Guns as "protection". (From the Government)

The BBQ Pit
181

Oh, and Trathena, is your shame clear yet? The guy you were offering up an apologia for is such a gutless waste of carbon that he uses these slurs, and then backs away from them. Such a two faced coward that he can’t even own his own bigotry. He describes it as other people’s views, and then accidentally lets his troll mask slip and admits that it’s his view that 2nd amendment supporters are wanna be bully meat heads.

Yeah, you really are a coward. After all the slurs you’ve dished out, your pretend that you have a problem with cursing? You poor pathetic schmuck.
At least own up to your own behavior, you gutless wretch.

Speaking of you being a balless coward, what was that you were babbling about with regard to your ‘intellectual fly’ being open? Like, maybe, how when you accuse a 20-something guy of being senile, instead of admitting you were a fucking idiot who resorted to empty-headed babbling instead of making a point, you just used it as fodder for another lame insult?
Whatever. Grow a pair, coward.

Well, dayum. That certainly proves that you weren’t using an ignorant broadbrush generalization designed to slur those who support the 2nd amendment while deliberately ignoring all those examples that make it clear that you’re just an ignorant bigot.

But of course, your nifty bandwagon fallacy holds a lot of weight too.

See, I could point out, again, that you’ve begun babbling from a position of militant ignorance. I could point out that not only have I ever advocated “bullying”, but I’ve already specifically pointed out my positions in this thread and how, generally, I’m socially liberal.

You poor, poor bigoted asshole. The problem isn’t that many people view supporters of the 2nd amendment poorly, it’s that you do. But you’re too much of a coward to own up to your own opinion.

And, of course, you fool, all you’ve done is point out that in your view, a great many non-gun owners are as ignorant and bigoted as you are, and their bias against gun owners blinds them to the fact that a great many gun owners are neither irrational, nor bullies, nor on the right wing.

You’re right. The SCOTUS has already stomped on ignorant bigots like you.

So sad, these delusions of adequacy you have.
The battle is already won. The law is already on the side of those who actually support the 2nd amendment instead of giving lip service to the constitution while working to subvert it and being bigoted against its supporters as if they’re “bullies” and “meatheads”.
Pathetic.

Naw. Mods at least one mod here has specifically described posters behavior as trolling and done nothing, others note users anually for trolling and being racists, and do nothing.
A rodent like you who hardly ever posts isn’t even worth the time for me to waste on reporting you for something (you fucking moron) that I just stated wasn’t trolling, but close to it

Honestly, try not being so aggressively stupid before you open your yap about others, eh?

Correct. You draw these broad brush slurs without owning them. You slur and slander with ignorant generalizations, and use public opinion to hide behind.
You are a coward, a fool and a caricature of ignorant, bigoted gun haters.

182

So much for an armed society being a polite society.

183

Yeah Danny, I too wonder why someone subjected to aggressive stereotyping and constant slurs would respond with anything less than politeness. Why, your constant use of strawmen and playing dumb about what 2nd amendment supporters actually believe surely has nothing to do with the reception you’ve gotten.

Yes, and continued to ignore (and yes, ignore is the perfectly right word) what the actual dynamic is. You point to one battle in a war, and ignore that if you extrapolated the same thing to numerous battles, that it would have had a crushing impact on the morale and logistical ability of the Nazis. If one camp of poorly armed, half-starved Jews could hold about 1000 Nazis for a month, what could 100 well armed rebellions accomplish? 150? 200?

What Empire would the Nazis have held if they had to shell every town to rubble in order to ‘control’ it? What support would they have had from their own society if even the simple act of governing required them to demolish everything they sought to govern?

You ignored that if one poorly armed uprising of half-starved people in a Nazi concentration camp could tie up German men and material, that dozens of similar uprisings would have had a similar effect and stretched German logistical capabilities as well as severely effecting German morale.

What synonym would you prefer to ‘ignored’? Failed to consider? Did not take into account? Refuse to extrapolate? I have, several times, pointed out that it wasn’t about one battle, but about what effect resistance can have. You have continually referred to only that one battle. I point to the fundamental dynamic and what would happen if it was repeated, you look at only the one battle and claim it wasn’t a success, refusing to address my actual point, that it isn’t one battle that counts, it’s the entire war. That even an entire war of WGU’s is still a defeat. How is that not ignoring my point?

Tied up many, many crack Nazi troops and armor, for almost a full month. The point that you are ignoring is what sort of effect 12 of such uprisings would have had. 20. 100.

You don’t have to refer to it, you have to prove it. Prove your claim that a coup can’t be carried off by a minority without wider support. I gave a few examples when a small coterie had to go to such extreme lengths as closing airports and purging the government/military in order to hang on to power, and was still removed later. I gave an example of how Julius Caesar had to fight other Roman legions for control of Rome itself, and yet still became the first Emperor (before being removed in another coup).

184

Post 69.

