A TTAG reader writes:
I was in the parking lot of a local park, when a woman in a Subaru parked, disgorged her large dog and allowed it to run while she was changing her shoes. Directly in front of her car: a sign with an ordinance which started that ALL PETS MUST BE ON LEASH AND UNDER YOUR CONTROL AT ALL TIMES. Since I’ve been attacked by a “friendly” dog, I asked her if she would please leash her animal. She had a simple reply . . .
Subaru Woman: “Instead of this, why don’t you go work on gun control?”
Me: What?
Subaru Woman: “Why don’t you go fight the NRA?”
Me: Because I’m a lifetime member of the NRA.
Subaru Woman: “OH MY GOD!! THAT’S THE WORST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD! I WANT YOU OUT OF THIS PARK! I WANT YOU OUT OF THIS CITY AND STATE! YOU’RE HORRIBLE! THAT’S THE WORST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD OF!”
Me: That’s the worst thing you’ve ever heard? You need to get out more.
Subaru Woman: (as she wandered off, continuing to yell): YOU SHOULD JUST DIE! WHY DON’T YOU GO SHOOT SOMEBODY?”
End if interaction.
Good stuff that. Why is it that anti’s always want to shoot someone or, better yet, have someone else shoot you? I asked the friend I was with if I did anything to threaten Subaru Woman. He couldn’t see anything, other than I effectively told her “no,” she couldn’t do whatever she wanted. Some people.
Sound familiar? What’s the worst or most asinine thing an anti’s said to you?
I once asked an anti if they had ever fired a gun before, the answer I received was: “NO! and I never will, I don’t need to try cocaine or meth to know that they’re bad for me, guns are exactly the same way.”
I was so dumbfounded by the profound stupidity of the statement I couldn’t do anything but break in to hysterical laughter and walk away.
If her ideological conditioning was on target I’m sure you could have gotten her to admit how the war on drugs was/is a horrible idea, but a similar war on guns would be super successful and righteous.
that’s the same conclusion I arrived at after I finished catching my breath, by that point she was well in to the foot stomping tantrum phase.
I bet she was okay with smoking pot though.
That’s why “universal background checks” for people who want to buy guns would be just as effective for people who want to buy smack, meth, coke and pot.
Universal background checks? Here’s what I think about that.
I think that the Umpqua CC shooter Christopher Harper-Mercer legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
I think that the Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
I think that the Isla Vista shooter Eliot Rodgers legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
I think that the Colorado theater shooter James Holmes legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
I think that the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.
I think that the Ft. Hood shooter Ivan Lopez legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
I think that the other Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
I think that the Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had background checks–state and federal–performed. He also had a security clearance.
I think that the Minneapolis shooter Andrew John Engeldinger legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
I think that the Las Vegas shooters Jerad and Amanda Miller legally purchased their guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.
I think that the Tucson shooter Jared Loughner legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.
I think that the Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza used legally purchased guns, he just murdered the owner first and then stole them.
Should I go on? How many you want? Who did I forget? Oh, yeah, the Columbine shooting. The guns were a straw purchase, but the ATF declined to even prosecute the straw buyer.
Why do idiots think that non-FFL sales are causing mass shooting problems?
1. I’m stealing that list, Danny.
2. Let us not forget that Columbine was intended to be a bombing, not a mass shooting. If the bombs had all gone off as planned, the cafeteria building would have collapsed and killed hundreds, not twelve.
Cocaine and methamphetamine can both be good for you when used properly. Cocaine is a vasoconstrictor that is commonly used in nasal surgeries to control bleeding. Know anybody that’s ever gotten a nose job? Odds are pretty good they had some shoved up each nostril to keep them from bleeding out. Methamphetamine is used to treat, among other things, narcolepsy. morphine has been a commonly used painkiller for decades. it is still in common use today despite the outcry over its abuse in the eighties and nineties. As always it’s how things are used that makes them bad not themselves inherently. if guns are so bad then why does she not want to see them taken away from the police and military?
I had occasion to look this up a week or three ago, apparently methamphetamine has no medical value while amphetamine (a different chemical) does have medical value: http://amphetamines.com/amphetamines-vs-methamphetamines/
I always thought they were the same thing.
Different pieces of a chemical family. Much like there are many types of alcohols, too.
Methamphetamine is used to treat bariatric patients as a last-line therapy. It’s brand name is Desoxyn. Whichever source said ‘that methamphetamine has “no medical value” is wrong (the correct term would be “no therapeutic value”, although that term would still be incorrect as applied here).
Absolutely correct. Meth is the dangerous, health-wrecking brother of amphetamines. But even the latter should be used with care. After you’ve cleaned the house from top to bottom four times, there’s still time to lose healthful, restorative sleep. Both stress the body heavily, but the meth is a bull in the bathroom.
Methamphetamine (N-methyl-alpha-methylphenethylamine) is a shorter acting analog of amphetamine (alpha‑methylphenethylamine). They’re pretty much the same thing unless you’re interested in duration of action. Substituted amphetamines such as MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine, also called “ecstasy”) are psychotropic drugs which have entirely different (and some quite similar) effects.
1, 3, 5 substituted aromatic phenols are pharmacologically active, and widely abused. Psilocybin and mescaline are compounds in this class.
I’m sorry about the lecture. I worked in Pharmacology for 38 years, and it kind’a stuck on me. 🙂
I remember from a recent national peer-reviewed journal (forget which one) that a decent school studied the effects on brain chemistry/activity of meth and Adderol. Interestingly, they were concluded they were essentially the same, well beyond just the ‘amphetamine’ family resemblance.
There’s a reason people ‘do drugs’ – they work. People in serious pain often have to resort to heroin because the ultra-high-dose opiate therapies (that work) can get a doc in trouble with the DEA. MDMA therapies for PTSD (among other things) are very effective, especially when nothing else works.
Regardless of one’s opinions of a ‘soul’ or whatever, at the end of the day we are very complex chemically operated machines. Limiting humans’ available resources for recreational chemicals has never worked. You can get coke and heroin in every country that has the death penalty for having anything to do with drugs. It’s just a bit more expensive.
While shooting guns can be addictive, and expensive, I hardly think it falls into the same category as abusing yourself and your health with the drugs mentioned.
If guns are making your teeth fall out, you’re holding them wrong.
LOL
Dear Grindstone, you owe me a new/clean key board!
I had to laugh so hard that I am having to clean my drink of my key board, thanks anyway..
Coffee hurts when it gets in your nose… just sayin…
Especially the dry grounds.
Only about 5-8% of the users of coke, heroin, or meth ever become addicted. The reality is that 90+% of the users are recreational, and never have any problems – save for risks and costs due to the ridiculous illegality of said products.
Don’t want free people to smoke, or drink, or whatever? Educate them on the potential goods and bads. ‘Roids are great right now, in the end you’ll die like Lyle Alzado. It’s supposed to be your choice. Heroin, meth, and coke make you feel otherworldly, but eventually if you’re one of the few who gets hooked, it can ruin your drive to do anything but get high.
“Free” to obey some prurient nonsense is not freedom.
Thanks for this. Too many are brainwashed into believing that any drug will turn people into raving addicts without exception.
Another example of confusing the abuse of something with something being inherently evil. To clarify the point, substance abuse vs substances. I don’t think there is a responsible way for the average person to use cocaine.
When I cut the tip of my finger off with an axe, I was treated with liquid cocaine while my dad (a family practitioner) sewed it back on. It cut the pain instantly, like flipping a light switch.
Funny thing, I didn’t turn into a coke fiend.
Really easy to make people use coke responsibly, re-legalize and educate.
Do you have any idea how many people are doing coke/heroin/meth/ecstasy right now? Almost 1 in 100 use just coke recreationally. Were the 2.somethingMM users all addicts, wow the treatment centers would be full. Not to mention the average heroin, meth, or X user – they overwhelmingly aren’t junkies either.
The author should have told her gun control works about as well as that dog control sign she was ignoring.
I once had somone tell me that evil assault rifles make people want to murder others (as if demonic or something). I asked her if spoonsmake people want to over eat, cars make people want to hit other cars or pools make people want to drown. She walked away in a huff.
” and I that’s too fast for you, take a minute and a huff!”. Groucho Marx
Why don’t you go shoot somebody?
“Don’t tempt me lady!” Would have been my response.
That response would have just confirmed her prejudice.
As hard as it is, we need to stay above that level of childishness.
Stupid statements deserve a stupid response.
I disagree. Stupid statements rarely deserve any response at all.
In your scenario, she gets exactly what she was looking for: Confirmation of her prejudice that gun owners are violent psychopaths, and more reason to continue being stupid.
Sometimes to win the fight you have to get down to their level.
No, never mud wrestle a pig… you both get muddy but the pig enjoys it.
Don’t go down to an idiot’s level in an argument, they’ll beat you with experience.
Perhaps something a little more tempered like “are you volunteering?”
She would have called the police and said she was threatened if that had been said. Best to just shake your head, mutter something like “nutjob” under your breath, and walk off while they are going off like that.
Then she’d call the police and say you threatened her and you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
Unless she recorded it, it would be her word against yours.
That’s entirely legal in a lot of places. In this age of smart phones and other electronics, it’s best to always assume there is a camera rolling somewhere.
My response would be, “If your unleashed dog attacks me or anyone else I will shoot it vice being mauled or watching someone else get mauled.”
Say again?
I’ve had the typical vitriolic rhetoric from the run-of-the-mill, internet-anonymous, CSGV types, but nothing that stands out in particular.
Typical projection. I’ve gotten the “people aren’t responsible enough or emotionally stable enough to own firearms” a few times. It’s simply that person assuming that they are normal and that everyone else is just like them, and that the “power” of having a firearm would make committing murder and going nuts completely irresistible. The lady in this example is no different, as demonstrated but her inability to take criticism / correction like a normal human (let alone recognize that laws & regs apply to her as well).
The most consistently moronic anti-gun statements I’ve seen come from a Facebook page titled “The liberal agenda” . Their stuff is in a class by it self.
