Frankly, barring the complete and instant disappearance of all guns and the technology to manufacture them, the only way to prevent violent criminals from obtaining firearms is to incarcerate them. Something the NRA advocates strongly - see Project Exile. The gun control folks have but one mantra - ban guns - they are willing to make no compromise. With every new piece of gun control legislation, no matter how poorly it can be shown to work, there are simply more calls for greater restrictions. I, a while back, started a GD thread asking the gun control proponents where they thought a compromise should look like. Got not a single substantive response.
Lissener is a biogoted moron. What else is new?
What pisses me off is the way he so casually vilifies his opposition.
-Gun owners like to kill people
-you have to be either dishonest or stupid to be a conservative.
At the same time, God help anyone who says something he disagrees with on the topic of gay rights. Then he’s all concerned about how “false and hateful” statements are "demeaning and “dehumanizing.”
He’s a tool and a hypocrite.
Bullshit. You, and others, among the gun control faction trot out these snide little shots at some point in pretty much every fucking gun control debate that takes place here. And everywhere else.
Cite, please, for “druken” and “racist.” Neither word appears in any of lissener’s posts in that thread.
Cite, please, for your determination that my use of “gun fetishist” refers to said group? It does not. Shit, that would make me a “gun fetishist,” and you know I ain’t that.
Cite, please, for “inbred,” “bigoted,” “alcoholic,” and “perverse addiction.”
No, I think you should dispute them when you believe it to be appropriate (and do be sure to dispute the actual assertions, not the ones you made up to make it look ever so much worse). But if such disputes are a legitimate basis for Pit threads, lord-a-mighty, it’s gonna be awful darn busy here in Forum 5. Better just lock down all the hot-button topics and be done with it.
I didn’t see him say that. Since he’s doing it, I would think it’s just fine and legal like. Unless you are making an accusation, that is.
This is as richly deserved a pitting as I have ever seen on the SDMB. Not only is lissener comfortable with clearly basing all of his arguments on total ignorance and assumption, but he acts like a jackass the whole time while he’s at it.
I was going to stop posting in that thread just because it was clearly a waste of time to argue with such a monumental dipshit who obviously wasn’t going to let any facts get in the way of his already formed, ignorant opinion. (I’m also getting buried here at work. 
)
I’m beginning to understand what Scylla sees in this one.
By definition, “implying” means that the thought was not directly expressed, so it would be surprising if you saw someone say something that had been described as implied.
Right back at ya, big boy.
minty green
Gun grabber, freedom hater, liar, fearmonger, etc.
(By the way, very nice dodge of all my substantive critiques of your accusations against lissener.)
I am sure that nothing will stop well organised criminals from getting hold of guns. But I don’t think they are necessarily as big a problem as the shop lifters and burglars who will carry a gun because they can get one. One thing the organised criminals are less likely to kill indiscriminately as they are in big buisness with big potential profits, and also more likely to use the weapons against each other and against law enforcement than against normal citizens.
How could we stop the jerk criminal from becoming a jerk criminal with a gun.
Correction: SPOOFE’S link was to Kleck, not Lott. My error.
What an interesting thread.
I find it odd and even laughably ironic that anyone would complain about UB not keeping his comments within the GD thread. It seems to be quite common for people to post about events and people’s actions within SDMB threads - even to flame them behind their backs - on places like, oh, Livejournal for example? Or on “other” Boards? Sounds like a speciously hypocritical complaint to me, but hey, I’d hate to interrupt a good Mod pile-on by pointing out that “fair is fair” …
Maybe I’m missing something, Anthracite. Are you referring to me? I most certainly have not been flaming or even discussing Uncle Beer or anybody else from the SDMB off-site or in email or anywhere else.
What happens at SDMB stays at SDMB. 
Oh wait, I think I get it. Never mind.
Would you call a picture of a black man with a big bucket of chicken and a whole watermelon a ‘caricature’?
Didn’t think so.
Oh, excuse me. It was ‘Bubba with double holsters’ in that thread. Must be another thread in which gun owners were likened to the stereotypical racist redneck.
The term was derogatory, and quite frankly I think you’re more of a self-loather considering how you blather on and on about ‘gun fetishists’ and deride damn near everyone who doesn’t view guns the way you do. I did have the incorrect reference for your ‘fetishist’ remark. That one was aimed at people who believe that there are rather large numbers of people defending themselves from cime by using guns.
I shouldn’t have made that mistake. Your usual mode of operation is to remind everyone that you’re a lawyer and your Consitutional opinion is the only qualified one.
Well, I think ‘perverse addiction’ is covered by ‘fetishist’, and that inbred alcoholic bigots were the reason for ‘Bubba with double barrels.’ What other image do you think was meant to be conveyed by the ‘Bubba’ remark?
Well, minty, you seem to delight in getting as close to out and out name calling as possible and then pretending you didn’t mean anything it’d be appropriate to respond to in the end.
How the hell you consider yourself a friend to law-abiding gun owners (since it seems you do) is beyond me.
Now that actually sounds like you’re telling the truth about yourself.
I would. A caricature is nothing more than the exaggeration of parts of characteristics through distortion. It is not necessarily harmful or harmless. In the example you’ve thoughtfully provided, stereotypical characteristics are being exaggerated, sometimes with the goal of humor and sometimes with the goal of overt racism.
[quote]
Originally posted by lissener
In the same way, pro-handgun people don’t care how much red goo gets splattered as a side effect . . .
Yeah but…umm, it’s true. Also it’s nothing to be ashamed of. I for one don’t care how much goo gets splattered to protect my right to free speech and if the worst came to the worst I’d even risk my goo being splattered than live oppressed.
