The Wussification of America

[Texsox]

I would not be opposed to carrying a gun if I were backpacking in bear country.

 

I'd rather have an extra can of bear spray. Ounce for ounce I believe bear spray is a better tool to keep you safe backpacking than a gun that you would want to have backpacking. Although the blood trail the bear leaves will make it easier to find where the pissed off bear took you.

[The Sir]

If that was the case, then you wouldn't have a gun anywhere near your family.

 

You carry a gun because emotionally you feel stronger. To the point where you're willing to ignore the piles of dead bodies, the study after study that says youre putting every one of your family's lives in jeopardy, and so on.

 

But again, we get the emotional reaction. The "I know I'm safer and you're dumbasses, look how manly I am, everyone should be scared of me!" response.

 

Maybe you're in a place where you have to shoo away coyotes, fine, have one locked up and used as a last resort. Great. But you said the word "Carry".

 

Could you be any more pompous?

 

Point to the piles of dead bodies caused by MY weapons. Can you do that? Point to the piles of bodies caused by 99% of gun owners firearms. Please do that. Or are you only capable of treating strangers like imbeciles?

 

I practice firearms safety. I practice it rigidly. So does any serious gun owner. You can lecture me with your arrogant statistical bulls*** when I hurt someone I love with my firearms. But it won't happen. So get the f*** out of here with your hectoring crap.

 

It's funny. You treat us like absolute idiots and then wonder why we don't wish to negotiate with you. Well, I don't negotiate with urban, elitist, liberal pigs. And that is exactly what you are.

[Balta1701]

Could you be any more pompous?

 

Point to the piles of dead bodies caused by MY weapons. Can you do that? Point to the piles of bodies caused by 99% of gun owners firearms. Please do that. Or are you only capable of treating strangers like imbeciles?

 

I practice firearms safety. I practice it rigidly. So does any serious gun owner. You can lecture me with your arrogant statistical bulls*** when I hurt someone I love with my firearms. But it won't happen. So get the f*** out of here with your hectoring crap.

 

It's funny. You treat us like absolute idiots and then wonder why we don't wish to negotiate with you. Well, I don't negotiate with urban, elitist, liberal pigs. And that is exactly what you are.

 

Seriously, you couldn't write a better joke. "You treat us like idiots" followed by "You're an urban elitist pig!".

[Texsox]

What the f*** does this post have to do with anything?

 

He challenged me to put down the guns and be a real man. I'm tired of this argument, because it's pleading with me to gamble with my life so I can be enlightened like him.

 

I hope I never have to draw my gun. I really do. It's there for situations when true danger arises. I'm a firm believer in the idea that it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it. So I hope I never "need" it, but if I ever do, I'm not gonna be caught with my pants down because some lawyer jackass thinks real men operate based on mere intellectualism.

 

Yeah. Tell your home invader that you're a real man because you make deep thoughts. See how that works.

 

It's thoughts like that which make liberals seem like pompous elitists living in a fantasyland.

 

It sarcastically showed that when you get tired of an intellectual battle you begin thinking of violence instead of walking away. You start tossing insults, calling people limp dicks, pompous, and jackasses and then say that is what being a real man is. Your concept of a real man shouts insults across the internet and rejects thinking in favor of violence. When people (gun owners and non owners) think about other people who should *not* have guns, they believe it is people like you who have a short temper and believe violence is better than thinking.

[StrangeSox]

Careful, Balta, he's not going to negotiate with you now!

[The Sir]

It's willingness to ignore everything else that happens with guns and focus solely on the one, incredibly rare situation of successful home invasion defense that makes us not trust the judgment of gun owners.

 

Tell me who's been hurt by my weapons. Can you do that? Once again, you prove your greatest trait to be that of professorial jackassery.