The Washington Post comments section on gun articles is usually pretty entertaining. There’s a good one right now on their site with a bunch of lunatics ranting about gun control.
There’s always, “Madam, do you have any idea what I do for a living?”
Rocket surgeon?
I’m wondering about the timing of the above conversation. What put gun control foremost in her mind at that moment? Was it the day after Umpqua or some other highly publicized massacre in a gun free zone?
Speaking of Umpqua, I thought it was pretty stupid when the father of the shooter came out and said “…but if Chris had not been able to get hold of 13 guns, this wouldn’t have happened.” Clearly it’s a question of quantity.
Did he or was it is his mom purchase the firearms? I am betting it was mom who was a nurse not the unemployed crazy kid. Show us the 4473 signatures ATF.
Mom is a certified nurse, medical professional, she had to know son was not right in the head, did she have prior knowledge he had access to the firearms? Did she try to limit his access to the firearms? Own a safe or have trigger locks? Will the ATF take action against her? I bet the families of those wounded and murdered will go after her in civil court if she did sign the 4473’s.
As for Daddy, he should just go back to England, take Piers Moron with him. They both would happier there in the land of no firearms (sort of).
Or, it might all just be made up. That whole conversation seems a little too pat for me.
This. That’s an awful lot of drama.
I’ve met plenty of people who are so hysterical and incapable of logic that I believe the above conversation could have happened.
I prefer “defenseless victim zones”.
In ultra liberal fantasy land the cops & military are going to round up all of the NRA members and shoot them in the back of the head.
The thought that the majority of cops and military are pro-gun and many are themselves NRA members never seems to occur to these geniuses.
It’s one reason I am legitimately concerned about the rapid development of robotic weapons. They won’t ask questions they will just follow orders when an rabidly liberal ‘great leader’ orders some kind of weapon confiscation or purge.
I think that until very recently that was true. There is a huge influx of “undocumented” workers. Most likely to pad the numbers of the TSA and DHS. Those people will have no problems opening fire on U.S. citizens. They will have on body armor, paid for by the “lost” trillions the DoD can not account for.
That’s exactly where I figure DHS would get their foot-soldiers/cannon-fodder for an attempted mass confiscation.
There’s a lot of illegals who, if offered full immunity/amnesty and payment far beyond anything they’d make from waiting in front of Home Depot, would be quite willing to do whatever the feds ask.
Because they assume the cops’ and soldiers’ jackboots are polished as brightly as theirs are.
And I share your nightmares about autonomous killer robots. They’re not just for battlefields anymore.
Glad you didn’t. She probably would have called the. cops on you.
I met this French girl on a date. The topic rolled around to guns. She said she traveled the world and never had a problem where she needed a gun, and having one would have only invited violence. So I asked what if someone was going to rape and murder you, wouldn’t you want one then? She said the scariest and stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. She said, “then it will be my time and there is nothing I could do about it.”
Seems like most French people must be brainwashed. Otherwise how could they be stupid enough to elect a Socialist President ?
The French seem to be heavy at the ends of the ideological spectrum. The first time I met a French woman from the right, I had to ask if she was sure she was French. She laughed and said yes, just not from Paris.
If they’ll accept tax rates with the highest bracket over 100%, they’re stupid enough to elect an actual Socialist.
Sadly, the same could be said about the USA. The epitome of brainwashed idiocy is people who voted for Obama TWICE.
Question: how do you brainwash a liberal?
Answer: Give him/her an enema!
My ex said something nearly identical to that… If you don’t own a gun then nothing bad should ever happen to you, and if it does well it was meant to be.
Yeah, I also said EX.
She should be glad that Brits, Americans, and the Resistance didn’t think that way in the 1940s…otherwise it’s possible she’d be speaking German today.
Anybody that nihilistic wouldn’t even care.
Here’s the thing. That’s fine if that’s how you want to live. Anti’s don’t just want that though. They want to force you to do the same. They think they can magically keep everyone safer somehow by making them less individually less safe but more overall safe… because laws? I still have no idea how they think this is going to work. It seems like a lot of wishful thinking backed up by statistics to reinforce their preconceived notion that guns are bad.
“They think they can magically keep everyone safer somehow by making them less individually less safe but more overall safe . . . ” And, it works very well.
Look, take a population of 100,000 potential victims and 10 predators. At any given moment, the ratio of predators to prey is 10 / 100,000. See, that’s a very low risk.
Now, arm 10% of those potential victims; leave the predators alone. The risk is now 10 / 90,000. Still pretty good.
Now, the thing is here that you must NOT take this proposition too far. Suppose you armed 90,990. The risk is now 10 / 10. Who is it that remains in the denominator? Your typical hoplophobe.
They know this; it’s perfectly obvious. Print up a bunch of signs, 1/2 each:
– Gun-free Home
– Gun-owner’s Home
Go through the neighborhood ringing doorbells. How many hoplophobes want to take your “Gun-free Home” signs. They know what’s good for them; and, they know what will make them targets.
I think you’re looking at this situation from the wrong perspective. Perpetrators’ choice of victim is not random.
With 0/100,000 potential victims armed, the perpetrator does not need to consider armed resistance as a factor in choice of victim. He has a 100% chance of an encounter with an unarmed victim, and a 0% chance of intervention by an armed bystander.
With 10,000/100,000 potential victims armed, the perpetrator now must consider that he has only a 90% chance of an encounter with an unarmed victim – and a 10% chance of intervention by an armed bystander. Now, the situation is one that the perpetrator must make a risk analysis.
With 99,990 potential victims armed, the perpetrator has a 99.99% chance of an encounter with an armed victim – and a 99.99% chance of intervention by an armed bystander. I doubt any criminal would be foolish or brash enough to attempt his intended crime, under those circumstances.
Yes, Chip, you are correct based on the reasonable assumption of CC. Conversely, should you consider the (less reasonable) proposition of OC, then my math stands (or so I hope).
You have adopted the perpetrator’s viewpoint. Also a valid perspective. But return to the hoplophobe’s viewpoint.
Here I am in a sea of potential victims. I – the King of the High Moral Ground – go un-armed. I am equally vulnerable; assuming everyone else is similarly un-armed. Now, one and then another takes up arms. These are no longer vulnerable. I remain equally vulnerable as everyone else, except for these two.
Does the perpetrator know how to “make” a carrier? Does he notice the Open-Carrier? Does he notice the Concealed-Carrier who prints? Is there something in the bearing, the walk, of the carrier? Something that will reveal himself to have the confidence of one who bears arms? Will the perpetrator pick me out as the vulnerable un-armed and untrained victim?
Of course, I’m elaborating here, especially in the second paragraph. Nevertheless, intuitively, the vulnerable individual will feel just a little less vulnerable if everyone about her remains equally vulnerable. As soon as someone breaks ranks – picks-up a rock – that vulnerable person is apt to feel ever more exposed.
This is similar to vaccinations across a population. As long as enough of the population is vaccinated the folks who aren’t vaccinated still benefit from “herd immunity”. However, if enough of the population is unvaccinated or if there are concentrated pockets of under vaccination, then “herd immunity” disappears and you end up with the recent outbreaks of whooping cough in Oregon and California.
Likewise, if enough of the population is potentially armed, the unarmed benefit from “herd defense”, but if you have a gun free zone, then you’ve created a pocket of no defense, or an unrestricted hunting ground for psychopaths.
A recent civics conversation with two sailors. Both were in their mid 20’s and seemed quite articulate and well educated. As our discussion turned to the 2nd Amendment one of them said:
“Not so much now because there are so many guns out there, but I think the founders made a big mistake with the 2nd Amendment. I don’t think they intended everybody to have guns.”
I reminded her that the war for Independence was fought using personally owned firearms and that if what she said was true that we would still be British subjects.
Silence…
Please don’t judge the whole Navy on those two.
That’s a rapidly moving target. Something that I used to think was as asinine as it gets always gets trumped in short order.
I think the Daily Kos group “Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment” is a nice benchmark. Since there is no Constitutional provision for amending an amendment, the very title demonstrates the position of ignorance they are operating from. It’s like claiming to be a proud member of “Ignoramuses International”, you know the sort of groupthink they are going to foster.
Well, there is the 18th and 21st amendments, so it is not without precedence.
“there is no Constitutional provision for amending an amendment . . .”
Not that I am in favor of any change to the Second Amendment, but you’re kidding right? An amendment is a part of the Constitution, and can be changed changed just as the original text can be changed. In fact, this has been done at least five times:
The 12th Amendment was amended by the 20th Amendment (relating to the election of the President and Vice President)
The 14th Amendment was amended by the 19th Amendment (relating to eligibility to vote based on sex)
The 14th Amendment was also amended by the 26th Amendment (relating to eligibility to vote based on age)
The 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment (relating to prohibition of alcohol)
The 20th Amendment was amended by the 25th Amendment (relating to election of the President and Vice President)
All of the above comments being correct, I would like to add:
The majority of amendments to the Constitution were either prohibitions against the government infringing on natural, civil and now Constitutionally protected individual rights ( The Bill of Rights), or modifications of the body of the Constitution as to what the government was allowed to do and how to go about doing it.
As near as I can tell the only amendment that broke that mold was Prohibition and is the only amendment that attempted to tell individual citizens what they could not do, a definite break with precedent and in retrospect something that should have been dealt with legislatively, not through amendment to the Constitution. It is also the ONLY Constitutional amendment that has ever been repealed.
To those who believe that the solution to guns is to revise or repeal the Second Amendment I have this to say – be careful what you wish for. If you allow even once for the ability of the government to modify in any significant respect those carefully considered natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights in the Bill of Rights you will have opened Pandora’s Box and none of the others that you hold more dear will be safe. Fair warning.
And by the way, legal considerations of the processing of amending the Constitution aside, how can you rationally explain revising or repealing an amendment that in its very text, as ratified, prohibits the right from being infringed? A definite conundrum.
You missed one major thing. Prohibition was not the first Amendment that prohibited action on the part of the citizenry; that was the 13th Amendment, which prohibited slavery. The 13th Amendment is not limited to governmental institutions, it just outright bans slavery in the United States. It told citizens that they could no longer engage in a practice that was, until then, legal in some states.
While no one would seriously argue about this now, at the time, it essentially was a government action to take away what some regarded as their property (slaves).
One small correction. The 13A reserves for government the power of slavery or involuntary servitude upon conviction of a crime.
Absolutely true. But, the point still remains that it is a constitutional provision that prohibits activities not just on the part of the government, but also on the part of the citizenry.
Alcohol Prohibition “. . . should have been dealt with legislatively, not through amendment to the Constitution.” I completely disagree with you here.
The liberty of consuming alcohol for beverage purposes was not an enumerated right. Nevertheless, it could very plausibly be argued to have been reserved to the States or to the People under the 10A. The argument against alcohol was one that fit within the tradition of the “police power” to regulate the “morals” of the population of each State; i.e., it was a subject of local not Federal power.
To constrain this liberty nationally required an amendment to the Federal Constitution; else, it would have to be left to the States individually. We should, instead, argue that the treatment of alcohol Prohibition sets the president for no Federal power to regulate recreational drugs absent an authorizing Federal amendment.
I hold that there must be no taboo over any proposed amendment to the Constitution. To impose such a taboo is to constrain thought, speech and advocacy. If the People are foolish enough to allow their legislatures to ratify a proposed amendment then they are doomed to suffer the consequences. See: Prohibition; direct election of Senators; and, the income tax.
I would welcome a serious attempt to repeal or alter the 2A. It would force the Antis to come clean on their agenda. Whenever the People become so deluded as to fall for so foolish a proposal then the struggle has already been lost. We have 40 States today that have recognized Right-to-Carry; the present would be a good time to face the Antis on the field of rhetorical battle. A simple text of a proposed Amendment is something they could not hide behind. A legislative bill – encompassing a thousand pages or more – is a far worse place to try to struggle to preserve rights.
The conundrum you cite is already embedded in the text. By our tradition and several SCOTUS rulings we acknowledge that the RKBA is Divinely endowed – or “natural” if you prefer. Nevertheless, the text explicitly extends the guarantee against infringement to a proper subset of humanity; i.e., “the People”.
Who are these humans falling outside the penumbras and emanations of the People? Clearly, those individuals who – once having been a member of the protected class – have renounced their citizenship. These become prohibited-persons and will not be redeemed even should they become citizens again. (Once you renounced you trigger the prohibited-person criteria just as you do by becoming a felon.) How about illegal aliens? How about legal aliens who wish to buy arms in the US for export and use in defending their lives abroad (e.g., Mexican Autodefensas)?
Moreover, the so-called “Insular” cases are precedent for withholding some fundamental rights of US Citizens from residents of unincorporated territories! There is a 2A case presently pending in Federal court to overturn these Insular cases as respects a Navy vet and his native wife in the Commonwealth of Micronesia.
Unfortunately, the conundrum is already with us. The 2A makes no guarantee whatsoever to all of God’s children; the Yazidis, and Christians of the Middle East and Autodefensas of Mexico will have to fend for themselves. No hope of export licenses or a wink & a nod from Fast & Furious for them. Only the Power of LEGITIMATE states – you know, like the Islamic State or Mexico, to export licenses will be upheld.
Yes, the Second amendment can be repealed; however, what this would accomplish would not be a repeal of the right to keep and bear arms, but instead only the prohibition against governmental infringement of that right.
If, God forbid, we ever get to the point where the 2A is “amended” to not protect our rights, I would guess laws passing extreme restriction would immediately follow. If ‘they’ ever have enough political power to call a constitutional convention and get a gun related amendment passed, they’ll have the power to pass whatever laws they want
and the fabled anti-gun prediction will actually, finally come true:
..Blood will flow in the streets.
By that point, they don’ need no steenkin’ laws.
My response would have been that the sign is force of law and you’re not following it why do you think criminals would follow any of your anti gun laws and now since I’ve asked you nicely to leash your dog I am calling the police
After a 10-minute discussion with our office anti-gun vegetarian, with my careful refutation of his arguments (“if we can save just one child”, “It’s a good first step”, yadda yadda), I finally got him to provide his bedrock reason for wanting to ban guns: “I JUST DON’T LIKE GUNS.”
Finally, one who admitted the truth of his bias. My reply? “Well, I don’t like Brussels sprouts, but I’m not telling you that you can’t eat them.”
We can pick only 1?
I guess the most recent one was comparing gun owners to ISIS… which is a play on comparing gun owners to Al Qaeda before that… and the Taliban before that… etc, etc, etc. Just further proof of their residence in la la land where critical thinking and rational debate is non-existent.
On a side note, it is funny to watch the contorted expression (turn to further rage) when my response is, “It must be a sad life for you to be filled with such hate and bigotry.”
“Actually, the evidence shows the world would be safer if only cops and criminals had guns.” On Facebook.
Then you should have suggested a move to Chicago’s Southside.
“If no one had guns, then all these tragic news events would never be happening…”
And if horses had wings we’d all be eating steak.
And if wishes were war ponies, Mandans would ride…
I’m sorry, but this story doesn’t make sense. Why would someone spout out “go fight the NRA?”
Were you wearing an NRA hat or open carrying or something?
It just seems like a totally random thing for someone to say.
I agree. There needs to be more context given or it doesn’t pass the smell test.
Yes, it does seem to be a rather brash non sequitur. It makes some sense if one posits that she was deflecting the criticism of her illegal behavior as “unimportant” in the greater scale of things, and that the author would better spend his time protesting the NRA than criticizing her. I guess. Otherwise it makes no sense at all.
Liberal Billionaire Ron Conway (LBRC): “We want to find a technical means to know who’s carrying a gun.”
Me: “You know there are a lot of people legally carrying guns, right?”
LBRC: “How many?”
Me: “Maybe 30 million or more.”
LBRC: “Oh.”
You got off message. Should have told her you were going to call the cops about her dog.
Changing the subject is the most common method used by women to avoid taking responsibility for their own bad behavior.
And as you point out, this guy fell for it.
Don’t hate on all Subaru drivers bro.
Yes… well there is that
Or us Subaru-driving dog owners. 🙂
Your dog drives a Subaru? Was it difficult to train him to be your chauffeur?
“Don’t hate on all Subaru drivers bro”
I didn’t notice him hating on Subaru drivers. I saw him identifying the woman in the only way he knew. I think anyone who took offense because they own a Subaru is one of those who look for offense everywhere.
Besides, owning a Subaru is a badge of honor for tree hugging leftists, like wearing Birkenstock sandals once was. If you are not a tree hugging leftist but choose to drive a Subaru you should be used to people who pigeonhole you because of your car.
It was a joke but apparently I missed the mark.
As to your poke. I see a lot of Subies in the range parking lot. AWD is great in bad weather or on rough roads up to your favorite spot. Don’t fall for the marketing hype. You are thinking of those Volvo drivers.
Which have their own virtues. I know of several Volvos that had over a million miles on them.
I’d put an NRA sticker on our Subaru except that would almost guarantee it getting keyed on the campus parking lot.
Yeah, you might be able to get away with a “Coexist” gun sticker though. Mind you, I run an Outback with Trijicon, Molon Labe, Dan Wesson, Magpul, arf.com, Noveske, BCM and “9/11 Never Again” stickers on it. I really think it confuses the crap out of the tree-huggers.
I think most the tree huggers that drive Subaru’s don’t like to associate with Subaru WRX or STI owners. Those things eat a lot of fossils.
But 93 octane runs so good!
My STi was soooo fast but that caused me to get pulled over a few times. I now have the XV Crosstrek and have noticed that most cops won’t even look at me twice. No stickers of any kind. Camouflage your position.
I miss my 05 STi. It was so fast but drank gas like it was the 1960s. My 4 door Wrangler gets better mileage.
Hunh…. I guess I wasn’t aware of that. I have owned Scobyroo’s for years. They last a long time, handle well in northern climates, and are pretty good on fuel. I was completely unaware of the association with left wing liberal nut jobs. I see this as an advantage. I guess those people will assume there are no guns on board and consider me to be low threat. I’m not big on camouflage but I guess when it’s just part of your edc a set of Scooby keys is OK.
My 14 Subie Outback has an American flag decal in the back window, a Vietnam Veteran license plate and a Springfield Mil Spec 1911 on board. I bought it for the all wheel drive, decent gas mileage and reputation for safety and its been a pretty good ride so far. When I was looking at the car, I measured out the console storage. The salesman asked if I was concerned about the space and I replied “Yes, I need a place to carry my pistol.” The salesman was ex air force and he just laughed as he said “I think it will fit.” That’s what you get in Oklahoma.
Yeah, not in the Northwest. It has to be able to hold a large 100% fair-trade/organic/Rainforest Alliance-certified coffee in a 100% recyclable coffee cup, carry 1000 trees seedlings for planting (to offset carbon emissions), not get soiled when you happen to get your Birkenstocks wet, vacuum easily after a completely all-natural home-made vegan granola spill, = a glove box large enough to hold a dog-eared and well-worn copy of Edward Abbey’s Desert Solitaire (or the subversive “Monkey Wrench Gang”) as well as hauling your puppy-breeder saved Vizsla to the dog park.
The freaks in Seattle and Portland are what give Subaru owners a bad name.
I lived in Seattle for a few yrs and liked everything about it, but the cost of living and the people. So, if I didn’t have to live or deal with people, it would’ve been awesome.
Anyways, my daily driver was a V8 Durango and my weekend toy was ’79 PowerWagon single cab with full time 4WD. Lifted, suped up, and running 35s.
My hippie dippie neighbors hated my guts. Especially, when parked next to that beast of a truck in those tiny spots ya’ll folks in the NW call “parking spot.”
