Have you ever been to a gun show? Have you ever seen the tables selling the William Pierce books or the swastikas? Is it a regional thing?
The thing that bothered me the most was that no one at those shows seemed to think anything about that stuff.
I’ve been to one gun show, and I don’t remember that sort of thing. There were WW2 memorabilia stands that probably had nazi-related things, but they’d be alongside old US medals, canteens, whatever.
It was years ago, so I may be forgetting, but I’d probably remember the discomfort if there was a big stand of racist stuff.
The way those things work though is individual sellers renting out booths, right? The organizer might let anyone who pays get a booth regardless of the content, and there might be enough assholes there to make one booth worth of that stuff profitable. But that wouldn’t necesarily indicate that more than a small minority of the people attending were interested.
Maybe it’s regional.
I’m definitely familiar with the group you’re referring to… it’s just that, in my experience, you massively overestimate the amount of them among general “gun culture” - I say that as someone who used to read/post at some pretty out-there gun message boards.
Could you please explain to me how you get the idea that he was talking about one specific side of any of those issues? Was he talking only about conservatives who vote on guns? Maybe he was talking about gun control advocates as well?
You can’t concretely infer it, but practically - if he’s talking about rural Pennsylvanians who have racist (I’m taking “antipathy towards people not like you” to mean that), anti-immigration, anti-free trade sentiments, which side of the religious and gun politics do you think he’d allude they were on?
Given his general stance on gun control, it would be consistent for him to be dismissive of gun rights advocates who view it as an important issue in that light.
Reading between the lines, I think he was referring anti-Muslim and anti-gay sentiment as well as overblown hostility towards illegal immigrants. I don’t think he really implied racism, as such, but he did imply xenophobia (and possibly homophobia).
I’ll take your word for it. It could just be that I was unlucky enough to briefly fall in with a subset of assholes and took them to be representative.
I have to admit, Dio, I find it surprising that you consider yourself to be a gun rights advocate. I’m just curious - if you don’t mind the minor hijack, I won’t debate it, I’m just wondering - what are the limits of what you advocate?
Edit: To respond to your last post, I’d imagine the Dakotas have more white seperatists than the Cleveland area. But even among the more out-there gun nut forums - there was more kookiness (conspiracy theorists and such) than overt racism.
I think people should be allowed to have whatever they want short of WMDs, but I don’t have a problem with some degree of regulation (stuff like trigger locks, age restriction, licensing), and I don’t think the 2nd Amendment gurantees anybody a right to take firearms wherever they want.
I also place the issue low on my set of priorities. There are probably a good two dozen issues I care about more than gun rights. I wouldn’t get really upset about anything short of an outright ban.
Once again, you show your mendacity and/or ignorance. Check up on the price of full auto AKA Class 3 weapons, fuckstick. The people who can afford to own them aren’t people who need to vote for Obama to further their economic self-interest.
Yet they are likely the people who are targeted for messages that their gun rights are going to be taken away by the liberals. Just like almost nobody is meaningfully affected by estate taxes, yet massive numbers of people are worried about the death tax.
Diogenes, I agree with you, but I want to object to the term “little bitches.” I mean, this is of course accurate, but the prefered term is “whiny ass titty babies.” Of course they are going to cry like little bitches, because if voters realize that by voting for Republicans because of issues other than economics, they’ve gained absolutely nothing and lost out economically, the Republicans will be even more corn-holed than they have been and will be shortly.
For a guy who does so well with prepared speeches, lately Obama’s been coming up with quite a few gaffes when speaking off the cuff.
Demerits to Obama for saying it. While I can see that there was perhaps at least a kernel of truth to it, he overgeneralized in a way that seemed condescending. But to me, it’s not indicative of a level of cynicism that’s even in the same galaxy as Clinton’s, and it’s really not the chum in the water the press and Clinton want it so badly to be.
I am honestly troubled by the comments, and it has nothing to do with Eliteism or White-hickness.
He did say it, the much is fact.The issue comes down to whether he screwed up and said something he doesn’t believe, or whether he screwed up and said something he does believe.
