It’s a statement about a movement just the way any of your comments about a Republican or a conservative is a statement about a movement, Dio.
And we feel the same way about your comments. 
I do not take the actions of one individual and generalze them to an entire movement. I never say that the actions or hypocrisy of any individual conservative is an indictment of conservatives or Republicans in general. Feel free to search my posts. I don’t do that.
Cite for me using the actions of an individual to make a sweeping generalization of a movement?
Well, fine. If I left that impression in my OP, I did try to correct it in post #7.
Fair enough.
Hell, I’m not even a gun control advocate. I find some aspects of the gun culture to be distasteful to me personally but I’m not in favor of prohibition or confiscation. I prefer not to mess with the Bill of Rights.
I think it also goes without saying that every political or social movement is going to have hypocrites in it. There are probably MADD mothers who drive drunk. It doesn’t necessarily invalidate the goals of the movement. The validity of the movement stands or falls on its own merits not upon the individual character or moral consistency of its members.
Well-spoken. I retract my previous.
Because it’s more than just Flirty Stevens. Remember Barbara Graham? Those “million moms” are a freakin’ menace!
Um. Yo, Max
Read my whole post–here I’ll quote the pertinent it for you.
"Sounds to me that you just want to rant about anti-gun people. FYI, one (or even two or a hundred) people found to have behaved in a manner contrary to their espoused beliefs does not a “hypocritical” movement make. It is unfortunate for the woman involved, but does not negate the feelings or position of the group she was a part of.
Carry on. "
IOW, **Dio ** has reiterated and amplified my position quite well–thank you.
How is this not clear?
As to the “scawy” gun bit–Moto --how is that called for? Just because you are comfortable around guns does mean that everyone is or should be. Frankly, a bit of fear around a firearm is a good thing, IMO–they are potentially deadly, but maybe that has escaped your notice.
You want to mock Ms. Flirty, then do so. If you are using her as a wedge to vent your spleen at those many. many people who feel differently than you about this issue, then say so. Perhaps if you would focus your bile more accurately, these threads wouldn’t be so lengthy.
That should read “doesn’t mean that everyone should be”.
Oops!
Well, you’ve admitted in your posts that you’re ignorant about guns, and fear them. Yet you want to have a say in gun policy based on your ignorance and fear.
Why should I respect your opinions on this matter, if they’re based such?
I’m not even involved and i call this a stupid question. Because Mr. Gun-wielding maniac could be living next to me.
Do we not live in the same society? Do I pay taxes, vote, and participate? Then yes, I get to to have a say in the policies of my country.
Then it behooves you to be reasonably educated on the issues, doesn’t it? And knowing what to do if you find a gun seems like information worth having.
Especially if that gun has serial numbers filed off.
Egads, that family with darker skin is living next to me! We should get rid of them!
Do we not live in the same society? Do I pay taxes, vote, and participate? Then yes, I get to to have a say in the policies of my country.
:rolleyes:
Hands up, all those who want a “GUN-FREE HOUSEHOLD! OCCUPANTS ARE UNARMED!” sign for their lawn!
…
…what, no one?
What?
I refrained earlier, but now–you are an ass, Mr. Moto.
Do you know all the aspects of care that are involved in say, a post-stroke patient? Left sided or right sided? Be careful-it’s a trick question! How about the regime needed to ensure a smooth post-operative progress post triple A repair(no, no, not the car service)? No?
Whyever not? It would surely behoove you to educate yourself on these issues, seeing as how you have no way of knowing if you will ever have a CVA or a AAA. Why you might even have to vote on an issue regarding health care, one of these days–whatever will you do, w/o a full working knowledge of the area concerned? I ask this only because I have your best interests in mind. I would be happy to assist you in succumbing to a stroke–or maybe I should have used post GSW (that’s Gun Shot Wound) as an example. See enough of what stupid people do with guns long enough and you may change your mind.
I’ll spell it out for you: nobody has expertise in all areas of life. Most don’t even have decent working knowledge of all areas of life. I have never held a handgun/rifle/shotgun. I have no desire to do so. That isn’t what makes me anti-gun. I know of responsible. safe gun owners (one is my next door neighbor)–would that all gun owners were like him. They are not–and you and the NRA know this. You choose to ignore it to further your agenda.
To have a sense of what a gun can do is not the same as an unreasoning fear–and it is not the same as willfull ignorance. I need no experience with cyanide to know it’s deadly–same with guns. Get two people fighting, add a gun and you now ahve a deadly equation. Mix in kids and the tragedy is exponential. No matter what gun owners say–this is true. What could have been an ugly confrontation, becomes a deadly one, with a gun.