I almost bought a brand-new Forester a few months ago, but I wasn’t particularly enamored of the delay with the drive-by-wire gas pedal, it was a damned nuisance. Shame too. Enough room for large Pelican cases or hockey gear for more than one, good ground clearance for rough country range days, and still available with a manual transmission. Lots of gun/horse-owning folks (those two things seem to go hand in hand more often than not) around our little enclave of sense use the wagons as runabouts because feeding the trailering rig gets too expensive for daily errands. I’m wary of the ones with so many bumper stickers that the back window is blocked-as proven by my dash through the Bay Area yesterday.
Subaru should ask Chevy how to do it. My Corvette is drive by wire and there’s no delay.
Who cares. The “Anti-gun” position is only a temporary one, and suffers under the weight of its own short-sightedness.
Anyone who carries a clip-type pocket knife knows this. How many times have you been asked why you “carry a knife” only to be the subject of a gleeful manhunt when a knife is suddenly needed and some dipsh_t remembered that you typically have one on you (but you’re just their handy tool, not their hero).
GUNS are like this. When they remember you have a gun tell them FU for me.
I had several students at my college ask me this. Of course, this is after we just used said knife for several hours to build our final project since the box cutters in the shop wouldn’t cut butter.
+
Further, just as [a substantial portion of] the protection afforded U.S. citizens, from an overpowering “government” comes from the government NO KNOWING WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE ARMED.
So too it is with Anti-gunners. Protection from them requires you to call out their anti-gun status very publically while not necessarily allowing them knowledge that you might possess firearms.
B-B-B BOX CUTTERS? At a COLLEGE? Call security. Lockdown!!
I don’t really associate with antis. I know there are some around me at work but I don’t talk guns with them. Maybe I should expand my base of interaction. Nah…I’m good.
I can smell an anti from a block away and avoid them as I would avoid stepping on a pile of Fido excrement, so that there is nothing that one of them can say to me.
Once, a friend who is not an anti but lives in New York City (which explains everything) said to me, “If you shoot someone in self defense it will change your life forever.”
I told him that I would prefer my life to be changed rather than ended.
That’s a broad enough statement I agree with it. Just because I’d rather it be him than me doesn’t mean that there aren’t psychological issues after.
In terms of legality, well that depends on how cool or not cool your local DA’s office is and your circumstances. In NYC I would think he’s right on the money and it’s a good way to get boned.
Getting boned is better than getting dead. Period.
And if I have to defend myself against the threat of deadly force, I won’t like it but I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.
I would have replied, “I have been bitten by a loose dog but never shot by a gun.” In my city, the owner of a dog that bites someone is likely to end up in court facing charges about his dangerous animal running loose.
Right now this lady is writing to some anti gun blog about this horrible guy she met while walking her dog in the park and that she was afraid for her life because he was going to pull out his 200 round magazine clip equipped ghost assault rifle with cop killing heat seeking armor piercing laser enhanced projectiles and empty it in a half second.
Man, I gots to get me one of those.
And it doesn’t have a shoulder thing that goes up and down?
Don’ forget that shoulder thingy that goes up……..
The AK-15, for when you absolutely positively gots to scare every m#$#%f@#er watching the news.
“with cop killing heat seeking armor piercing laser enhanced projectiles”
At the moment, the Progressives hate police officers, so they may not use the “cop” card this time.
“If you are attacked, curl up in a fetal position and wait for the police to arrive”.
And vomit and pee yourself and if you have one of those cool glass capsules full of skunk essence, be sure to break that inside your panties.
I bet buzzard puke works pretty good, too.
I took an anti shooting one day and showed him what a semi auto rifle was, as well as handguns. I asked him how he liked it. His response “it was awesome, i got a rush every time i shot. Now i want to ban then even more!”
The most incomprehensible statement I’ve personally seen was on a Yahoo news comment, ” I would rather die and see my family sodomized and murdered than own a gun” . This was right after the Santa Barbara stabbing/ shooting. I still don’t have a response.
Response should have been “You have every right to leave yourself to be victim, but you have ZERO right to force everyone else to submit to your sick fantasies.”
^nailed it^
Weak and meaningless words from an obviously weak and meaningless person.
Saw this little mini convo in the comments of a news article:
Person #1: Our gun ownership rates are the reason our suicide rate is so high!
Person #2: Japan, Korea, and China have suicide rates more than twice as high as ours and the lowest per capita gun ownership in the world.
Person #1: How are they committing suicide without guns?
All they have to do is read something posted by Person #1 and their brains just kill themselves over the stupidity.
George W Bush & Wayne LaPierre are actually murdering those people and framing it as suicide. Fox News helps them cover it up.
Now that’s awesome!!!
A friend had a conversation with a pro gun control woman
who was looking to purchase a pistol for self defense but did
not want the government to know she owned a firearm.
Her view was, gun control should only apply “other people”
because her owning a firearm would never be a problem.
TTAG ran an article about someone who blogged of a very similar experience. She wanted a gun but still didn’t think other people should have them. Typical viewpoint of those who believe they are smarter/empathetic/balanced than the other guy. Fascist viewpoint.
This is ALWAYS the viewpoint of those who feel that they are the elite. Look at the examples all around you of those who would prevent you from owning a gun but either have one themselves or have paid guards who are armed. Ted Kennedy was a prime example as are Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, the Clintons, and many others.
Too many times on the internet I have read “gun owners need to be shot with their own guns”
And no further commentary on how to actually accomplish this trick?
I have a theory that anti-gun activists are closet/latent “ammosexuals” with problems controlling their temper; who are so ashamed of their proclivities that they violently project self-disgust & anger at those who openly enjoy everything they have been brainwashed to hate.
I think you’re on the money with that one.
ALL of my guns or just one or two, because at some point it just becomes overkill (pun intended).
Said to me and perhaps 30,000 other Grand Junctionites this morning:
http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/never-underestimate-power-of-a-mom
Never underestimate the power of a mom
By Claudette Konola
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
We’ve heard arguments from the National Rifle Association about why we need more guns. The NRA represents a very small minority of Americans. Their job is to convince Americans to buy more guns and legislators that guns cannot be regulated. They are paid well by the American gun manufacturers to be convincing.
Increasingly Americans are unconvinced, but legislators remain addicted to NRA money and support. Fortunately there is an even more powerful group of Americans working against the NRA. Never underestimate the power of a mom.
Some NRA arguments:
Guns cannot be regulated because there is a Second Amendment to our Constitution. False. The NRA conveniently forgets to mention that the Second Amendment starts with, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state …”
Two words ignored by ammosexuals, the NRA, and cowardly legislators are “regulated” and “militia.” The Second Amendment anticipates, does not prohibit, regulation. (As a side note, amendments can be repealed. Amendment XVIII was repealed.)
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. False. In the most recent mass shooting in Oregon, several good guys with guns ran away because they feared they would be identified as bad guys by first responders. Taxpayers hire and train soldiers, cops and sheriffs how to respond to gunfire. Those are well-regulated militias. John Wayne wannabes and ammosexuals are not well-regulated militias.
We should focus on mental health. Mostly True. Anybody who lives with depression knows that it is a long struggle, with lots of set-backs. We should focus on the mental health of all Americans, especially those who have post-traumatic stress disorder, because of being exposed to gunfire.
Although mental health is a contributing factor to bad behavior, America is not the only nation with citizens who suffer from mental health problems. We are, with huge margins, the No. 1 nation when it comes to death by gun. A focus on mental health does not cure the problems caused by easy access to guns and bullets.
The politics of gun regulation are going to play a major role in the 2016 elections, at every level. One of the Republicans who has announced he will run against Sen. Michael Bennet is state Sen. Tim Neville. Neville, one of Colorado’s most conservative senators, is closely associated with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. That association was instrumental in the recall efforts after Colorado enacted several common sense gun regulations. They also wanted parts of Colorado to secede. They bill themselves as Colorado’s only no-compromise gun rights organization.
At the presidential level, we have Republicans reacting to the Oregon shooting with “stuff happens.”
Martin O’Mally came out with four points to support gun safety: no sales of combat assault weapons; licensing and fingerprinting of all gun purchasers; a ban on federal government gun purchases from any manufacturer that doesn’t use the latest and best safety technology; and making gun trafficking a federal crime.
Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, who hails from a state with lots of hunters and gun owners, said he supports banning assault weapons; “and closing the loophole that exempts private, unlicensed gun sales from background checks.” He also wants to improve America’s mental health system.
Democrat Hillary Clinton came out swinging at the NRA: “I’m going to try to do everything I can as president to raise up an equally large and vocal group that is going to prove to be a counterbalance … And we’re going to tell legislators, do not be afraid. Stand up to these people because a majority of the population and a majority of gun owners agree that there should be universal background checks. And the NRA has stood in the way.”
Hillary is in luck. There is already a growing and vocal group that needs our support. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America was founded after the Sandy Hook shootings. Their mission is to demand action from legislators and educators to establish common-sense gun reforms. They now have chapters in all 50 states and a grassroots network of moms working together.
Moms understand that unregulated gun ownership is a public health crisis. Cowardly legislators recently extended the federal ban on research on gun violence by the CDC. The NRA wants this ban because without it, there is no factual data about the severity of this crisis.
Nominated in 2013, but not confirmed until 2015, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy tweeted in 2012: “Tired of politicians playing politics w/guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of [National Rifle Association]. Guns are a health care issue.”
I’m placing my bets on Moms.
Claudette Konola comes from a family of hunters who don’t need assault rifles. (And has lost every election she’s thought about running in. Now you know why.)
MDA Copy-and-Paste editorials more than make up in tediousness what they lack in factual accuracy.
Yeah, jeez, what a headache that was.
“The politics of gun regulation are going to play a major role in the 2016 elections, at every level.”
Maybe at the state and local level – in some cases. At the presidential level, though, I doubt it will be a major issue. Something much bigger than this Oregon shooting would have to happen.
Ah, that can be arranged.
In an argument with an anti, I linked an article of a local single mother with an infant shooting a man armed with a bowie knife trying to break into her home. The European responded “Why wasn’t she charged?”
