And this is where Terr tips his hat. I’m not even mad at this. How could I be? This is like Christopher Monckton or some of the callers on The Atheist Experience - there’s no fucking way he’s not a poe. Nobody is this dumb except on purpose. He’s trolling us, guys. Just walk away. He’s either trolling or the dumbest person I have ever seen. If I met someone this dumb on the street, I would reconsider my position on mandatory euthanasia for the mentally retarded.
He’s a libertarian or something similar; there’s no real limit to how crazy such people can get. Whatever he wants to do or believe is the One True Way because he wants it, and the only right that matters is his right to do as he pleases regardless of consequences. That’s libertarianism.
I asked the question because I knew it would cause Terr to spin like a dumbass dog in pursuit of his tail. He didn’t disappoint me.
I’m on the fence regarding guns yet I would have been interested in checking out the gun in question. Guess I won’t be able to exercise my 2nd amendment rights. 
Yep, and the gun wing nuts in this country firmly believe that the right to burn down his place of business and hurt him physically is their right under the 2nd Amendment.
If you don’t agree with them, they’ll come find you too.
It’s 2014. In 1934 people started thinking this way in Germany. They became known as Nazis.
Welcome to America. :mad:
Double-post.
Which rights in particular?
[/quote]
Terr, I’m still not sure which Constitutional right(s) these people were defending. Little help?
Making anonymous threats in private is the same as being publicly held accountable for trespassing?
And I thought this thread would be the most repulsive analogy of the week to hold an equivalence between American civil rights activists of the 50’s and 60’s and thuggish criminals. Boy, was I wrong.
You have had multiple contributers here who are strong gun rights advocates roundly condemn the actions of those who threatened the gun shop owner and those who support those who threatened and those who incited those who threatened. One contributer, I think, who did not.
Looking on some of the gun rights sites I find things like this:
Some of course who pretend that the threats never happened. Not too many who support them.
Do you define a true “gun nut” to be someone who if you scratch the surface a little brownshirt emerges so those gun rights advocates who condemn such tactics are not true “gun nuts”?
The NRA, and more so the crazies who threaten people, do not represent all gun rights advocates. My impression (as someone who is not a gun rights advocate but whose gun control position has softened after being convinced by reasoned debate here) is that most who support gun rights condemn the sorts of tactics used in this case and that few feel the NRA represents them well.
I’m a very firm believer and advocate in firearms for self-defense, and I unconditionally condemn those who made threats or put threatening pressure on a shop owner trying to sell the smart guns.
… particularly the part that says, " … infringed"
Consider blaming the law makers who tied selling the smart gun with banning all the other guns. They will get re-elected over things like Union issues, gay marriage, entitlements. How can politicians who are reasonable about so many other issues be such butt-heads about one issue?
Occupied Palestine, 1948-Present
Occupied Iraq, 2003-?
Occupied Afghanistan, 2001-Present
Do you believe in the universality of ethics? What if there’s disagreement over the intentions/effects of the occupiers (British in Palestine, Soviets in Afghanistan)?
I’m still amused by this bit from the first page:
“It’s only a misdemeanor so it doesn’t cout as ‘breaking laws!’”
Didn’t Norman Rockwell paint that for his Four Freedoms series? (googling) No, I guess it was George Lincoln Rockwell.
Gun nut =! gun rights advocate. The word “nut” to me, would indicate someone who is, well, nuts. Like the people in the article. Crazy people. Not normal, rational people who believe in their Second Amendment rights.
Most people I know who keep and use guns aren’t nuts.
Did I say it doesn’t count?
Terroristic threats aren’t a misdemeanor anyway. Not that New Jersey actually classifies crimes as felonies and misdemeanors. And not that the actual meaning of any of these words is worth clarifying considering the context.
But, you know, if anyone wondered whether threatening to burn down somebody’s store is really a slap on the wrist kind of deal.
Hence the true Scotsman reference.
Thing is though that many of these discussions descend and become “gun nut” vs “gun grabber” depictions of each other and to my read that comment by MfM was clearly implying that those who are for Gun Rights and are law abiding are nuts and brownshirts when the surface is scratched.
Gun nuttery is a continuum, not pinpoint. Qualities include paranoia, pomposity, a blinkered reading of international history, and a conveniently anti-scientific take on well know statistical patterns. While gun nuts tend to be fanatic, most have the social sense to keep their threats of violence anonymous.
I think thinly veiled self-satisfied murderous fantasies -seeing lethal self defense as anything other than regrettable- along with a wildly disproportionate perception of the abilities of unorganized fat middle aged firearms possessors to defeat modern militaries and uphold internationally recognizable human rights bolted on to a laughable reading of military history are some of the aspects of the American gun nut. But don’t forget the pomposity.
Those who fully understand that the NRA is a coalition of loons, gulls, rubes and swallows which fronts for an industry lobby don’t belong to that organization and actively oppose it. How many US private arsenal advocates fall under that category? Thirty?