JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/01/gun-bigots.html (9 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1170188498-550293  eeky at Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:21:38 +0000

Frankly I've noticed this general attitude prevalent in the proponents of most kinds of bans (not just guns).

It seems to stem from an almost pathological desire to supress or deny the enjoyments of others as long as it doesn't interfere with activities that they enjoy themselves.

(Insert popular "ban of the month below"):

"Personally, I'm what the defenders of _______ call a "_______ bigot," someone who's not crazy about _______, knows nothing about _______, "may never have even used _______, certainly doesn't have any, [and] would gladly deprive innocent people to the means to enjoy _______."


jsid-1170193056-550297  Sarah at Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:37:36 +0000

Guns may be like gays to some, but to me they're more like potato chips: you can't have just one.


jsid-1170197361-550302  Kevin Baker at Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:49:21 +0000

I understand that's a problem some gays have, too. (*ducks*)


jsid-1170197397-550303  P. Froward at Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:49:57 +0000

eeky's right: How many variations have you heard on "You don't need to, because I don't want to?"

What's really ugly is the underlying assumption that you might owe somebody an explanation for exercising your rights. "Need"? Fuck off! If I'm not hurting anybody, how about "damn well feel like"?


Sarah, I've known some (gay) people who were that way about gays too.


jsid-1170197434-550304  P. Froward at Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:50:34 +0000

Dammit! No more preview.


jsid-1170276976-550364  Peet at Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:56:16 +0000

eeky: Frankly I've noticed this general attitude prevalent in the proponents of most kinds of bans (not just guns).

Remember the definition of a puritan? One who can't stand the idea that someone, somewhere is enjoying theirself.
Hence "I don't like guns, so you ain't gonna have any...

Peet


jsid-1170344644-550401  Sarah at Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:44:04 +0000

Peet,

You are confusing puritans with fundamentalists. Liberals, being your typical gun-ban types, are fundamentalists. But they are about the furthest thing from puritans as you can get, especially as they don't usually have a problem with someone, somewhere enjoying himself when it comes to sex and drugs.

Gun-control is about curbing individual power, not enjoyment. The definition of a liberal is someone who can't stand the idea that someone, somewhere is fending for himself.


jsid-1170348627-550414  Kevin Baker at Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:50:27 +0000

Actually, Sarah, someone who "can't stand the idea that someone, somewhere is fending for himself" is a Statist - of which there are examples on the Left and the Right.

"Liberal" used to mean someone who was for expanding individual rights and equal opportunity. Unfortunately, the Leftists have managed to hijack the word, and corrupted the meaning. "Conservative" used to mean someone who wanted to maintain the status quo ante, but now it means someone who wants to expand individual rights and equal opportunity.


jsid-1170357134-550423  Sarah at Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:12:14 +0000

Kevin, I agree that such a person is a statist, but I say "liberal" because far more liberals are statists than not (and vice versa for conservatives). I use the words "liberal" and "conservative" as they are currently understood, otherwise it causes too much confusion.


 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>