 

Estimates for defensive gun uses a year range anywhere from 55,000 to 2.5 million. Which, even on the lower end, is quite comparable to the 300,000 or so violent crimes committed every year with a firearm (and far outweighs the homicides at 11,000 or so). Also, it's credible to think that this number in underreported because the researchers themselves admit that often times brandishing a firearm is enough to end the encounter.

 

I don't give a s*** if you trust my judgment or not. That's more jackassery on your part. And once again, you're too stupid to understand that this is exactly why millions of law abiding gun owners have no interest in negotiating with the pigs.

[Balta1701]

I don't give a s*** if you trust my judgment or not. That's more jackassery on your part. And once again, you're too stupid to understand that this is exactly why millions of law abiding gun owners have no interest in negotiating with the pigs.

Yeah, no idea why anyone would think that you have an anger problem.

[The Sir]

I would not be opposed to carrying a gun if I were backpacking in bear country.

 

That's your choice. You having a gun isn't a bad thing in and of itself. If you don't want one, fine. If you want one, that's cool too. But I hate this idea that you should be scorned for hiking with a gun or I should be scorned for having one in the nightstand.

[Texsox]

That's your choice. You having a gun isn't a bad thing in and of itself. If you don't want one, fine. If you want one, that's cool too. But I hate this idea that you should be scorned for hiking with a gun or I should be scorned for having one in the nightstand.

 

Actually you are scorned for all the insults you toss out. If someone doesn't agree with you you start calling them things like a limp dick, pigs, etc. We understand that thinking and discussing just isn't your strong part. You are trained to see all problems as being solved with violence. I hope you never try to adjust to civilian life.

 

[The Sir]

It sarcastically showed that when you get tired of an intellectual battle you begin thinking of violence instead of walking away. You start tossing insults, calling people limp dicks, pompous, and jackasses and then say that is what being a real man is. Your concept of a real man shouts insults across the internet and rejects thinking in favor of violence. When people (gun owners and non owners) think about other people who should *not* have guns, they believe it is people like you who have a short temper and believe violence is better than thinking.

 

I'd like to live in a world where everything can be discussed with intellectual thoughts and ideas. That'd be nice. But we don't live in that world.

 

And I am real tired of guys like that telling me that guns are for p*****s. It especially pisses me off while I'm in Afghanistan. So sorry, I have a nasty reaction to some pompous lawyer dude from Chicago telling me that my way of life, which doesn't affect him a damn bit, is for weak and cowardly people.

[Jake]

So all the yelling and stuff is great, but I'd like to ask GLI real questions about the present debate.

 

Are you wholly against an "assault weapons" ban?

 

Thoughts on magazine restrictions?

 

Would you submit to a more well-rounded background check system, possibly with a more rigorous mental health screening process? This could affect you and your colleagues in the military a fair amount given the increasing prevalence and awareness of PTSD.

 

Thoughts on a comprehensive gun registration program, where a legal gun owner's guns would be tracked from factory to retailer to residence?

 

Straw purchases?

 

I hope this can be more constructive for us instead of an argument about guns and phalluses.

[The Sir]

 

Seriously, you couldn't write a better joke. "You treat us like idiots" followed by "You're an urban elitist pig!".

 

You don't get it.

 

I'm not going to list all the ways that I have proven myself as a decent, intelligent person. I shouldn't have to. Neither should you. But I am a law-abiding, accomplished citizen. I'm sure you are too.

 

When you tell me that my gun ownership is going to hurt my family, you're treating me like an incompetent. And then you tell me that you don't trust gun owners' judgments because I brought up a fairly common scenario. That is lecturing and professorial.

 

We might be willing to listen to you. But when you say things like that, and POTUS claims that we cling bitterly to our guns and religion, we don't want to come to the table. At that point, we see you as what I called you, "urban elitist pigs".

 

Proceed at your own risk. Right now, your exclusionary rhetoric is causing the gun conversation to go nowhere. If you want to keep treating gun owners like they're stupid, that's fine. Just don't expect us to play along.

