Here.
In a word, bullshit.
Even though it was in a pit thread, that drek is worthy of your very own pitting.
I personally am a gun owner and I don’t give a tinker’s damn what your sexual/religious/political beliefs are and I’m certainly not going to go looking for you to use for target practice because of them. Nor would any of my many gun owning friends.
What’s next? The Catholics are just waiting for an excuse to bring back the crusades to convert the heathens?
Bad example. This is Der Trihs we’re talking about, after all.
No, it’s not.
If something pisses you off in a Pit thread, then i see no point in opening another Pit thread about it, especially when the comment in question was not out of left field, but was within the scope of the ongoing discussion.
Stupid thread.
Ooh, cool! Then we can bring back the Inquisition. They’ll never expect that. Especially the Spanish.
Der Trihs is not stating a fact, as you seem to believe Projammer. He’s offering a speculative opinion, which history suggests is not necessarily utterly insane. Neith of you can be proved right or wrong, but I can understand why the thought experiment that Der Trihs performed would lead him to this opinion.
One can *hope *he’s wrong, but we’ll never know till we know.
True, but it was the best absurdity I could come up with in my sleep deprived state. I’m sure someone more imaginative and well rested will be along directly with a better example.
I saw no reason to further derail a thread that had already gone astray. So while it was in the scope of the current turn of discussion, it was not in the scope of the OP.
Even so, it would have rated its own thread.
OK, so that’s one exception to his generalisation.
How do you know? Have you actually discussed this with them? They would actually go to war - a live, shooting, friends and family dying around you, war - to defend (for instance) gays or atheists’ beliefs?
While as usual he makes his case in such a way as to excite antagonism, his underlying premise is fairly sound; gun rights activists in the US are, I would say unarguably, right-wing (even by US standards) and so more disposed to be anti-<AllThoseThingsHeSaid> than the societal average.
I think this is one of those rare case in which Der Trihs is sort of right.
Historically speaking, all totalitarian governments come to power with the (explicit or implicit) consent of a large portion, if not a majority of their populace. If a right- wing totalitarian regime - like a fascist one - were to seize control of the U.S, odds are that gun owners (who skew right) would support it, at least initially. If said government is smart, it’ll distract its supporters by directing their aggression against other enemies, external or internal.
Again, this is totalitarian SOP. It usually works, too.
While I normally agree with alot more of what Der Trihs has to say than the average poster here does, I can’t help but point this out.
I’m just saying that broad brushes are not easy to paint with…
As much as I hate to admit it I think DT is more right than wrong.
Seconding not needed thread.
And this is a Pitting, what’s with the ***'s?
Considering how much ( for example ) impact and support the shooting and threats of shooting by fundies of doctors who perform abortions have had, I fail to see why my attitude is so out of line. It’s always the Right in this country that’s eager to call for shooting or otherwise brutalizing their opponents. The right wing supports gun rights because they are overwhelmingly the violent ones. And it’s more convenient to shoot a gay or an atheist or a black guy than to beat them with clubs or stab them.
In these two sentences you paint all right wing gun owners as 1. racist 2.bigoted, 3.homophobic, and 4.violent. Do you feel even a little bad when you paint with so big a brush?
I’m not saying that the gun-toting right wing nutjob stereotype isn’t a stereotype for a reason, but to say that those who support gun-rights are “overwhelmingly violent” is ridculous.
And hunting does not count as an act of violence, btw. You were obviously speaking only of person vs person acts of violence, specifically athiests, blacks, and gays.
I guess what I’m getting at is “Cite?”.
My, you certainly managed to twist what I said. First, I meant that the majority of political/religious violence in this country comes from and is supported by the right. And right wing gun owners are usually “1. racist 2.bigoted, 3.homophobic” because that’s part of the definition of the American Right. As for # 4, “violent”, who do you think bashes gays and shoots doctors who perform abortions ? Liberals ?
And I never said “all”, I said “overwhelmingly”. And my “cite” is that they DO such things.
But do you really truly believe that right wing gun owners, over all, want to have thier guns so they can shoot blacks, athiest, and gays the minute the opportunity arises? Or would it be safer (and more honest) to say that they have latched on to gun rights as an ideal; as a way to keep Big Brother out of thier buisness (all the while letting him in more and more by voting Right. Like I said before, I agree with you on a lot of this.)?
I hear what you are saying, and I can’t disagree that the stereotype has been earned. But to say that all those who own guns and vote right are inherantly racist homophobic bigots is clearly a strawman in the same vein as the weed smoking wife sharing latte loving liberal. To be fair though, I’d much rather admit to being the later 
Also, don’t think that I intend to twist your words in any way. If that’s percieved, then please assume that it was poor thought to text translation on my part.
The great majority, yes, because they are right wing. That’s the kind of people right wingers ARE; thugs.
The people who vote right ARE mostly “racist homophobic bigots”, guns or not. It’s not the guns that make them that.
You’re all alone from here, DT. Godspeed.
Which function key do you have programmed to paste in this string? I use F11, myself.
An accusation that anybody who disagrees with you is a fascist murderer is “within the scope” of a discussion about people joining an opposing political organization to see what they’re up to?
This must be some new definition of “scope” with which I have not been familiar.
Holy shit, did Der Trihs show up to his own pitting? Can we get him to justify the other 6,000 pits?
I had no idea that the Weather Underground was a right-wing organization. :rolleyes: