “get over” myself, and I don’t have a “little brain,” either.
Why is it so difficult for you to express yourself without peppering the comment with little insults? Are you trying to be funny or to impress people.
Either way you’ll get plenty of support around here, some of the regulars are a bit hostile towards me, but throwing out those insults like that isn’t nice. That’s all I’m sayin’.
You would go a long way toward proving your assertion that you don’t have a little brain if you provided some backing for some of the so called “facts” you like to pull from your anus. Most of them are obviously and patently wrong, but none of them ever get any backing from you. Thus we have no choice but to assume everything you label as “fact” to be anything but an actual fact.
Just saying!
Ten years of participating on forums, Mike. You learn to write to your audience, not just the person you’re responding to. Especially if the person you’re responding to is a troll.
Ok, so an injurious negligent discharge is more likely for a gun owner than a save-my-life-with-my-gun situation. Fine. Owners of hammers are far more likely to strike themselves in the thumb than those that don’t. But you can’t build a house without one. More to the point, I’d much rather shoot myself in the leg, even multiple times, than let someone in to gang rape my family and torture me, for instance. It’s a trade-off, already. Get it?
I honestly believe some “Control advocates” (CA for the rest of this editorial) do in fact believe to just let the police/military have the only guns, disarming everyone.
Why? It seems to be the belief that guns themselves are the root cause of crime.
In this mindset it is akin to saying.
As water is the root cause of drowning thus we should outlaw all forms of water.
As money is the root of all evil desire, we should outlaw and burn all money.
As the sun is the cause of skin cancer we must create laws to make all persons cover their bodies in sunscreen.
(I could go on, but this is the SAME logic behind the no guns CA arguments)
Some CA are reasonable in their thoughts of background checks on purchases and safety training for any gun owners. I personally would like to see more people get proper training.
So as to the Question at hand it is yes and no. with no one answer. Moderates no, hard line CA unrealistically yes.
The problem, as I see it, is some CA who are far to the extreme have not read their history books and do not see the problem of any government be it Monarchy, Communist republic, or a Democratic electorate gaining too much power over a “free people”. History repeats itself in such manner as to be predictable as to what happens next.
Maybe they have read their history books, and they don’t mind what they see.
I think that is another reason why vets are so pro gun, they’ve seen the real world and what other governments can be like.
Wrong Cujo. Ex-military are pro-gun for the same mistaken and messed up reasons anybody else is. What is it with you and the military, anyway? Did you answer my question on the other thread about what it was I said to disparage your military career. I hope it was funny at least, because I sense that you have no sense of humor.
I already answered twice. But you know that. Where’s the other half of the Ambiguous Duo?
I take it you are A) Anti gun because of your position and B) Pro choice because some how the procedure didn’t work on you.
Your logic is pithily captured on a bumper sticker I once saw: “Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage”
wait a sec, mikeb is a lobster back? this sure explains his attitude
I have to wonder, what do anti gun flat earthers say to people who enjoy guns, for whatever reason, other than self defense? Cause here in NJ, self defense is not a valid reason to own a gun, regardless of what HELLER and McDONALD say.
There are three basic kinds of gun control advocates, and all of them want to disarm us.
The least malevolent kind is well-intentioned but woefully misinformed. Everything they know about guns they’ve learned from the movies and the NY Times. They honestly think that stricter gun control will have an impact on crime.
After that come the hoplophobes that know gun control laws impact only the law-abiding but want to pass them anyway because they just can’t stand guns. Many of them lack the impulse control and sense of responsibility that we take for granted and, on the assumption that everyone else shares their character defects, see an armed citizenry not as friends and neighbors but as a vast group of people just itching to kill them.
The worst of the lot are the hardcore statists. They share many characteristics of the hoplophobe but also have a desire for the government to do things that it can’t get away with as long as a significant number of Americans are armed. These are generally the same people that you find in favor of infringing our other rights, such as to speech, assembly, religion and property.
They all want to disarm us, and they all have to be resisted.
I am a lifelong gun enthusiast and I advocate sensible gun regulations. I believe my general views are shared by the majority of gun owners. I believe you guys represent the intransigent extremists on the issue.