[Texsox]

I'd like to live in a world where everything can be discussed with intellectual thoughts and ideas. That'd be nice. But we don't live in that world.

 

And I am real tired of guys like that telling me that guns are for p*****s. It especially pisses me off while I'm in Afghanistan. So sorry, I have a nasty reaction to some pompous lawyer dude from Chicago telling me that my way of life, which doesn't affect him a damn bit, is for weak and cowardly people.

 

Well, perhaps that is the problem. back here that is the world. We don't pull out weapons during a business meeting. You don't go into a car dealer and punch the guy out or call him a limp dick to get a better deal. Do you really think you will go into your kid's school and say "I'm tired of this p**** telling my kid he has to do his homework"? You can't control your anger on the internet, and you expect people to support your right to carry a gun? You are incapable of being elected to any office, you'd tell citizens to go f*** themselves. You can't even be trusted to attend a government meeting. That's the real world.

 

 

[The Sir]

We understand that thinking and discussing just isn't your strong part.

 

You criticize me for using insults and then drop this? Hilarious.

[The Sir]

Well, perhaps that is the problem. back here that is the world. We don't pull out weapons during a business meeting. You don't go into a car dealer and punch the guy out or call him a limp dick to get a better deal. Do you really think you will go into your kid's school and say "I'm tired of this p**** telling my kid he has to do his homework"? You can't control your anger on the internet, and you expect people to support your right to carry a gun? You are incapable of being elected to any office, you'd tell citizens to go f*** themselves. You can't even be trusted to attend a government meeting. That's the real world.

 

I carry a gun all the time. Have I ever done anything illegal or harmful with it? Getting lectured over the internet makes me angry. I won't deny that. But there's a long way, for me, between getting angry and deciding to physically hurt someone.

 

Your world back there, like everywhere else, has crime. I carry a gun so that when I encounter crime, I'll still have a means of dealing with it.

[Texsox]

You criticize me for using insults and then drop this? Hilarious.

 

By your own admission you don't live in a world where things are decided by rational arguments. You have spoken quite force-ably against people like lawyers who think for a living versus real men like yourself. Those are your words, not mine. I was just drawing the conclusion based on your words.

[Texsox]

I carry a gun all the time. Have I ever done anything illegal or harmful with it? Getting lectured over the internet makes me angry. I won't deny that. But there's a long way, for me, between getting angry and deciding to physically hurt someone.

 

Your world back there, like everywhere else, has crime. I carry a gun so that when I encounter crime, I'll still have a means of dealing with it.

 

And read how you handle getting angry. What jobs are you capable of handling in the real world?

[The Sir]

So all the yelling and stuff is great, but I'd like to ask GLI real questions about the present debate.

 

Are you wholly against an "assault weapons" ban?

 

Thoughts on magazine restrictions?

 

Would you submit to a more well-rounded background check system, possibly with a more rigorous mental health screening process? This could affect you and your colleagues in the military a fair amount given the increasing prevalence and awareness of PTSD.

 

Thoughts on a comprehensive gun registration program, where a legal gun owner's guns would be tracked from factory to retailer to residence?

 

Straw purchases?

 

I hope this can be more constructive for us instead of an argument about guns and phalluses.

 

I'm against an assault weapons ban. Wholly. First, none of the things offered by the 1994 ban or the new version affected the functionality of the weapon. Second, it is a very limited amount of crimes that are committed with those rifles (1994 AWB had no noticeable affect on crime). Frankly, the AWB just comes off as a sort of lame idea to get rid of scary looking weapons.

 

Magazine restrictions, nope. Most killings are not spree killings. Killers don't need massive amounts of bullets to do what they want to do, normally.

 

I'd be OK with honing the background check system. What I'd be against is deliberately using it to look for reasons to prevent people from having guns. I had depression a few years ago. But I came back and proved myself capable of deploying. Should I be deprived of buying new guns?

