It's a function of their elitism. They view themselves and the enlightened, the rational, the intellectuals. If they're mad and have little self control, just imagine how those "unwashed masses" must be, why...they're raving lunatics....in the mind of a liberal at least. They just can't fathom that there are people out there with more self control than they. Partly I attribute this to those who "go with your feelings" movement....instead of reasoned action...do what "Feels" right...whether you're happy, angry, horney, etc.
Partly I attribute this to those who "go with your feelings" movement.
There's a lot to that. Also the "Dr. Spock" theories of child rearing did immeasurable damage to untold generations of children.
A significant number of today's adults were raised under the impression that the world revolves around them and their own self-esteem. They were raised to believe that if they just cried enough, yelled enough, threw a big enough tantrum, etc that they would eventually get their way with everything.
As adults, the realization that the world DOESN'T actually revolve around them and that they AREN'T always going to get their way and that they CAN'T expect the world to bow down and worship at the feet of their precious feelings and moods just flat out pisses them off.
And makes them want to shoot someone. How DARE we feel that OUR measly lives and needs are worthy of inconveniencing THEM???
I think a question on the Concealed Hangun Permit form should be "were you ever subjected to corporal punishment as a child?" If the answer is "no" the permit should be denied out of hand.
Hmmm, when I was a teenager, self-control wasn't exactly my strong point. Still, I knew very well where shotguns are shells were stored, but I never ever moved a step towards the gun closet.
I think that the ill-tempered liberal should actually try shooting. Maybe a GWB picture, but many say that target shooting is very relaxing.
When I'm in a flippant, cynical mood, I actually pose the questions as "why don't we just ban liberals?"
Alas, tisn't that easy, and the price of freedom is tolerating those who are different and/or wrong.
At the end of the day, there are probably a number of people who, for various reasons of lack of development, maturity, judgement or self control, _shouldn't_ be armed.
By way of analogy, that children ought to be prohibited from playing with matches has nothing to do with the lighter in an adult's pocket.
"At the end of the day, there are probably a number of people who, for various reasons of lack of development, maturity, judgement or self control, _shouldn't_ be armed."
I agree. I just don't think it they should be disarmed until they prove they are unworthy. (Like Tom Petty.) The problem is, we're not talking about children here. We're talking about people who are (at least physically) adults.
It is so nice that I think about my companions and the meal when I go to restaurants, and I don't think about it but I feel safe when I think everyone has a loaded gun, I can't see them but if no one is waving it around I have to feel safe. Too bad so many people have pictures in their head that came from too much television, ought to ration that stuff except I like it when snowed in.
On a second thought, you can clearly see that Liberal Larry & co. regard guns as inherently evil and with a power to corrupt their bearers - much like Tolkien's One Ring. From this point, bans and restrictive laws follow logically.
Instead, if one regards guns as morally neutral tools, he will also reach widely different conclusions about how to regulate them.
I understand Barry's concerns...I feel the same way when I have to use a knife in the kitchen to dice a tomato or cut the end off a loaf of bread... to have this weapon on my person eats away at my sanity...this instrument of sure and certain death...available to be used at a moments notice to possibly kill... Now that I have thought about it, I think I may give up cooking. It's too dangerous...
"If I were to take a live, armed weapon and carry it on my person, in public, it would eat away at my sanity just as if it were emitting lethal radiation."
Is it just me, or does anyone else get a vision of Barry as some nut with the DT's, madly brushing off the hallucinated spiders and snakes that are crawling all over him:
"Get it OFF me! Get it OFF me....PLEASE!"
Amusing imagined vignette aside, is there nothing to Barry that Barry thinks...or feels, would be worth his defending with deadly force?
Is he that worthless a creature?
And if that indeed be the case, then shouldn't he be someone's slave?
"What scares me most is the arbitrary nature of self-defense. What line must be crossed to signal to you that there is imminent danger or threat?"
Why does he need to know where the line is, unless he plans on engaging in behavior that he fears might approach the line?
From where I see, the anti's want to live in a world without consequences. Where they can act as they wish and nothing unpleasant ever happens in response.