The clear implication of your words is that myself, FinnAgain, and ScumPup, being “patriotic-minded,” (i.e., “flag-saluting”), are ready, even willing, to “rat out” the “pagans, gays, people that eat peanut butter and sardine sandwiches.” Basically, anyone we don’t like. Anyone who we deem as “other.” To quote Pink Floyd, “All the queers and the coons and the Reds and the Jews.”

So c’mon, dude, provide some evidence more substantial than “guilt by association in your mind” that I’m racist, a homophobe, a Xian zealot, or anti-peanut-butter-and-sardine.

Okay, I’ll cop to the last one. That’s just wrong on so many levels.

Just off of the top of my head, what I have admitted to (and still largely believe) on these boards:

I get the hang-up against the Confederate flag; while there is a valid point about it’s association, I think it is largely overblown.

I don’t like associating negro slavery with the Jewish Holocaust; it was a holocaust, as in some seriously reprehensible shit done by one group of people to another, shattering to the racial and cultural identity of that racial group for generations. It does not compare to the unmitigated evil that was Nazism (sp?) circa 1930-1940 Germany. It wasn’t The Holocaust.

Some people need killing. I’m largely comfortable with where the Law has drawn that line, and am willing to let the justice system, and a jury of 12, decide.

Unless said person is intent on hurting me or mine; in which case I’m ready to put a bullet in said person toot-sweet, and worry about how I’m getting brain matter out of wallpaper and blood stains out of carpet later.

On the other hand, there’s no denying need for improvements in the Death Penalty. And I’m not talking “tweaks” or “minor adjustments,” either. I’m talking strip-to-the-chassis-and-rebuild-soundly-from-the-ground-up kind of improvements. It would probably be easier to just do away with the damned thing than to go to that much trouble. On that note…

“Life in Prison” should mean just that.

And franky, dude, I never claimed to be.

185

I’ll go out on a limb here and predict that he’s so very brave that he’ll continue to deny that he’s making any such claims.

Of course, the ignorance is strong with this one. For instance, I’m not God-fearing as I’m an atheist Jew, I actually find the pledge and reverence for the flag to be a bit off-putting but do believe that the fundamental principles of our republic are strong and worth defending. I believe that dissent is patriotic. I believe in a fundamental right to privacy and the importance of the rule of law. I believe in equality for all people regardless of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, sexuality, religion, etc, etc, etc. I support smaller government (especially in our bedrooms) and would prefer seeing the FCC gutted, for example. I’ve opposed the US’ policy of torture, and was called a traitor for it on these very boards.

The fact is, all this bigot knows about me is that I support the 2nd amendment. And from that, he vomits up these broadbrush generalizations.

Ironically enough, despite this coward’s rhetoric about how scary folks like me are, and the risk of a Nazi-esque extermination… virtually all of my extended family actually was rounded up and placed on cattle cars (or dragged out and shot in the street with the rest of the family watching). So like the anti-religious bigots on the Dope who worry of being dragged out into the streets, he’s an anti-gun nutter who worries about being dragged out into the street. While the scariest thing he actually has to deal with is being mocked on a message board. All he needs to add is some rubbish about how gun owners are compensating for their penises (even, I guess, the women) and it’d be a template-perfect Doper screed against the evil that is the US Constitution and its amendments.

But as most often goes along with bigotry, the bigot is a coward, and he needs to be defended from big scary “right wing gun nuts” like my straight-Democrat voting dad. Not that it’s his belief, or anything, that supporters of the 2nd amendment are “gun nuts” or that they deserve to be included with racists and not folks like Pink Pistols and the Nevada ACLU. It’s just other people’s beliefs beliefs which he’s just being kind enough to tell us about… which is why he’d need the government to defend him from those beliefs that he doesn’t support or agree with.

Or something.

And simply for the record, 23% of Democrats own guns. So, it’d seem, nearly 1 out of 4 Democrats are really right-wing nuts, in disguise. Like the Transformers.
Who knew?

186

Public’s view on gun control:

Cite

187

The research conducted through Johns Hopkins University referrenced in your cite isn’t all it should be.

Full article here.

Your cite didn’t impress me. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is a notoriously anti organization; neutrality in research isn’t their strong suit.

188

I’m sorry to jump in here, but I don’t exactly see what you’re getting from that article. It seems to be a fairly valid critique of a previous study that happened to be funded by a grant from Joyce Foundation. Is the point just that John’s Hopkins is anti gun? What about their critique is actually wrong? I didn’t bother looking up the raw data, but I know from previous stats classes that you can’t use a two-stage least regression study to correct for two connected variables. Which is what the article accuses Lott and Mustard of doing. They also say that they didn’t apply the same corrections across the board, which is another statistical no-no.

Other than the fact that your article is referenced in the previous one (as is Lott and Mustard’s) what do the two have to do with one another? Is it just the collaboration of John’s Hopkins/Joyce Foundation with the NORC in collecting the some of the data used in the study? I just don’t see how one proves the other. I’ll admit I didn’t read all 80 pages of the first study.