 

You might think this is paranoid, but I absolutely believe that registration is step one for confiscation. The government doesn't need to know who has guns and who doesn't. Besides, look at that paper in New York publicizing who had permits in a given area. If there is a right to privacy to cover abortion, I absolutely believe in a right to privacy on gun ownership.

 

I'm against straw purchasing. I'd honestly be shocked if someone in my camp favored straw purchasing. It's already illegal anyway, if I'm not mistaken (I've never thought about it because I'm not a straw purchaser).

 

Also, to understand my viewpoints on this, I think it's only logical that criminals will not follow these laws. They'll obtain "assault weapons". They'll obtain high capacity mags. They won't register their weapons. And they'll continue to straw purchase and evade background checks. So it won't affect them, but it will punish me and my friends. And I don't see much point in that.

[Texsox]

Can you name one law that criminals follow? Isn't that why we call them criminals?

[The Sir]

By your own admission you don't live in a world where things are decided by rational arguments. You have spoken quite force-ably against people like lawyers who think for a living versus real men like yourself. Those are your words, not mine. I was just drawing the conclusion based on your words.

 

Is it absurd to not enjoy being lectured about bravery by a lawyer? I'm sorry, but to me, lawyers define gutlessness and cowardice. You and Balta have prejudices against gun owners, I have them against lawyers. So I told him what I thought about him talking about what makes a real man. Because that is something he knows nothing about.

[The Sir]

Can you name one law that criminals follow? Isn't that why we call them criminals?

 

That's the point. Criminals don't follow laws. Why are we trying to stop their actions with more laws?

 

I don't see how you can run to the gun control side with this one. This concept goes one way.

[Texsox]

That's the point. Criminals don't follow laws. Why are we trying to stop their actions with more laws?

 

I don't see how you can run to the gun control side with this one. This concept goes one way.

 

First of all, I own guns.

 

Second of all, your point is since criminals will not follow the law, then we should not have the law.

 

Criminals murder people, why have laws against it?

Criminals steal things, why have a law against it?

Criminals drive drunk, why have laws against it?

 

See the flaw in the logic of only having laws that criminals will follow?

 

By making high capacity magazines illegal we begin to restrict the number that are available. When there is more and more of something the chances of them getting into the wrong hands increases. I am in favor of a well regulated militia. I do not see much value in high capacity magazines outside of killing lots of people. In your world there, yes. In suburban Toledo, Ohio? No.

 

How can a militia be well regulated if the government does not know who they are? But perhaps I love the Constitution too much to allow it to be circumvented.

[Texsox]

Is it absurd to not enjoy being lectured about bravery by a lawyer? I'm sorry, but to me, lawyers define gutlessness and cowardice. You and Balta have prejudices against gun owners, I have them against lawyers. So I told him what I thought about him talking about what makes a real man. Because that is something he knows nothing about.

 

In the real world we have laws. When you buy a home, do you want your rights protected during the sale? Oh that's right, you'll just pull out a gun at the closing and solve any of those problems like a real man.

 

You are so unequipped to live in a civilized society with laws.

 

 

[The Sir]

First of all, I own guns.

 

Second of all, your point is since criminals will not follow the law, then we should not have the law.

 

Criminals murder people, why have laws against it?

Criminals steal things, why have a law against it?

Criminals drive drunk, why have laws against it?

 

See the flaw in the logic of only having laws that criminals will follow?

 

Murdering someone is mala en se. Stealing something is mala en se. Driving drunk is a little fuzzier, but without getting into it, it can be considered mala en se as well.

 

Owning guns is not mala en se. It can lead to things that are, but so can a lot of things. And until you prove that you are the sort of person who would do something evil in and of itself with a gun, I do not believe your rights to a gun should be infringed.

[The Sir]

By making high capacity magazines illegal we begin to restrict the number that are available.

 

Maybe this sounds cliche, but it's so true...

 

Please explain to me how the same logic made drugs hard to get.