Bottom line: A great many rights are worth dying for. If you consider the right to bear arms to be one of those rights then you shouldn’t be offended by lisseners statement, in spite of the fact that it was obviously intended to be insulting. I for one am fairly ambivalent on the subject of gun control because I don’t like big government and I believe that the pro’s and cons would cancel eachother out. However if I was pro-gun rights I’d have no problem in saying to lissener that, frankly, the rights that millions of soldiers have died to protect are too valuable to be blotted from the constitution to save some innocent bystanders.
Ack, coding aint my bag baby…
Sure. See, there’s all kinds of caricatures, including racist caricatures. The mere fact that some caricatures are “bigoted” hardly renders all caricatures “bigoted.”
So, any chance you’re going to withdraw your spurious accusation against lissener? No?
Damn straight. But to who? To you? To Uncle Beer?
Quiet frankly, I think you’re a disgrace to anencephalitic persons everywhere, but I hate to point that out given how polite and blameless you pro-gun folks are.
considering how you blather on and on about ‘gun fetishists’ and deride damn near everyone who doesn’t view guns the way you do.
[/quote]
Right back at ya, big girl.
1.5 million DGUs, to be precise, based on self-reporting and specious definitions. But that’s not the point, really. There’s a certain subset of gun proponents who see them as the cure for all evil and the source of all goodness. For the “gun fetishist,” there is no shade of gray when it comes to firearms, only a white as pure as the driven snow. All pro-gun factoids are accepted with religious fervor, and all opponents are gun-grabbing opponents of freedom. If you don’t qualify, then consider yourself exlcuded.
Ah yes, all those cites and quotes from binding legal authority are mere window dressing. Damn, you found me out! Now how will I ever be able to disarm the populace and proceed with our evil plan to commit mass genocide?
Sounds like a cowboy to me. Cowboys are pretty cool, you know. Of course, maybe you’re just one of them East Coast bigots who hates our Western way of life. Uh-oh, sounds like Pit thread material to me, you awful, awful person.
Depends what you mean by “friend,” doesn’t it? I’ve certainly never claimed to support the pro-gun agenda.
Since I’ve never posted about this topic before, let me explain where I come from: I’m a Yankee born and raised (for non-USAns, by that I mean I come from New England), my parents were anti-gun, no one in my extended family or close friends hunted or was vocally pro-gun in any way, and I personally have never touched a gun in my life let alone fired one. As a result of this, I grew up with the engrained assumption that people who wanted to own guns were, well, somewhere on the range from ‘eccentric’ to ‘flat out whackos,’ unless, of course, they were of plain-old criminal bent.
When I read anti-gun control letters or editorials, I was mostly mystified that anyone could be so deluded as not to recognize the rightness of guncontrol.
Until I read one that pointed out that the government in fact was failing to enforce the gun control laws that were already in place.
Specifically, they had passed a law in Massachusetts that carrying an unlicensed gun was a crime with a mandatory one year prison sentence. At the time of the editorial, the law had been in force for nearly two years and NOT ONE person had been charged under the law. Even people arrested after committing a crime with a gun, for example, a bank robbery, were not charged with the breaking that gun law. (This was years ago, so maybe the law has been used since then, I don’t know.)
Really, what is the point of adding more and more gun laws if you won’t or can’t enforce the existing ones? How can more never-enforced laws possibly make us safer? On reflection, I had to give more credence to what I had always thought were paranoid imaginings on the part of anti-guncontrol people. It really does seem like the intent is incremental: pass laws one by one, each one only nibbling away a ‘little’ bit of freedom. Don’t bother to enforce them, so you’ll still have a large number of crimes-committed-with-guns to point at to justify the next nibble. Continue this until we finally reach what is really wanted, a total ban on private gun ownership.
What’ll you bet they’ll enforce THAT one when/if it ever happens?
So, I guess this’ll get me labeled as pro-gun, even though I remain completely uninterested in ever owning or using a gun. What I really want to see is the existing laws firmly enforced and criminals who used guns locked away from the rest of us for the long term.
Give that an honest try for a couple of years, and let’s see how that impacts crime rates.
Yours certainly are.
Had I ever specifically stated that lissener said those things, I would withdraw that claim. But look carefully, because I never said that.
I stated in response to your claim that those of us on this board strongly supportive of gun rights are quick to take everything as a personal affront or insult. So, why do you expect me to retract an accusation I didn’t make?
To all law abiding firearms owners.
And this proves that you’re not a hateful person who posts ad-hominem attacks how?
Well, see the thing is, I don’t give a flying fuck about the people who hate guns and don’t want to own any. I care only about the efforts to take my guns away from me. I don’t deride those people, no matter how much I attack their argument.
I’m sure you aim those comments at me, since I think licensing and registration are an absolute waste of resources at their very best and a tool for confiscation at their worst. If you were trying to pretend you’re not insulting me, it’s too late. Your ‘anencephalic’ comment took care of that for you.
The problem is that you seem to think you’re the only person allowed to have an opinion on Constitutional law, and that no matter what, yours is right. Last time I checked, judges decisions are matters of their opinion on the law. They are not absolute fact, and that you agree with them does not disqualify or invalidate the opinions of others.
Did it hurt when you pulled that out of your ass?
Your statements on this forum indicate that you would be more welcome at Sarah Brady’s house than Wayne LaPierre’s.
Probably because you were responding to ME, butthead. Are you claiming that calling me a “gun fetishist” isn’t an insult? What court ruling did you draw that from, The People vs. Self-absorbed Fuckwits?