I believe:
1) Self-defense is a natural right of any person
2) Pursuant to (1) possession of the means to defend oneself is also a natural right
3) In accordance with (2) any non-felon, mentally-sound adult should have the right to own and carry firearms
4) Relating to (3) those adults should be held liable on an individual basis for any abuse of that right
5) Any government policy that interferes with the 1 – 4 is unjust and should be resisted by all legal means at our disposal.
Please point out to me which of those beliefs is “extreme” and explain what makes it extreme. For extra credit you can list for me some of the restrictions you consider “sensible” that I disagree with ( I won’t presume to speak for the AI, even though I suspect their views largely reflect my own).
N0. 5. Can’t agree with any of that.
Could you explain why you can’t agree with #5 please?
Well, a majority of the inhabitants of 49 out of 50 states, as well as a majority of supreme court justices do agree with those beliefs. You are certainly free to disagree with them yourself, but what you can’t do is call them “extreme”, nor can you reasonably purport to hold views reflective of the majority of gun owners, or even a majority of citizens.
In fact, using the dictionary definition of extreme (“of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average”) you are the one with the extreme views. And that’s not an opinion, that’s a provable fact.
Well I would make the assumption that, in this case, the law of the land reflects the people’s wishes.
Sure. “Interferes” can mean anything and gun loons can be whiny little bitches where their interests are involved.
I also have a problem with “all legal means at our disposal.” The gun lobby pulls some pretty nefarious stunts in Washington. That monkey business may be legal but I don’t find it ethical.
I doubt that. and if it were, it would be the pot calling the kettle black.
First of all, “interferes” has a definition like anything else. Saying “it can mean anything” and then using that to claim my point is invalid is a logical fallacy.
Secondly, I am trying my best to discourse with you in a respectful manner. So how about you lay off the “whiny little bitches” talk and I won’t resort to speculating about your lack of male genetalia and probable cowardice. Sound fair?
Also please note I wasn’t asking if you agree with me… I already know you don’t. I was asking you to justify calling my views “extreme”, something you have utterly failed to do.
Why is Magoo exempt from the requirement for being respectful?
In Heller, did’t they make it clear that restrictions were allowed.
James Felix, you better tell Cemetary’s Gun that he should stop mentioning that particular “interfering” ruling.
I didn’t advocate completely unrestricted ownership, and your implication that I did is a distortion of my views. Given your love of strawmen I’m assuming the distortion was willful.
They did. They did not, however, delve into what “reasonable restrictions” might be. In future cases, it may be found that all, some, or none of the current restrictions are “reasonable.”
O_o
The majority of gun owners support gun control, and more restrictive laws?
Magoo, you do realize how absurd your post sounds, right?
Well, I knew couple of those. It’s like “I have this and you shouldn’t have because you inferior”. That’s regarding locals, not magoo.
I have no way to know what may or may not sound absurd to you. Many of the views I read here are well outside the mainstream of American political thought. That’s one of the reasons I find the site interesting, I suppose.
Again I ask can you please cite some examples of these views that are outside the political mainstream? I know that in Magooland it’s a valid form of argument to simply repeat something over and over, but amongst rational people I promise you it’s not.
You’re welcome for our defense of your rights. Why don’t you pay us the same favor?
MikeB302000 lives just outside of Rome, Italy. He works for some UN food program, incidentally.
He works for one of the most corrupt, violent and exploitative entities in history and spends his time bitching about US gun laws?
Wow. You can’t make this stuff up….
Gun grabbers are all one of two things, criminals or criminals in training. That is the only reasonable explanation. The only reason someone would want to take away my ability to defend myself, my family, and my property with lethal force is if they have plans to be doing the things that could put them on the receiving end of that lethal force.
Whether it is breaking into my home to steal stuff, planning to kill me or members of my family, or planning to enslave me and my family; anyone who wants to take away our guns does so because they have evil and criminal intentions.