Because I am anti-gun (for the most part–but you aren’t really interested in my position; you would rather just demonize those who do not think as you do) doesn’t mean that I need a working knowledge of how to operate a handgun or an AK-47. Frankly, if ALL gun owners were responsible, law abiding, safe gun users, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Your position that I should know gun etiquette, local gun ordinances etc before I can have an intelligent stance on the subject is assinine. But, there we are.
How we got to changing the “policies” in this country (funny, I thought it was law) from one woman showing poor judgement is beyond me.
Well, she was president of an anti-gun chapter of Million Moms or something. If it were just somebody who thought that the Million Mom thing was a good idea and sent $5 to the chapter, it would be more like me not knowing how to perform open heart surgery. But I bet the president of the Open Heart Doctors Association (not a true organization, BTW) would be expected to have at least a general knowledge of how open heart surgery was performed. It might seem reasonable for the president of an anti-gun chapter (whose goal is ostensibly to get rid of guns) to know how to actually get rid of a gun. Just sayin’.
Duke -fair enough. But Moto isn’t saying that she should know about safe gun disposal–he is saying that all people should know about firearms and their removal etc–and if they don’t, then they (apparently) should keep their mouths shut and let the grown ups drive.
I disagree. I am not defending Ms. Flirty–as I said in my first post–what she did was understandable; it was not laudable or even intelligent.
but that wasn’t good enough–only full demonization will do here for all those who oppose lethal weaponry. :rolleyes:
Exactly.
I’m cheerfully willing to say these ladies are nutcases whose credibility is zip, who do not represent me, and are not worthy of having any sort of soapbox to spread their views from.
Now, y’all feel free to say the same thing about Rush, O’Reilly, Hindrocket, and whoever else.
But I’ve always had two points about guns:
1) that there are lots of ways guns could be made less risky for those on either end of the barrel, while preserving one’s ability to use guns to defend oneself, and even while preserving the right to maintain caches of weapons to resist the government when it tries to take over your life.
Can’t see that either the Stevens case or the Graham case has anything to say about this point.
- Just for kicks, let’s divide the world into hardened criminals, and mostly law-abiding but fallible people. The first group is fairly small, but they’ll inflict a lot of damage per capita. The latter group is large, and most of them will never run into a hardened criminal. (In my first half-century, I haven’t yet.) The more of them that have guns, the more they’ll shoot up each other - as Ms. Graham’s case tragically demonstrates. There’s no different lesson here than if she’d been a pro-gun redneck who shot his ex-girlfriend when she took up with somebody new.
That isn’t to say that we should ban guns. But a large number of people who each have a small likelihood of shooting someone else, can do as much damage as a small group of people with a high likelihood of doing so. That’s just the numbers at work. You get all sorts of idiots with guns, like the guy with the flak jacket who asked his buddy to shoot him, thinking ‘flak jacket’ equalled ‘bulletproof.’
Finally, I’d like to point out that Ms. Graham exercised perfect gun control - she was able to hit her target. NRA members with that bumper sticker should think she’s great. After all, those who sport the bumper sticker don’t seem to care to see it from the target’s point of view - unless the gun’s in the hands of somebody like Ms. Graham. But it’s not that infrequent that formerly law-abiding citizens choose their targets with equally poor judgment.
What seems to me to be going on is that the anti-firearm folks say they can’t control the criminal so they want to disarm the good guys knowing that never in the history of man has the genie ever been put back in the box.
They can’t totally outlaw the production of firearms because they say the police and military have to have them. But that it would stop death by firearm from crazy non criminals and suicides that are just too damn deadly since the invention of the gun.
How they plan on stopping the other countries from making and a black market from bring in those firearms they don’t say.
They never answer the question of how to keep criminals from getting or making firearms. (prohibition and home made does not seem to exist for them )
It seems as most anti-guns are also against really harsher than is already on the books, type laws about how to treat criminals that use firearms. ( How about 'life without parole for any use of a fire arm in the commission of a crime, no exception? ) Nor do they ever say anything about the judges and juries that do not use the laws that are already on the books about misuse of firearms.
They will also not back up any ‘victim restitution’ from their own pockets for the people that they have now prevented from protecting them selves nor will they force the police by law and more taxes to protect the citizen from crime.
There are lot of big guys that can cut a club from a tree limb that are just waiting for the government to remove firearms from old folks who live in the country.
Criminals just love a guaranteed helpless victim.
Uh-oh, drugs? Thankfully they can seize her house so it isn’t used in the commission of any more crimes. I never trusted that house.
In other news, I declare guns for all.