I gave up after that.
Also, at a job I had a picture of a beautiful 1911 that was tricked out including an under barrel laser/light combo. A coworker saw this an asked “Aren’t laser sights illegal?”
…
But the worst of the worst, when I pointed out to an anti how the UK has a much higher overall violent crime rate and asked if that was acceptable to him, he said it was.
Gun mounted lasers and lights ARE illegal in Germany and I’m sure other countries, so that’s not so surprising.
That tells you everything you need to know about their point of view. They want gun control, even though they know it either won’t affect or (more likely) have a negative effect on violence. They don’t care about violence. They don’t care about logic. At root, they only want to control or ban firearms because of their irrational fear of inanimate objects that have and are, more often than not, used for legitamate purposes such as sport and self defense (and let’s not forget defense of liberty, but antis can’t comprehend that, since they are the ones assaulting liberty in the first place).
In Chiraq: No lasers period. No laser pointers. Not mounted to a gun. They will confiscate.
In theory, if the laser is mounted to a handgun, the Illinois Concealed Carry law should preempt the Chicago ban just like it does for high capacity handgun magazines. I don’t believe this has been tested in court yet though.
I take it that you neglected to explain to him that the constabulary took her shotgun as evidence. She was left to the kindness of strangers to give her another shotgun until her’s was returned.
That was explained in the article I linked him and I didn’t include it in my post to keep it brief and to the point.
“Hers” is already possessive.
A few years back I had a suspect pull a knife on me while I was attempting to take him into custody for larceny. The suspect fled to a nearby restaurant and sat down at a table and was looking at the menu trying to blend in when myself and 8 or so uniformed officers stacked up and went through the door at 5:30 in the afternoon. The suspect was taken at gun point with customers fleeing in all directions but for one rather large female who was standing in the middle of the restaurant screaming at me “they have guns, they have guns!!!! My response was “really you don’t say, I guess you had better call the police”
Good point. Once the guns are removed from citizens, the police will be the next target to have their firearm access restricted.
Locally controlled police anyway. Federal law enforcement will always have guns. Notice how the outcry over police militarization is always directed at local departments and not federal agencies.
^^^THIS
Meanwhile the ATF (possibly) executes a dozen bikers, and not a peep.
Divide and conquer. Local boy cop won’t confiscate the civilian’s guns? Have him stripped of his. Only the special police carry gun.. (That would be Hitler’s SS for those of you who don’t History).
Been pointing this out for years. The guns will be checked out of the armory at start of shift, and returned at the end of it.
Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions
“Why don’t you go shoot somebody?”
Last time I did that there was SUCH a kerfuffle.
Do you have someone specific in mind?
Why? Have you not been entertained sufficiently this day through gratuitous violence?
I like this response can I use it?
Are you not entertained?!
http://e.lvme.me/rovlta9.jpg
“Why don’t you go shoot somebody?”
“Way too much paperwork.”
I’ve used this every single time a moron finds out I’m a gun owner and, being a moron, they always ask “Have you shot anybody with it/how many babies have you murdered/some other iteration of this exceptionally retarded commentary.
If only us gun owners really were the psychos they claim, we wouldn’t have to put up with these losers for very long… Their continued existence is proof that their slander and lies are exactly that. I’d love to improve the gene pool by removing them from it. But, I have to be better than they are…
Well, as someone with obvious uncontrolled anger issues she should certainly never own or control a firearm. Were is the checkbox on the form for that when buying a gun ?
Oh, I’ve got one. After the Boston bombing and discussion the hunt for speedbump, I was told they should make bullets out of chocolate so they didn’t hurt the target so much. And this was considered a serious idea by the originator.
How can you reason with people who think these things?
According to the wapo it was a 7 year old Milwaukee boy that suggested the coco bullet. Biden wrote him back.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2013/05/14/joe-biden-backs-chocolate-bullet-policy-proposal/
OMG I didn’t know there was a backstory to this one….
An african immigrant said to me that regular people are not qualified to have guns, only the police and military have the training and expertise to carry guns. Made me wonder if the 10s of millions of other immigrants, legal and illegal, often coming from places where the average person has no rights, and does not expect many, thought the same thing?
A vast majority do why do you think certain political groups love having an open door?
Makes you wonder if the millions victimized by tribal violence in Africa in the past two decades would agree.
Immigrant from Eastern block here. Also a proud supporter of CONSTITUTION, not limited to 2nd amendment!
Thank you for being in the minority of or immigrants.
Tell him to go back before we send him back.
Since the president is using Australia as a model, meaning confiscation, the cat is out of the bag.
This means we don’t have to argue with Antis any more. This means we don’t have to change their minds. This means that any debate with them is for their own entertainment because their ultimate goal is disarmament. Might as well try to reason with a killer who has already decided to kill you.
So, no more begging, no more “because criminals”. No more. I have a gun because I can. Period. Real liberty does not need an excuse. Real liberty does not need acceptance from others.
They will cry “but.. .school shootings!”
Well, that comes after how many decades of progressivism and degeneracy? Do you see THEM making excuses? Do you see them begging for acceptance? Do you see them resisting calls to roll back all that “progress”?
They know exactly what they have done, and why they did it (read: cultural Marxism). They never apologize, and will always lie.
So, again, no more arguing with antis. It’s a waste of time. They can’t be reasoned with, they will not be bargained with. Real liberty (and the point of having a gun) is not to have to argue with totalitarians. If all the money and time spent begging, convincing, and educating people who enjoy being begged, who cannot be convinced, and cannot be argued with was instead put into getting tactical and long range training and equipment, the gun owning community would be such a hard target that any talk of confiscation amongst the elite would be considered mulling on “suicide by angry citizenry”.
Well, that approach works pretty well for the Muslims. The Left won’t criticize Islam the same way it criticizes Christianity because the Left fears Muslims but knows it does not have to fear Christians.
Yes it works for Muslims.
Think of it this way: any “attack” by an anti is like an attack from an SJW (“social justice warrior”). You are dealing with the same reckless lack of reasoning with antis as you are with SJWs.
This is why the SJWs are all up on “rape culture” and “manspreading” but have nothing to say about the genital mutilation or stoning to death for being raped and other nasty things they do to women.
Antis are in the same political page as SJWs and also tend to be on the same all emotion no logic frequency.
Thus, I would refer to Vox Day’s book “SJWs Always Lie” and one of the methods he prescribes for dealing and an “SJW attack”. He says “Never apologize”. They take apology as a form of weakness and treat it like a surrender (to the effect of “he dropped his shield now stab his heart”).
So when you try to excuse having a gun, “because criminals”, “because tyranny”, “because muh sport”, they see that as weakness and an open door to become even more snarky and unreasonable and bask in it. This is why I say no more excuses and apologies. “Why do you have guns?” Because I can, that’s why. I don’t need a reason.
And if they press it, let them know that contrary to popular belief, passing “the right laws” won’t mean people are going to line up and turn them in. The “laws” don’t “give” us the rights to have a gun. Ever.
I have caused quite a few antis to go into fits of rage. Because not only did they NOT get the argument and opportunity to snark and bask in their trendiness and make me beg and disclaim myself, but once I say my piece, I walk off. These special snowflakes think the First Amendment is all about the right to be heard, but can’t stand it when they discover that it’s also the right to ignore. They think their opinions matter. The whole point of having a gun is to secure liberty in such a manner that being outnumbered by people with the wrong opinion at the voting booth does not mean a thing. To them, that notion is like a cross to a vampire.
So, what can we learn from this? Shouldn’t we look for ways to invoke Social-Justice Warrior-ship ourselves?
I defend gun rights because:
– “No guns for Negros” is racist.
– I stand with Shaneen Allen.
– I stand with David and Li-Rong Radich.
– I stand with las Damas de La Segunda Enmienda.
– I stand for the Deacons for Defense and Justice against the KKK.
– I stand for the single mother who can’t afford to live in a gated community.
We should have no difficulty personalizing our claim to civil rights for the poor, minorities, those condemned to live in dangerous neighborhoods.
Won’t work.
They won’t listen. Like I said, don’t argue with them.
Wrong audience.
I have no wish to waste precious rhetoric on Antis.
Do the SJWs have an audience? Who comprises this audience? People who are susceptible to the rhetorical tools of the SJWs? If the SJWs have been successful with their audience, perhaps their tools work.
The class warfare of No guns for Negros will not be lost on this audience. We don’t need to turn a single Anti; just undermine their credibility among their audience.
Yeah, the argument is never for the sake of the anti’s, the argument is only of the sake of those undecided. So yes, no point in ever having a one on one conversation with an anti. Now, if there are some undecided folks listening, then make the argument.
That tactic I use is to start talking to those people and alienate the anti/SJW on the spot, even lampooning them. Best way to deal with their Saul Alinsky tactics is to go around them and then let them humiliate themselves.
Wait a minute
Woman
A) Ignores the leash sign
B) expects gun free zone signs to work
I love the consistency
Ah sweet, delicious Irony.
which end is the dangerous end?
So many stupid anti comments, so little time (or desire) to rehash them.
D@mn what a c_nt, jump to conclusions much, what the hell does putting a dog on a leash have to do with fighting the NRA?!
Like Ralph, I don’t know of any anti-gun people that I interact personally with, although for awhile I was regularly conversing with the chairwoman of the local county Democrat Party. This being Texas, she claimed to not be anti-gun and admitted to having owned a gun for self-defense until recently, and with no other evidence to the contrary I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt. Like everyone here, I’ve heard/read hundreds of stupid statements from grabbers, but one that sticks with me is a woman who said no one needs a gun for self-defense. Guy asked her, “even in a high-crime neighborhood?” And she said, “You can avoid those neighborhoods”–like, you know, nobody actually lives there (the definition of “neighborhood” notwithstanding). Or maybe just no one who counts, in her world.
This story sounds like it’s straight out of Portland, OR. All the blue meanies be drivin’ Subarus here
I live deep in the Appalachian mountains and the antis around here keep their mouth shut. I thought the most liberal person I know would be against guns but he told me both he and his wife each have a 38 Special revolver in their nightstand.