189

Just as DanBlather would be unlikely to accept any studies by the NRA, or involving the NRA, as unbiased, I am not likely to accept anything involving The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.
As I’ve mentioned several times, I’ve been a 2A activist for a very long time, and that outfit’s work is familiar to me. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is blatantly anti-gun. They start from the position of “guns are bad” and work from there instead of asking the question "are guns bad?’ and proceeding from that. Anything that they are involved in is suspect, IMO. Anybody who cites their work is either also proceeding from an anti-gun agenda or is ignorant of his sources.

190

They could have accomplished much. Many such rebellions would have cost the Nazis quite dearly - perhaps not enough to stop their purges, but at the very least would have dealt a significant blow to their attempts to defend themselves overall. 100, 150, 200 well armed rebellions could accomplish great things.

Untrue. I have indeed looked at the dynamic between the Warsaw uprising and the later rebellion you link with it, as I suspect reading my posts will show. Furthermore, i’ve also addressed the various factors that resulted on a wider scale; not only in terms of what occurred then, but what this meant for the Nazis overall. I simply don’t think that it did do much damage to them as a whole, as I have said; that’s different from ignoring it. Your new example of hundreds of such rebellions is just that; new. If you want me to extrapolate that possibility from the Warsaw uprising, then certainly I have failed to mention doing so, since there were in fact not 100, 150, 200 such rebellions. It is a theoretical extrapolation only - and by that I don’t mean just that it didn’t happen, but that it is pretty significantly different from the way history went - enough that, it seems reasonable for me to say, not that I ignore what would happen if it were repeated, but point out that the effect was not great enough for it to be repeated. Your apparent examples of how it could have had great effect are true in their conclusions; I agree that many such rebellions would have had a significant effect. Rebellions, in general, may certainly have that power. This particular one did not. And rebellions, in general, are rather significantly unhelped if while the rebellers are well armed, a vast population of civilians let alone the military is against them exists also.

No, you didn’t. You referred to countries and dates. I asked you for some more details, because frankly I don’t know very much about those happenings. You’re now electing to give some few details and act as though I had that knowledge all along. You gave examples of countries and dates. If you want to prove to me that these examples skewer my claim, please, I can’t consider them if I don’t know anything about them. Why are they good examples for you? Why are they bad examples for me?

191

The facts have a wll known liberal bias. I’m just Googling. Here is University of Chicago, National Opinion Research Center:

For fairness, Pew Research Trust:

The point, is that the moderate view supports gun control. The idea that there should be unfettered access to guns is an extreme position as is the banning of guns.

192

Personally I’d prefer the ability to check out the actual studies and see their actual questions. Notice, for instance that the cite blather provided shows, two pages after the bit he quoted, that when respondents were given enough information to see what the questions about what changes to concealed carry actually meant, a vast percentage of their answers changed dramatically. Previous, similar studies have had people responding to generic statements about how we need tighter gun control to deal with criminals, but when asked about specific laws, the respondents’ answers changed dramatically.

When asked something like “Should we make it harder for criminals to get guns”, of course most people will say yes. When asked about specific policies, the results change. When asked about specific policies and given information about their costs/efficacy, results change even more.

It’s the same with universal health care. Ask your respondents if they’d like to get their health care taken care of by the government for ‘free’, many people say yes. Ask them if they want an increase of X tax dollars to pay for it, the results changes. Ask them if they want an increase of X tax dollars to pay for other people’s health care, and the answers change even more.

The design of a study is as important as the results, if not more so.

193

And the opposie would be true as well. “Do you support resticting gun ownership?” “Would you support it if you knew that family members were x% more likely to die from accidental shooting or suicide?”

Often the moderate views on all subjects get drowned out by the extremists. Most people support gun ownership *and *regulation, most people support early term abortions and get more concerned as pregnancy continues, etc.

194

Use of the words “moderate views” should burn your tongue, as you’ve made it abundantly clear in numerous gun threads you’ve trolled that you are no moderate by any rational definition of the word moderate.

195

Really?

My views on the law:

Guns are with us and any bans are futile

You should have training and a license to own and operate a gun

Restrictions (or extra licensing) should be made on guns with high rate of fire and/or large magazines

People commiting crimes with guns (as opposed to a violations of gun statutes) should be imprisoned for life with no parole

Guns should be registered and sales tracked

My personal view of guns are different than how I view the law. Like pro-choice people who oppose abortion.

I think that:

In most situations having a gun in the house makes you less safe

In most situations carrying a gun makes you less safe

The notion that we need to have an armed citizenry to prevent govt tyranny is silly

Hunting and target shooting are fun

Carrying a gun everywhere you go is odd

196

Actually I’m going to have to modify my position based on what robertliguori said in #137; guns can allow a minority to sell their lives more dearly. So they can help a minority on the defensive, but not allow a dictatorial minority to take the offensive against an armed majority- the best of both worlds in my opinion.