:dubious:
As a kid my commie parents kept a Mini-14, an Astra copy of an army .45, a Walther 9 mm, and two target .22s ( one pistol, one .22 long rifle ).
Well Tam, your parents were COMMIES after all…not socialists. 
As for the pitting, I’m of two minds. On the one hand, if you think that only ‘right-wingers’ have guns in the US you are obviously completely detached from reality. Even if you think that the majority of gun owners in the US are ‘right-wingers’ then either your definition of what a ‘right-winger’ is or is not is completely skewed or you are truly delusional. On the other hand however, we ARE talking about Der Trihs here…so we KNOW he is completely delusional and detached from reality on this subject. Hell, I wouldn’t let him near me with a 10-foot pole on this or related subjects for fear he’d bite me and I’d start foaming at the mouth to!
-XT
Your parents were probably of the revolutionary, Abbie Hoffman-type mold (Abbie Hoffman had a whole chapter in Steal This Book about different kinds of guns, how to use them, and where to get them. There are parts of it where he sounds like a downright NRA member.)
I have much more respect for these kind of communist/socialist/radical-leftist types because at least they have some balls on them.
The kind we have to deal with now, are trying to win the revolution by seeing who can whine the loudest.
Indeed. I can’t imagine how pathetic reasoning and debate must seem compared to a badass gun. I mean, if I want my problems sorted out, I want someone who’ll sort it out with weaponry, not words!
As i’ve suggested to you before, one group decides an appropriate response to what they fear is words. The other decides an appropriate response is to get a gun. Generally i’m going to peg the guy who decides to forego weaponry to win their battles as the more “ballsy”. Not that it matters - at least to me.
Uh oh. I guess I do need a gun.
I’m not entirely sure i’m anatomically acceptable for that particular idea, so I wouldn’t worry.
Der Trihs, the longer I hang around the SDMB, the more I am convinced that your fears are misplaced.
Because they want control, to grant and take away liberties as a means of oppressing the working class, by hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the social and economic differences in our society.
This place gets more disgusting by the day.
Well, I live in a country that only exists because some far-right lunatic gun nuts called the Founding Fathers decided to forego “reasoning and debate” and use their guns to kick your people the hell out of the country.
The British Empire raped the whole world at the point of a gun for hundreds of years, and no amount of debate and reasoning was going to stop them. It was only some people with some muskets, and some balls. Literally and figuratively.
I’m curious why you say that.
We’ve had posters expressing hostile and offensive views from the first day. If anything, the percentage of posters who choose to harp on themes of hatred is probably much lower than in previous years (although that number may include several who are vying for the status of “most obnoxious”).
You’re probably right.
Upon reflection, I think it would be more accurate to say that I grow more disgusted with this place by the day.
Yes, there is murderous hatred on this message board, and it’s not coming from the religious.
They raised armies in a civil war. I’m not entirely sure what about that makes them “far-right lunatic gun nuts”, and i’m pretty sure i’ve never claimed that of them.
And in fact they didn’t forego reasoning and debate - I seem to recall that some kind of papers were authored around that time. A declaration of some kind, perhaps, or some kind of bill or other. I forget the details exactly; if only the words had lasted until now. And I suspect that the gentlemen in question didn’t communicate with their allies through carefully timed gunfire alone, diplomatic as that option may be.
Besides which, I don’t think this addresses my point. The Founding Fathers were more scared than, say, a group who only used words to oppose a highly discriminatory regime. And with good reason.
Yes, the British Empire was soundly defeated for all time by the American Revolution, wasn’t it? Good job on that one, by the way - i’m sure India for one were happy you stopped them raping their country all those centuries ago.
Like I said, they used guns because - shockingly - they were scared that the Empire would use them right back, and indeed they did. It was a perfectly justifiable fear, as shown by a pretty significant war and a couple of smaller ones afterwards.
No, it was an army of people, and the French. Not a bunch of people clutching guns at home assuming that owning them is going to make a difference. And, times have changed anyway; it’s missiles and bombs that matter now more than muskets.
It was the British Empire’s organizational and logistic abilities that made them so powerful; they beat people with guns as well as those without. A modern day version would grind right over you and your fellow gun-wankers, with barely a pause.
Barely a pause, huh? Like the five-year, four-thousand-life pause in Iraq.
Something that nobody ever seems to understand…ever…despite it being repeated over and over…is that an insurgency doesn’t need to defeat its enemy, it just needs to make it so it’s no longer worth their while to keep fighting. Yeah, the American Revolution didn’t destroy the British Empire. What it did do, was harass them to the point where they gave up trying to rule the American colonies.
The Irish also did it. That’s why it’s the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and not the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got a lot of respect for the British. They’re great fighters and they always have been and always will be. But they’ve had a tendency to stick their neck out too far, and pay the price for it.
But the Americans and Irish of their times didn’t want to march on London. Compromise is only possible when compromise is acceptable to both parties.
An insurgency doesn’t need to defeat it’s enemy, should the defeat of that enemy not be it’s goal. I rather suspect that a civilian uprising against a totalitarian U.S. government would not be content with peace and the West Coast. That’s why the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland isn’t the Kingdom of Ireland and Associated States.
Oh, and bigotry is bigotry, whether positive or negative.
Being forced to use missiles and bombs would increase the cost of taking control of the country (munitions and fuel aren’t free) and would reduce the benefit of taking over (since dead people and destroyed buildings aren’t as useful as unarmed prisoners). There’s less incentive to engage in a war of conquest (or a coup, or a dictatorship) if the opportunity cost is higher than the benefits.
Nor is it coming from ther non-religious.
It tends to come from individuals who are so locked into their own fundy dogma (of whatever religious or non-religious persuasion) or their own partisan inability to empathize with anyone not holding their beliefs that they can only equate “different” with “evil.” The numbers of such people are not large and they exert an influence well out of proportion to their numbers, but trying to identify them as only all the people who think differently simply means that one is more like them than might be comfortable.
Curious that you follow the term “fundy” with “religious or non-religious” posters. I’ve never heard the term fundy used to mean anyone other than the religious. But be that as it may, I never see these types of comments coming from the board’s conservatives.
Perhaps this is because post after post around here in the vein of those by **Acid Lamp ** and Der Trihs go largely uncondemned. Time after time around here I see the most ridiculous hate-driven characterizations and condemnations of Republicans, conservatives, God-believers, etc., etc., with nary a peep of protest from anyone.
Take Acid Lamp’s glurge above – not a single soul in that thread said a damn thing about how assholish it was, yet there is no doubt in my mind that had someone made a similar “confession” about his desire to gas blacks, homosexuals, abortion doctors or liberals in general, the hue and cry would have been enormous and very likely followed by stern warnings from moderators regarding the use of “hate speech” on these boards…and with good reason!
As for the even more despicable Der Trihs, sure, people occasionally lambaste his psychotic remarks, but still the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty low given what he says and how often he says it.
That this board purports to fight ignorance is utterly laughable.