When we open carry, nobody pays any attention.
How it ought to be
My question: Why don’t you want to protect yourself and your family?
Liberal answer: That’s what we pay the police to do.
Face palm.
Was in uniform in WalMart and this lady said to her child don’t look at me cause I am a murderer and shoot children……Which is hilarious because I am a Medic…..in the Air Force. The only thing the Air Force has asked me to shoot was a Silhouette terrorist or people with a paintball gun.
Ugh.. that’s terrible. I’m sorry that happened to you.
Thank you for your service, sir.
People like that aren’t simply anti’s. Those people are rife with emotional, physical and mental retardation. Essentially lobotomized drones shuffling about until the rot of their dead prefrontal cortex works its way through the rest of the brain and kills them.
Not worth the time to educate, argue or pity as they are incapable of understanding any interaction with a fully functioning human being.
The following is a “dialogue” started on another site between me and an anti.
My reply: Since illegal drugs are available to every elementary school student in every community and have been for decades I don’t follow the logic of making guns illegal to eliminate them but if that’s your goal quit whining and start a movement to amend the Constitution. Until then the Supreme Court has ruled we may own them and that police are not responsible to protect individual citizens. That means I am responsible for protecting myself and my family. It’s a responsibility I take very seriously. More seriously than any government ever will.
REPLY
Anti says:
September 10, 2015 at 5:41 pm
So, Dean, you think the SC has ruled that the police are not responsible to protect individual citizens? Where in hell did you come up with that? Can you cite a specific SC opinion? I’m really interested.
REPLY
Dean Carpenter says:
September 17, 2015 at 1:26 pm
Here you go.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts
My last reply apparently ended our intercourse.
I need to remember that, though “How exactly is the government going to protect all 300 million of us after gun control when they can’t or don’t now” is a bit of a head scratcher for these people as well.
Or “are you really wiling to sacrifice the thousands of people who safely and efficiently defend themselves with guns every year for the HOPE of making us safer?” That stumps ’em pretty good. They love standing on the graves of victims of mass shootings. Stand with those who prevent such tragedies in their own lives I say.
Take a look at the London riots about four years ago. I ran into an older British couple on vacation a few months after the riots. Their daughter got caught in the middle of a riot in one of the commercial areas (she worked at a camera shop) and remember them talking about the utter helplessness their daughter described while she and her co-workers were trapped in the store with the police unavailable.
Reply to Dean Carpenter…
What, they didn’t give you the, “Well, if you’re going to believe *that* site…” routine? The Free Republic seems to be in the top ten of the Liberal No Go list, meaning anything from there is “automatically suspect” to half the liberals I’ve argued with. Fox News must be in their top five, although I’d characterize Fox as more middle-of-the-road than conservative. They won’t go there to “subsidize the enemy,” and they won’t accept cut and paste info from there, either.
To be fair, there’s also a Conservative No Go list — Salon is in the top five of that one, even though they occasionally kick out a pretty conservative article on something. Or they used to — I run across good things there searching by subject, so I suppose the ones that surprise me could all be kind of old. But most conservatives I’ve dealt with will consider the ideas or check the info, even when they complain about the source.
Touch the Liberal No Go List while debating a liberal, and they often use that as grounds to declare themselves the winner, because your sources are so suspect “you must not know what you’re talking about.”
Or maybe I’m just debating the wrong liberals.
A family member once asked me,” why do you need a gun? You’re a big guy.”
*SIGH*
Because staying alive is not a competition.
It’s not a sport, nor is it for entertainment. I don’t owe any would-be murderer the right to a “fair fight”.
Then follow up with “Why would you make a sport of something so abhorrent as rape and murder? Is that some kind of game to you? Maybe I make the bad guy run away, maybe he rapes and kills my children – is that your idea of entertainment??
Just means that someone who is more effecient will hit you with a car.
My former father-in-law wanted to ban guns just to piss off conservatives.
Then he asked me to help him pick out a good home defense shotgun.
my brother in law said, after a m’waukee cop shot a homeless guy with a whole glock mag dump,”they should take their automatic pistols away.” i pried for clarification; he believes they are fully auto. no one could fire that fast.
Two old women speaking to my then employer about making his restaurant a gun free zone around the time Wisconsin had passed its conceal carry law:
“This is a terrible thing. It will make Wisconsin like the wild west and stain the streets red with blood. We are asking that you hang a sign up to keep guns out!”
My reply: in all the other states that have passed conceal carry, how many of them have become depopulated because of that?
Them: what?
Me: how many states have had so many shootouts that their streets are coated in blood?
Them: more guns will mean more people shooting each other.
Me: if that was true, wouldn’t you want the people eating at this establishment able to protect themselves? Besides, denying people the ability to defend themselves in Wisconsin will make the owner liable if there is an unfortunate incident.
Owner: if I never see a gun, I’ll be happy.
At that, they left. And he never did post that sign.
Sheep expect everyone else to be as easily led and bullied as they are.
People with calm conviction confuse them greatly – it short circuits their programming.
Just to really stick it to them, I carried everyday at work up until I changed jobs. Not that they ever knew since I kept it concealed.
It is my official medical opinion that we have allowed the lunatics to take over the asylum.
Just friend me on facebook and watch my “friends” interact with me after any shooting. Holy brain fart bat man.
Why do I keep them around? A guys gotta laugh at stupid.
Anti: Gun laws are strict across the interconnected continent of Europe. They have far less shootings than we do.
Me: Could be. So they just stab you instead.
Anti: You’d rather be shot than stabbed, would you?
As murder weapons go, a gun is much more humane (quick and painless) than a knife or most other weapons. So, yes, I would prefer to be shot to death than stabbed to death.
Thing is, this clown only sees these two alternatives as the only possible outcomes. The idea of self-defense is completely alien.
Subaru, huh. Figures.
Never understood the draw of them.
Dumbest thing ever. “We don’t need guns, our family has an ‘escape plan’ in case of emergencies.”
Scrambling 3 kids and 2 adults at 3am.
In the bay area the suburu is the official vehicle of the very butch female.
It’s more of the yuppie, well-to-do, soccer mom vehicle in north Texas.
If the ladies really wanted to butch it up, they’d be better served with a Tacoma. It would better match the chain wallet and flannel.
“Subaru, huh. Figures.
Never understood the draw of them. ”
Drive a Subaru WRX and you would full understand the ‘draw’ of them.
The Subaru WRX is considered one of the best affordable performance cars.
Nice power to weight and excellent handling makes them a real joy to drive.
If I could count the number of them which have been soundly embarrassed by my ancient TDI…
Low end torque does it every time.
In all fairness, the WRX isn’t the run of the mill Subaru
It would be like saying driving a Camaro SS will make me a Chevy fan, or driving a Skyline would make me a Nissan fan, or driving a Mustang SVT will make me a Ford fan.
Those cars are awesome, but are not the what makes those car company’s appealing to the masses.
The WRX is a neat car, I understand the draw of that particular car. But, not the ugly a$$, pea green Foresters and Outbacks I see more commonly.
Back in the day I owned two Subarus; a Brat and a Subaru wagon. Loved them both. Since they’ve become the “official car of the Tree-hugging crowd” I won’t go near them. they’re also a little over-priced for the product. One person described the Forrester as a “lesbian stump puller”. Got a good laugh from that.
My wife drives an Outback, one of the older models that look more like a station wagon than a crossover SUV. She wanted 4 wheel drive but had a thing against SUV’s, wouldn’t even look at them. It runs great but I have never been comfortable in it. It’s her primary transportation and not mine, so be it. Now that she’s driven my Grand Cherokee a few times, she’s starting to reconsider her SUV hatred.
The salon article that said “people die because of this man” was pretty f’ing stupid and I just saw it.
I think comparing how we live now or even relaxed guns law to the wild west is one of the dumbest.
Especially considering they want to take us back to the times when power was consolidated in the hands of the few. Back when the strength of one’s arm determined their ability to survive.
I think comparing how we live now or even relaxed guns law to the wild west is one of the dumbest.
Especially considering they want to take us back to the times when power was consolidated in the hands of the few. Back when the strength of one’s arm determined their ability to survive.
“You know you’re never going to need a gun. What do you have so many (5ish at the time?) for?”
“I dont know that I’ll never need a gun. Hence guns,”
I had someone tell me that I was an idiot because I told them that guns are just tools. Apparently guns aren’t “just tools” and they have this magical ability to corrupt people by just being in close proximity or even wielded a la “The One Ring to Rule Them All”.
I guess guns are just “our preciouses” and we’re all just a bunch of Gollums in loin cloths…
It burns me up to no end when they find out I’m a shooter and say, “ewww I don’t want to make you mad” in the same sort of way that they might say that to an oncoming train. If I was that bad there’d be nobody left.
right after Aurora….
Him: “Nobody should have concealed guns.”
Me: “If you had been there and you had a concealed weapon in the theatre, would you have stopped him? ”
Him: “I would never carry a gun”
Me:” Even if you could have stopped him?!? “
Him: “If I was there, I would have waited until he stopped to reload and tackled him!”
Me: “you would rather go up against an armed attacker with your bare hands, hoping he’ll take long enough between reloads to give you that opportunity instead of just shooting him?!?”
Him: “yes!”
This from a guy who I used to take Krav Maga with. Seriously.
I can understand making the decision not to carry a gun, but still intending to fight a mass shooter if in a position to do so. A surprising percentage of mass shooters (and likely even more potential mass shooters) have been taken out by unarmed citizens. OTOH, mass shootings are rare enough, and other forms of violence predictable enough, that they do not necessarily justify gun ownership for someone who isn’t really into guns. Most of the places where I would think it worthwhile to carry a gun purely for protection, you can’t legally carry a gun anyhow.
What I can’t understand is his demand that everyone else be denied a gun. As mentioned upthread, the simple right to own a gun has a certain protective force, because the bad guys don’t know who is armed.
I worked as a RSM for a major firearms company back at the turn of the century.
They moved me from south FL to NC to take over that territory.
Because I was on the road a lot though out a three state area, I used the internet to date.
One date was set for a city in the south part of NC that I was going to spend a week or so in.
We set up a time at a local restaurant to meet.
When my “date” showed up, she looked very unlike her profile picture (she admitted right away she had used her sisters picture for her “safety”)
When the waitress came by my date proceed to order about half the menu and a large shake and a appetizer.
As we were waiting for the food to start arriving, she asked me what it was like working for a cooking oil company and did I get free samples.
When I chuckled and explained that my company made handguns not cooking oil, she started turning red and began sputtering.
“You, You, are a merchant of death,,, you kill babies, people like you make me sick,, I, I, I cannot believe I even came here and sat next to you, you should die”
All this was said in a loud and strident manner as she was struggling to stand up and retrieve her purse.
The manager came over and the waitress was on the way with our app, my lovely date informed them that I misled her and she would be waiting by the door for them to bring her the food she ordered in a take out container(s)
As I was being asked to leave, the couple at the table next to me explained that they had heard what happened and that it was “her not him” that had the problem. They asked if I would like to join them at their table and we went on to have a delightful dinner and a few drinks and great conversation.
When she started into me, I did not say one word to her. Thinking back I believe that I was at first struck dumb that I would be treated this way by someone who sent a picture of Kate Moss quality and showed up as just the Moss part, after that I was just amazed by the quality of her indignation.
I remember clearly that at the end of the week when I was totaling up receipts to turn in my expense report, she had ordered over 60.00 in food to my 25.00.
You didn’t let her walk out with all the food, did you?
Yes I did, I figured it was a small price to pay for “dodging the bullet” so to speak
In my experience this is usually followed by a bozo in a hat as wide as his shoulders, who would not know which end of a cow is moo and which end is milk,
or badass biker wannabe with the jacket and the boots and tattoos who never actually rode a motorsickle,
or the poster boy for “Are you a cholo?”
asking “whutt the hail is go-wing awn hay-yar”
Mix ( as in Tom Mix ), Max ( as in Mad Max ) & Mex. Wannabe Superheros
Lols, I bring up guns differently. It almost always comes up on it’s own with an anti They’re always seething for a chance to vomit their hate speech… If she hates guns, I agree, and excuse myself.
And never come back. Women like that don’t deserve a gentleman, or a graceful exit. Allow them neither.
I love it! Smith and Wesson Oil !
Possibly the most idiotic thing I’ve ever seen I read TODAY. From The Shopper in South Holland,Illinois publisher Arlo Kallemeyn:”Personally,I am a gun owner and support guns for hunting,recreation, and PROPERTY PROTECTION(my emphasis). However it is time for the US to join other civilized nations around the world and ban rapid-fire rifles” .” Arlo Kellemeyn and big fan of banning rapid -fire rifles”…He also stated how wonderful Australia is and how we need to repeal the 2A. And how evil the NRA is(natch). Amazing how Fudds with a FREE paper editorialize treason. That’s http://www.myshopper.biz/columnists/
I was told by a harridan way back in Jimmy Carters reign that guns would be gone in a year, because we got a good man in the white house
And I was told by a harridan way back in Ronald Reagans reign that drugs would be gone in a year, because we got a good man in the white house
I’m beginning to think they were both wrong
This past Monday. An anti told me ( on Facebook)that Chris Kyle’s murder proves that armed people in an area targeted by a mass shooter could not defend the unarmed people present.
I’ve had elderly women rant at me about weapons of mass destruction if they happened to know if I owned a firearm. It seems the older crowd out here in Houston (50+) tends to anti-gun, while the younger crowd is pro-gun.
Don’t usually get into discussions like this but once on the way to dinner with some friends, the topic of campus carry came up. Their teenaged son blurted out something to the effect of: “That’s just what we need, give guns to a bunch of drunk college kids!”
His parents were pleased and amused by his witty assessment.
Unfortunately, I’m not so quick in situations such as this as to point out the ignorance displayed by such a statement. I just sat in silence.
Oh and by the way, my wife & I recently bought our 1st Subaru, a Crosstrek. We like it, it’s a fun car. But it’s only a tool and it’s not going to turn us into liberal pansies.
FB conversation with a libtard. The guy isn’t just a SHEEP, he’s a WETHER (castrated sheep)!
Brian Rogers’s photo (showed smiling armed “good guys” and frowning “bad guys”, and in another frame frowning, unarmed “good guys” with smiling “bad guys” pointing guns at them).
You and 9 others like this.
Comments
Ethan Dailide
Ethan Dailide Except this theory is what we have, yet the bad guys still are out killing people
Like · Reply · October 3 at 12:17pm
Richard K
Richard K: Problem is, there are too many laws restricting the good guys as far as WHERE they can carry their guns. Ever notice all the massacres you see on the news happen in so-called “gun free zones” ? THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT! “Gun Free Zone” = “opposition-free shooting gallery for disaffected losers with an axe to grind”.
Like · Reply · 1 · October 3 at 4:44pm
Ethan Dailide
Ethan Dailide That is a stupid rule of thought, maybe gun free zones would work if there were mot billions of guns out there. Everyone is a good guy with a gun, until they go shooting a place up, then they are a bad guy, but guess what it is too late.
Like · Reply · October 4 at 7:34am
Richard K
Richard K: There are far more law abiding citizens who own guns than there are criminals and nutcases. Laws only hobble those who are inclined to obey them, and an unarmed citizen is nothing more than a sheep awaiting slaughter. YOU can go ahead and be a sheep if you want – by your attitude, I am guessing that is your mindset, to be a good little victim – but I and many other REAL Americans refuse to leave myself and my family defenseless. Molon Labe!
Like · Reply · October 4 at 9:44am · Edited
Curtis Gray (pro gun guy, BTW)
Curtis Gray Yes millions of guns too late to do anything about that
Unlike · Reply · 2 · October 4 at 12:04pm
Ethan Dailide
Ethan Dailide Oh yeah, like the guy over the weekend who tried to stop a carjacking, and ended up shooting the victim in the head, then fleeing the scene as to not be caught. How would more guns have helped this situation? Why did the good guy with a gun run away? How do you shoot the victim in the head while trying to help him? Do you think the victim cared about his car or his life?
Like · Reply · October 5 at 6:49am
Ethan Dailide
Ethan Dailide My family and I have always been safe, without the need for guns. I will never risk my life for stuff, it can all be replaced, life cannot.
Like · Reply · October 5 at 6:53am
Richard K
Richard K: Well, Ethan, you are entitled to your opinions Sheeple,will be sheeple, after all. Just remember your “feelings” if someone breaks into your house and holds a perfectly ordinary and unregulated kitchen knife to your throat, or that of a loved one, and you are begging him not to kill you. Baaa aaa aaa aaa!
Like · Reply · October 5 at 8:31am
Ethan Dailide
Ethan Dailide It has never, it will never happen to me, I know that I am safer now, than at any point in american history. I know there is no reason for any amount of panic involved with knowing for sure that my doors are locked. If someone wants to take my stuff, go ahead, not a big deal, no reason to risk the lives of my family, I have insurance that can replace things. There is no way to replace a life.
Like · Reply · October 5 at 11:03am
Ethan Dailide
Ethan Dailide And I am entitled to my opinion, but I guess I am entitled to good guys with guns killing me as well. I guess it would be easier to voice my concern for my life to by be taken away, by some idiot who thinks he is superman.
Like · Reply · October 5 at 11:05am
Richard K
Richard K:: Typical liberal sheep mentality. Good guys with guns only shoot in self defense against bad guys. As for “some idiot who thinks he’s superman” – no. I just don’t have a sheep’s “lay down and take whatever is dished out by the bad guys” mindset. NO PLACE is safe, unless you happen to live in an impregnable bunker with a lifetime supply of food and water. I used to think my small hometown was safe – until one of the local gas stations was robbed TWICE, and a person was stabbed by a complete stranger while simply walking down the street. Meth cookers often like to build their labs in the woods now because they are harder to find out in the middle of nowhere and they can steal some of their “ingredients” from farmers, and they sometimes shoot at anyone who accidentally stumbles across their operations. It’s a smaller world now, in a figurative sense. Thugs can drive out from the cities to the country and small towns where many people still do not lock their doors at night, because they too have the “it’s safe here” mentality. Afraid? No, but I am armed for the same reason I keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen: I hope to God I never need to use the fire extinguisher, or shoot to defend myself or my family, but better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. When seconds count, the police are “only” minutes away, and the courts already determined long ago that nobody has a “right” to police protection. Now go back to munching grass and chewing your cud, and waiting to be fleeced. Or not, if you are fortunate.
Like · Reply · October 5 at 12:03pm
Ethan Dailide
Ethan Dailide Just a side note, just as you view as sheep, you yourself, are sheep, to think you are always in danger. When you are not. The nra’s propoganda is what spews out of your mouth. So who is the sheep?
Like · Reply · October 5 at 12:11pm
Ethan Dailide
Ethan Dailide I have done my own research, and questioned the results. You have not.
Like · Reply · October 5 at 12:11pm
Richard K
Richard K: Well, Ethan, if I AM a sheep, I’m a mean ol’ ram with a big set of horns and the ability to use them effectively. I am an army vet, and I majored in law enforcement in college and have three (soon to be four) LEO’s in my family. THAT is MY primary source of information. I have to say, you are living proof of the old saying “never try to teach a pig to sing – it wastes your time and annoys the pig”.
Like · Reply · October 5 at 12:20pm
Too numerous to list. I have been told every conceivable idiotic anti-comment there is.
“guns just go off” “they just get taken and used against your”
Honestly, I’m sick and tired of discussing the same thing over and over. I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue with stupid f—- people.
****** The loudest clearest words are those spoken from your actions *****
If someone is scared to death of Pitbulls and your Pitbull wags its tail and sits on their feet and just wants to be petted, that’s the best thing you could have to alter ones perception of the breed.