"I think that the ill-tempered liberal should actually try shooting. Maybe a GWB picture, but many say that target shooting is very relaxing."
I wonder about how much of the neurosis that is evident in that quote from Barry is due to feelings of personal helplessnes - because they have chosen to be defenseless?
To go along with the first two commentors, I have a question. Is there any way to find out the political orientation of the parents of kids who have gone on school shooting rampages? I have suspicions, but no actual proof.
A friend of mine who worked in Hollywood for a bit made an interesting point: it's actually a recurring motif in movies and TV for an otherwise sane, stable character to kill someone with a gun in a moment of rage. The average person with no experience of guns may have no frame of reference for what he could or couldn't do in a fit of rage, but he's seen "regular guy takes a life and destroys his own with a gun" played out in the media many times.
What *I* find interesting is that violence in the media may have a different influence than feared- not making people more violent, but more afraid of their own imaginary violent tendencies.
Plus making gangbangers less accurate via the world's most ridiculous pistol stance, but that's just a side bonus.
It's the Hollywood thing, in Tinselgrad they project because that's where they think emotions come from - but like all actors they really want to Direct.
As far as being proud of a temper, that about sums up everything I learned was wrong - those are impediments to grace, and a logical and safely lived life. Can't they find their way in Life without constantly introducing conflict? More Hollwood indoctrination...
The biggest thing that needs to be pointed out to Barry is that a responsible gun owner _doesn't_ just haul off and fire at a moment's notice. If you feel threatened, you don't generally just whip it out and fire, but you just might whip it out and threaten.
Thus, the mugger is convinced to move on (or lie down on the ground, depending), and there's no stray shot to go whizzing off and hit the kid down the street.
What are those stats on how often guns are used to deter crime without actually being fired? :)
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>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2006/11/cant-we-just-ban-liberals-from-owning.html (20 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
It's a function of their elitism. They view themselves and the enlightened, the rational, the intellectuals. If they're mad and have little self control, just imagine how those "unwashed masses" must be, why...they're raving lunatics....in the mind of a liberal at least. They just can't fathom that there are people out there with more self control than they. Partly I attribute this to those who "go with your feelings" movement....instead of reasoned action...do what "Feels" right...whether you're happy, angry, horney, etc.
Partly I attribute this to those who "go with your feelings" movement.
There's a lot to that. Also the "Dr. Spock" theories of child rearing did immeasurable damage to untold generations of children.
A significant number of today's adults were raised under the impression that the world revolves around them and their own self-esteem. They were raised to believe that if they just cried enough, yelled enough, threw a big enough tantrum, etc that they would eventually get their way with everything.
As adults, the realization that the world DOESN'T actually revolve around them and that they AREN'T always going to get their way and that they CAN'T expect the world to bow down and worship at the feet of their precious feelings and moods just flat out pisses them off.
And makes them want to shoot someone. How DARE we feel that OUR measly lives and needs are worthy of inconveniencing THEM???
I think a question on the Concealed Hangun Permit form should be "were you ever subjected to corporal punishment as a child?" If the answer is "no" the permit should be denied out of hand.
Hmmm, when I was a teenager, self-control wasn't exactly my strong point. Still, I knew very well where shotguns are shells were stored, but I never ever moved a step towards the gun closet.
I think that the ill-tempered liberal should actually try shooting. Maybe a GWB picture, but many say that target shooting is very relaxing.
When I'm in a flippant, cynical mood, I actually pose the questions as "why don't we just ban liberals?"
Alas, tisn't that easy, and the price of freedom is tolerating those who are different and/or wrong.
At the end of the day, there are probably a number of people who, for various reasons of lack of development, maturity, judgement or self control, _shouldn't_ be armed.
By way of analogy, that children ought to be prohibited from playing with matches has nothing to do with the lighter in an adult's pocket.
"At the end of the day, there are probably a number of people who, for various reasons of lack of development, maturity, judgement or self control, _shouldn't_ be armed."
I agree. I just don't think it they should be disarmed until they prove they are unworthy. (Like Tom Petty.) The problem is, we're not talking about children here. We're talking about people who are (at least physically) adults.
It is so nice that I think about my companions and the meal when I go to restaurants, and I don't think about it but I feel safe when I think everyone has a loaded gun, I can't see them but if no one is waving it around I have to feel safe. Too bad so many people have pictures in their head that came from too much television, ought to ration that stuff except I like it when snowed in.
On a second thought, you can clearly see that Liberal Larry & co. regard guns as inherently evil and with a power to corrupt their bearers - much like Tolkien's One Ring. From this point, bans and restrictive laws follow logically.
Instead, if one regards guns as morally neutral tools, he will also reach widely different conclusions about how to regulate them.
I understand Barry's concerns...I feel the same way when I have to use a knife in the kitchen to dice a tomato or cut the end off a loaf of bread... to have this weapon on my person eats away at my sanity...this instrument of sure and certain death...available to be used at a moments notice to possibly kill... Now that I have thought about it, I think I may give up cooking. It's too dangerous...
Small Minor:
"If I were to take a live, armed weapon and carry it on my person, in public, it would eat away at my sanity just as if it were emitting lethal radiation."
Is it just me, or does anyone else get a vision of Barry as some nut with the DT's, madly brushing off the hallucinated spiders and snakes that are crawling all over him:
"Get it OFF me! Get it OFF me....PLEASE!"
Amusing imagined vignette aside, is there nothing to Barry that Barry thinks...or feels, would be worth his defending with deadly force?
Is he that worthless a creature?
And if that indeed be the case, then shouldn't he be someone's slave?
Regards;
"What scares me most is the arbitrary nature of self-defense. What line must be crossed to signal to you that there is imminent danger or threat?"
Why does he need to know where the line is, unless he plans on engaging in behavior that he fears might approach the line?
From where I see, the anti's want to live in a world without consequences. Where they can act as they wish and nothing unpleasant ever happens in response.
O.K., Barry, tell you what: If I see you being robbed (or worse), I won't bother helping you with my gun. That make you feel better?
You SERIOUSLY need to get some range time and instruction!
"I think that the ill-tempered liberal should actually try shooting. Maybe a GWB picture, but many say that target shooting is very relaxing."
I wonder about how much of the neurosis that is evident in that quote from Barry is due to feelings of personal helplessnes - because they have chosen to be defenseless?
To go along with the first two commentors, I have a question. Is there any way to find out the political orientation of the parents of kids who have gone on school shooting rampages? I have suspicions, but no actual proof.
A friend of mine who worked in Hollywood for a bit made an interesting point: it's actually a recurring motif in movies and TV for an otherwise sane, stable character to kill someone with a gun in a moment of rage. The average person with no experience of guns may have no frame of reference for what he could or couldn't do in a fit of rage, but he's seen "regular guy takes a life and destroys his own with a gun" played out in the media many times.
Good point, LabRat.
But we know that the media doesn't influence people! (That's why advertisers spend million$, right? To have no influence!)
What *I* find interesting is that violence in the media may have a different influence than feared- not making people more violent, but more afraid of their own imaginary violent tendencies.
Plus making gangbangers less accurate via the world's most ridiculous pistol stance, but that's just a side bonus.
Thus the HoMeBoY NyTe-SyTeS.
And check out the "Glock-n-Gut." It looks a lot like these, doesn't it? Only the top one is real.
It's the Hollywood thing, in Tinselgrad they project because that's where they think emotions come from - but like all actors they really want to Direct.
As far as being proud of a temper, that about sums up everything I learned was wrong - those are impediments to grace, and a logical and safely lived life. Can't they find their way in Life without constantly introducing conflict? More Hollwood indoctrination...
After a *ahem* rousing, shall we say, repartee with her, I believe she was waxing satirical, though I'm not sure.
The biggest thing that needs to be pointed out to Barry is that a responsible gun owner _doesn't_ just haul off and fire at a moment's notice. If you feel threatened, you don't generally just whip it out and fire, but you just might whip it out and threaten.
Thus, the mugger is convinced to move on (or lie down on the ground, depending), and there's no stray shot to go whizzing off and hit the kid down the street.
What are those stats on how often guns are used to deter crime without actually being fired? :)
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>