The founding fathers knew this, they experienced it first hand! When they wrote the constitution they believed that some things should just be understood, like to be free you have to have freedom of speech, freedom to worship anyone or no one, freedom to assemble, free press, and the right to keep and use firearms. They quickly realized though that crooks will use the things not explicitly written down to deprive and defraud others of their freedoms. So they wrote the Bill of rights to get in writing all the things they thought should have just been a given. The bill of rights was written for the very purpose of protecting us from the worst type of criminals. Therefore, anyone who seeks to chip away at those rights is by definition a criminal whether they have been exposed as such yet or not.
So yes, those gun control advocates are trying to ban all guns, they have to in order to safely exercise their criminal intentions!
HA!
Or politics. You know, THOSE politics. Hypocrite type, who curses and blames Stalin (por ejemplo), but secretly admires him and envy his power.
People like mikeb derive their philosophy from a perfectly rational thought process which unfortunately stems from two false assumptions.
The first wrong assumption is the assumption that he has some relevant degree of superiority. In reality, intellectual and logical capacity in people is a tight bell curve with a small variance. The likelihood that he is outside of the norm by any relevant degree is infinitesimal. An important question is “what leads normal people to think they are superior?” When people think they are smarter than others it is usually due to a particular kind of observer bias. When mikeb observes others doing things which do not make sense to him he ascribes it to stupidity, when really he is just not privy to their experience and the full set of circumstances which drive them to make the decisions they make and which make the observed behaviors make sense. Since he is privy to his own experiences and circumstances, everything he does always makes sense to him. This is a really big kind of prejudice which if not considered and addressed can distort every idea one has about society.
For example, if mikeb is fortunate enough to live in a safe community, if he has never been in danger of violence, if he has never experienced that moment where he realized that there was no external entity that could save him from mortal harm, if he has never been faced with the reality that the laws of man are purely hypothetical and not self-enforcing (unlike gravity, power, strength), if he’s never been gay-bashed, if he’s never been smaller or weaker than someone who wanted to harm him, if he’s never been stalked or threatened, if he’s never seen violence or insanity… then he couldn’t possibly get the point of having the right to self-defense. He also would be living a truly ‘blessed’ existence.
The second wrong assumption of folks like mikeb is that a hypothetical relevant degree of superiority both entitles and obligates him to a paternalistic role over us “inferior” folks who couldn’t possibly help ourselves. Ironically, this view is antithetical to both the philosophy of liberalism and democracy.
If you prohibit people from weapons what you are really saying is that only the strong deserve the right to self-defense. You ensuring the vulnerability of the weak. You are essentially supporting a civilization with an ingrained biological hierarchy based on strength. This is antithetical to ours and probably his philosophy of civilization and humanity as well.
-D
That, and some men just don’t make any sense. Or their ego is such that they don’t consider others-which is basically what you are saying.
Note: I’ve left in Magoo’s “whiny little bitches” depiction of gun rights advocates (above: July 6, 2011 at 12:18 PM) as an illustration of his position. It is an exception to the rule.
If TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia feels I’ve made this decision in error, ping me at [email protected]. Meanwhile, well done for not descending into tit-for-tat name-calling.
I think it’s the correct decision. It’s illustrative of a point I often make:
In order for them to win the argument they want us to shut up, in order for us to win we want them to keep talking.
I still wish he would hand deliver the cordite-scented candle to me.
As long as we are allowed to point out his side has as many or more whiney little bitches.
Exhibit A; the whole Brady bunch!
James Felix says: “First of all, “interferes” has a definition like anything else. Saying “it can mean anything” and then using that to claim my point is invalid is a logical fallacy.”
I don’t think you know what is a logical fallacy. I’m only saying that I don’t trust folks here to adhere to a reasonable conception of “interferes.” For example, they might declare that the NFA of 1934 “interferes” with their right to keep and bear arms. I disagree. The United States Supreme Court also disagrees. Still, it’s a common view at TTAG.
Logical fallacy: a (usually incorrect) argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption.
Ascribing a non-standard and erroneous meaning to my words and then arguing against the result is a logical fallacy, specifically a strawman. Incidentally, saying “I don’t think you know what is a logical fallacy” in this context is itself a logical fallacy, in that you’re questioning my intelligence via innuendo and using that innuendo to make an ad hominem argument based on that lack of intelligence.