We should all strive to be ambassadors to the gun industry. If someone notices our carry weapon, then you smile and greet them.
I’m a long time pilot. When you give someone their first plane ride, you tell them everything you are going to do and give them the smoothest nicest ride possible. You DON’T go out and make steep turns or handle the plane roughly or scare them. Those action are viewed very poorly in the aviation community. That is how ones actions should be conducted concerning firearms. Smiles and courtesy will go a lot farther than arguments and belittling.
“We should all strive to be ambassadors [of] the gun industry. If someone notices our carry weapon, then you smile and greet them. . . . . That is how ones actions should be conducted concerning firearms. Smiles and courtesy will go a lot farther than arguments and belittling.”
I agree completely.
Thanks for catching that typo. I got busy and didn’t correct them before getting timed out.
My ex girlfriend was apparently an anti when I brought my first gun home. I knew she didnt like them but not to that extreme. She is definitely an “anti”.
Anyway i buy my first gun and she totally flipped and went insane and told me that guns kill people and she didnt want any in our house and blah blah blah. I tried to explain protection and how i enjoy shooting at the range but she went on this ridiculous rant that guns kill people. So i laid my hand gun on the floor and told it to shoot me. Long story short i woke up single and without any bullet holes. Gun was unloaded the whole time but to the best of my knowledge that hammer never tried to strike. Maybe it didnt want to kill me??
Best move i ever made! Currently with a gun loving gal who recently purchased her first handgun.
Subaru makes its living lying to people about the handling benefits of all-wheel drive. (There are NO HANDLING benefits of AWD. It can ONLY help acceleration. If you don’t have the throttle to the floor, the poor thing forgets it has AWD.) They’ve become Saab. “I’m a liberal. I buy a Saab.”
You must not drive in snow a lot. There are huge handling benefits of 4WD/AWD in slippery conditions.
I agree – Subarus are VERY popular here in the Great White North, and the majority of US are conservatives (unlike the morons down-state in Detoilet …er… Detroit)!
Yeah, that’s why there are tons of folks with 4WD and AWD who crashed on the first snowy day. They think since they have an AWD, they are gods gift to slippery roads. Sure they can get going better as forward traction is better, but they don’t turn or stop better.
Four tires loosing traction are the same as two.
I asked my buddy, who had recently bought some hunting land, if he would get a 4×4. He replied, why, in bad enough conditions, 4WD will only get you more stuck.
“Subaru makes its living lying to people about the handling benefits of all-wheel drive. (There are NO HANDLING benefits of AWD. It can ONLY help acceleration.”
Doug, you don’t know what the Hell your’e talking about.
I’ve driven both, and AWD is the sh!t.
It allows you to do some really net things while cornering.
Careful use of the accelerator lets you ‘claw’ your way out of corners.
The ‘giggle factor’ of cars like the WRX is very, very high.
🙂
Fly low. Fly Subaru.
There is no doubt better handling with AWD.
When cornering fast, the vehicles center of gravity (ei, weight) shifts to one side. Having both the outside, instead of one, wheel pushing the vehicle through the turn will increase the handling of the vehicle.
Now, for Saturday grocery getting or daily commuting, you’ll never notice much of a difference, if any.
<blockquote.Now, for Saturday grocery getting or daily commuting, you’ll never notice much of a difference, if any.
You will if you live where it snows! AWD rules.
I have lived in Seattle and Chicago, sad to say, and never had a problem driving my 4×2 Durango. I also had a 4×4 truck back then, but would drive the 2WD truck even when it snowed. Better MPG. That was back in the early 2000’s when gas was $4-5 a gallon.
AWD and 4×4 are good to have, but not driving like a clown in the snow is the main difference. And as far as ice is concerned, 4WD slipping on the ice is the same was 2WD slipping on ice.
Three weeks ago I had a co-worker, who is a smart, well-educated, well-traveled guy (although he is an ex-Brit who lives in CA) tell me that “The Second Amendment is a license to commit murder.”
While I was out to dinner with an anti-gun friend of mine, my friend decided to ask our waiter what he thinks about guns. The waiter says, “Guns are evil. They only exist to kill people. I’m a blackbelt. I will never need a gun.” He then went on a 20 minute diatribe spouting every false statistic the antis regurgitate. We tried having a debate but the more he went on, the angrier he became until he had to get back to work.
I had to hold back the laughter. I love how frustrating it is for them.
Careful arguing with the antis! Dont make us look worse than were already perceived!
Did you argue his martial arts status? Saying that a black belt is only needed to kill people faster? Why else put the time effort and devotion into something like that?
This is a really great article/discussion!
Generally people who are say they are black belts are not black belts. I’m a long time martial artist, and rarely if never do I divulge how far I went. I’d bet money that the waiter was not a black belt and if he was, it was Taekwondo or some goofy useless discipline.
I have a respect for the martial arts. I definitely do. I dont think id ever participate, but that does not at all mean i dont respect the training effort and mentality it takes for it.
Interesting to hear that a “black belt” views cc as something thats only meant to kill people. I do believe there is a serious art behind martial arts, but to say that guns are only meant to kill people… Ive seen some extraordinary things in martial arts that would definitely kill someone in a flat second. Maybe hes one of the dudes (the waiter) who doesnt need a gun cause his “dinky doo” is bigger and only real men dont need guns.
One if the interesting things about martial arts (at least a good MA SD class) is that early on that is what you are taught, how to severely disable or kill another person easily and quickly. It is only as you progress and get more proficient that you learn more finesse and learn to use less lethal tactics.
H MY GOD!! THAT’S THE WORST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD!
Probably supports murdering the unborn……
Liberals are beset by fantasies of violence and control. I mean force. It’s all the same, anyway.
Received this response from an anti gun friend while we were discussing self defense while being attacked inside your home.
“While we’re at it, why not use trees to hang ‘evil doers’ from? Why waste time and taxpayers’ money in having a justice system, courts, police, etc? Let’s all just get lots of weapons and go back to the Wild West ways of settling justice. State? Who needs it! Laws? waste of time…”
If you want people to get over their irrational fear of guns due to the rare instances where they hurt people, it would be best if you would also get over your irrational fear of nice doggies due to the rare instances where they hurt people. My dog approaches people with a wagging tail and a ball in her mouth. It’s pretty hard to misinterpret that as hostility.
I run to keep in shape, and in the years I have been doing it, I have been chased by dogs. 90 percent of the time, they just want to play and mean no harm, but some of them have actually gotten loose from their yard and chased me down the street, with no intentions of playing. I’ve even been snapped at one time by a dog, which barely missed my arm as it jumped at me. So yeah, not all dogs running up to you means it’s playtime.
Boy, she really played you. Your response to her suggestion about fighting the NRA should have been along the lines of:
“That has nothing to do with the scars on my legs inflicted by dogs just like yours at this park. You are in violation of the law, there’s a sign right here.” It doesn’t matter if you have no scars, let her think so and she needs to associate those (possibly mythical) dogs with hers, create doubt.
You could go on to add something like: “If you don’t leash that dog I’ll call the police and if he even sniffs my leg I’ll sue. You’re violating the law.”
She’d have tried the distracting tactic again, and you needed to bring the discussion back to HER and HER VIOLATION of the law about dogs on leash. Your membership in anything had nothing to do with her and her dog. You should never have admitted to membership in anything.
You let her get you waaaaay off the subject of her letting her dog run free in violation of the law, and she won.
I was manning a Pro-2a State organization booth at a 4th of July celebration one time and a fat, angry white dude came up to us (another fat white dude and me a skinny Asian dude) to berate us for open carrying our handguns, claiming we were endangering the children. Yet the local police department was also there, obviously open carrying, while running some public service activities just down booth from us.
“You don’t need a gun there are laws that protect homosexuals”
Needless to say, the look I gave them after they said that killed a piece of them that night, and they never said anything quite so stupid again.
Well, this is timely! My father and I had been having what I thought was a good exchange of facts (from me, of course!) and opinions (his) re: gun control and it’s lack of effectiveness. I sent him a couple of articles from here that used actual gov’t stats to back up my argument and he replies: “I’m not open to debate on this. You seem to have the facts but I just go with my gut.” Suddenly, I felt like I was talking to my wife…
Why do you have to be so Republican?
As if it was a creepy, mean adjective.
I had a polite discussion with an anti the other day regarding the Oregon shooting. She started off with saying you shouldn’t be able to buy armor piercing bullets, then bullet proof vest, then AR-15’s, gun show loopholes, and so on to all of the anti talking points. As I calmly educated her and broke down all her talking points, we ended up at three possible resolutions for stopping shootings. 1. Get rid of all guns and only allow police to own guns, 2. allow citizens to report on other citizens that may be a threat to the public. She didn’t like the idea of only allowing police to own guns, and she agreed that citizen reporting would get really out of hand and lead to item #1. Since 1 and 2 were not good ideas, then we came to item # 3, allow Concealed Carry…….. she basically had no response and I didn’t push her to agree item #3 is the only logical choice. But you could see the flickering of the light bulb.
Arguing with anti’s rarely goes this well but you have to keep your composure and understanding and be nice breaking down their arguments. You wont change their mind today but you will allow them to see how their typical talking points don’t hold water. baby steps.
I could talk all day about the idiot comments I’ve heard-lots of stupidity about open-carry lately…
“I really hate that you carry a gun!
BTW…can I accompany you? It is already quite late and this neighborhood is no that safe…ya know…?”
Should have called the police on her for violating the leash law. Woman walks into a bar with a pig. A drunk man says that is the ugliest pig I have ever seen. The woman says that is a pure bred pig. The drunk says, “I was talking TO the pig.”
I deserve the right to protect myself and if you don’t like it tough $hit.
A while back back a woman with a history of mental health issues went into a local grocery store in Maine and stabbed another woman to death. What would have stopped that? Someone with a gun?
The only gun control law there should be is that criminals can’t have any firearms. No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com
Comments are closed.