It’s also clumsy phrasing, but that’s neither here nor there.
Now that I’ve (hopefully) satisfied you as to my understanding of what a fallacy is I’d like to point out that you apparently don’t understand what a simple question is. I haven’t asked for your opinions about gun control because I’m all too familiar with them. What I have asked, and what you have repeatedly failed to do, is justify your characterization of my views as “extreme” and of your own views as “reasonable” and “mainstream”.
And that is how a proper logical smackdown is delivered, ladies and gentlemen. Bravo, James!
As I stated earlier, I assert that “by all legal means” is an extremist position not held by the majority of gun owners. I believe they expect the gun lobby to also act ethically and honorably, and also in the interest of all Americans, not just a handful of gun rights extremists. I believe the NRA has lost considerable membership in recent decades by failing to live up to those expectations. I know that’s how it lost my membership.
I also assert that the firearms bills of 1934, 1968, and 1986 do not impose undue or unreasonable interference upon gun owners. If you disagree, that would be another area where I would find your views extremist. Many here at TTAG claim that all firearms legislation is unconstitutional, immoral, evil, etc. I believe that is an extremist, absurdist position.
In what instances do you feel the NRA acted dishonorably or unethically? I think they sometimes behave that way toward other gun rights groups (taking credit for SAF lawsuits or their special carve-out for the DISCLOSE act) but I’m unaware of unethical behavior toward the opposition.
Magoo Says: I believe the NRA has lost considerable membership in recent decades by failing to live up to those expectations.
Sadly for you Magoo the reality is the only time the NRA lost membership at a rate considered newsworthy in the legacy media is when it shed 300,000 members in 1995 because members felt the NRA wasn’t doing enough to fight for Americans Civil Rights.
In fact the only group with dwindling support appears to be anti-rights groups like the Brady Campaign with a whopping 2 large contributors in 2010 compared to the NRA’s 1190.
Your link directs to the 1995 plunge when former President George H.W. Bush resigned from the NRA over its offensive fund-raising campaigns. That’s about the same time I gave up my life membership over similar concerns. The NRA does not release the numbers, but it is understood in the gun biz that membership is in a long-term decline. You are certainly correct about this: the NRA is under pressure on both flanks.
Wow. Magoo, you really get into trouble when you try to use big, smart-sounding words. There is a huge difference in meaning between the words ‘absurdist’ and ‘absurd.’ Perhaps a short trip down memory lane, say, back to high school english class, is in order for you.
Aside from fallacies, etc…
I thought that one of the anti-gunner mantras was that we are gun loons and will not engage in sane discussion of the topics. What I see here is a “gun-loon” who is trying to establish sane discussion by laying his cards out and asking for feedback .
I would have thought that someone who wants us to see him as an intellectual would have jumped at the chance to show forth his viewpoints. He’s been invited. Instead, he resorts to stalling, straw men and a crude figure of speech (whiny little bitches – btw I think making an exception for Magoo is a bad precedent because I think he’ll grab that inch and run a full mile – but I also respect the mods here, so I don’t want to call any foul.)
So how about it Magoo? I’ve been on the receiving end of your acidic invective as have others. How about some actual discussion?
Whenever you’re ready.
You haven’t answered the fella that asked you first. How about you stop dodging him before starting with anyone else?
We’ve been ready all day; all I’ve seen from you are opinions and insults, no facts.
In other words, typical gun-grabber drivel.
Yawn…
I’ve already addressed every significant point several times now.
No – you haven’t. You sidestepped his questions. You attacked his logic. You called him fallacious. But you never actually engaged the discussion he invited you to. How about less misdirection and more discussion? Come on – answer him. You obviously (so very obviously) have opinions. You can’t be afraid of posting info that others find offensive – that too is pretty obvious. So just answer his points.
Actually, James is right; you are guilty of the fallacy.
You can’t identify a logical fallacy either.
Of course they want us all disarmed. Was there really any question about this? As to the reasons why, I honestly don’t care.
We will never let it happen, at least not here in Texas. No matter what UN treaty the current administration and Senate may sign. If you don’t believe me then watch the news tomorrow night. See if Rick Perry lets Obama, Bush, Clinton or Holder stay Thursday’s execution of the Mexican rapist convicted here in Texas. SCOTUS has already ruled that international treaties are not legally binding on the states.
Mike B: Keep dreaming. It’s healthy to have an active fantasy life. If you ever come to Texas, look me up. I’ll take you shooting and buy you a cold beer. Might be just what the doctor ordered.
Wanna hear a joke?
There’s a place, where Mike’s fantasies is became real. Russia. Here you haven’t right to bear arms. But does it mean safety? No F. way.
Why? Because that’s mean a Rule of Young, Strong and Numbers on your streets.
Yup – there will be less shot. (Not – “no shots”, but little bit less of them). BUT! There also be a lot of violent crimes. Have you ever seen non-motivated violence? Just because someone didn’t like your kind? Well. You’ll have it then. A LOT more.
Robbery? What now? you lost your pocket? Wanna be beaten almost to death? That’s you will have. Without-a-gun-scenario: gang attacks victim, without a warn, rob unconscious body and leave. Some of them will die lately… But, thanks god – no one was shot, is it?
All gun owners here have to medical examination before they have a licence. Psychiatrist also in list. So all gun owners – completely healthy. And can you, Mike boast the same? But is there any need in such tests? Citizens with concealed carry permits are 14 times less likely to commit a crime. They are also five times less
likely to commit a violent crime. That’s the same in US – 0.03% of gun owners commit a crime. That’s the same for Russia (Here’s one of the most highest crime rates in world) – 0.05%.
People doesn’t change. Right to keep and bear arms – is civilized right. The denying of it – is a step back to barbarianism and tyranny.
Robert Farago says:”Note: I’ve left in Magoo’s “whiny little bitches” depiction of gun rights advocates (above: July 6, 2011 at 12:18 PM) as an illustration of his position. It is an exception to the rule.”
Thanks, RF. I appreciate it. I have a question. Why should gun loons expect better treatment than they are willing to afford others? Every day at TTAG I read gun grabber this, gun grabber that — to hear you guys tell it, these are a sub-human species possessed by pure evil and stupidity. Okay, if you say so. But if that’s how you guys like to roll, why expect people to address you any differently? You guys can dish it out but you can’t take it — is that what you’re telling me?
No. There’s a big difference between “gun grabber” and “whiny little bitches.” As you well know. And as I said above, I’m letting this one pass. Do not count on similar latitude in the future. By the same token, if you encounter a term that you find offensive, whether its applied to you or not, please ping me [email protected] and I’ll consider getting out the metaphorical red pencil. As I have in the past.
If “gun grabbers” was as far as it went for vituperation, you would have a point. I’m really only asking for one thing: for people to read their own words. In this thread for starters. Go back and read it from top to bottom. You guys can dish it out but you can’t take it.
you’re using a flamethrower to kill an ant Magoo. There may be people here that are openly hostile to you (which is understandable because you are on a blog arguing vehemently against 90-95% of the focus of that blog, some call that trolling, but it is undeniably not a great way to win friends and influence people). Overall however the vast majority of us have interacted with you pretty respectfully.
You openly spitting in everyone’s face by calling us “whiny little bitches” certainly will not be winning you any additional respect. The more you flame the less respect you will receive that’s just common sense
I think this sums it up.
I also think that it is easy to see who is whining in the comment sections here without using that term or the rest of that particular phrase.
I don’t speak for everyone else here, but you and the rest of the gungrabbers started first with the demonizations.
It really doesn’t matter to me what names I get called now.
I have been called a murderer, psychopath, and a monster by antigun individuals like yourself who tried to get me kicked out of school without any sort of proof that I even carried on school grounds. I’ve gotten through the worst of the name calling.
What matters to me more now is how much your side screams for eternity. The time for civility went away a long time ago.
I cling on to listening to the news broadcast speak about getting free online grant applications so I have been looking around for the best site to get one. Could you advise me please, where could i get some?
Comments are closed.