The casual grouping of racism, xenophobia, guns, and religion is the focus of the issue. I know there are Dems who do believe all four to be at the same level of idiocy. If Obama is one of those who do, then I am more disinclined to vote for him. Was is a lazy slip of the tongue to group them together like that? Or was it a freudian slip of his true feelings?
Wrong. IF he were to refer to blacks in urban communities, which I’m sure he has, he’d be coming from a place of personal experience as opposed to outside observations.
I’m behind him, but this, however ‘right’ some people think it was, was a dumb thing to say. He should be chastised for painting with a broad brush. If he said that here, Diogenes would have jumped all over him.
Is there really? What is it do you think that drives people to ‘obsessive’ about guns?
Some folks see any legislation further regulating a constitutional right as restriction beyond necessity. You call it benign, not everyone sees it that way, are you saying that yours is the only correct opinion?
Granted, there are racists, xenophobes and hyper-religious in small towns but there are those people in medium towns, large towns and big cities too. They do not, I suspect, make up the majority in either case.
Tiny penises? I don’t know.
Of couse I think my opinion is correct. If I didn’t think it was correct, it wouldn’t be my opnion. I think that gun nuts make too big a deal out of the issue and that there are far more important things in life.
So? Did Obama say any differently?
Well, at this point in the campaign I don’t think any candidate is doing that. Remember the heat McCain caught in Michigan when he gave an honest assessment about the loss of factory jobs? He lost that primary.
And let’s not forget about politicians like Hillary and Obama telling people they will be able stop the jobs from being “farmed out to other countries”. Now, I’m still supporting Obama even though I know he knows damn well there’s nothing he can do to stop that, and even if there were, it would be a stupid thing to do. I hope I’m not wrong about that…
So Senator Obama is dismissive of religion … but so enthralled with the teachings of Rev. Wright that he’s a danger to us all?
As Sesame Street would say, “One of these things does not belong here.”
I think he chose his words poorly, and now the media is doing a collective typical kneejerk-jump to a position he hasn’t really adopted.
However, at least some posters here HAVE adopted the position, apparently.
So for those posters: while there are undoubtedly people who “cling” to guns or religion in derogation of their own best interests, I think their numbers are small. The vast majority of people with interest in either area simply choose to prioritize them differently than you do. If you’re a liberal atheist with no real understanding of guns, then it’s unlikely you will credit those that disagree with you on those points with any solid reasoning. How often, on this board, are theists ridiculed for their beliefs in a magic sky fairy?
The proposition that people “cling” to guns or religion because they’re bitter about their economic lot in life, or the failure of previous governments to help them, is unprovable. In practical terms, it’s not falsifiable. It’s therefore useless to assert that it’s right or wrong – the question simply becomes: “Does it make sense to argue for the viewpoint?”
It doesn’t. It trivializes the people on the other side; it suggests that they’re too dumb to choose priorities that matter to them.
This isn’t new. Hearken back an election and remember the derisive maps with “Jesusland” in the middle of the country, a response to the voting patterns that frustrated liberals could see no other way to explain. This stereotype – the elite liberal that knows better than the voter what’s in the voter’s best interest – is a damaging one.
Senator Obama knows this. And his only mistake was in saying something that could be misconstrued by his opponents into reinforcing that stereotype.
There are posters here that don’t know it – they believe these dumb blue-collar idiot shit-shovelers aren’t voting correctly, and that if they were just a bit smarter, they’d vote Obama now and Democrat in the fall. That’s wrong. Reasonable people may disagree. Your plan has value – argue your plan. Don’t argue that people that don’t see things your way are stupid. They’re not, and if you tell them they are, you’ll just drive them away.
Focus on Z
The truth is, this is a gambit, of Obama’s, to solidify his base in the city by:
A. Not classing himself as a “successive administration” and somehow his presidency will be different
B. Implying that the communities will be regenerated with his leadership.
C. Reinforcing the perception that these communities dislike all other people and are willing to take up arms all in the name of God against all the disliked people in the city.
Diogenes the Cynic employs a similar gambit by first disarming his detractors and stating that “, I’m not even sure” revealing a faked fallibility then cowering behind a higher authority “Obama didn’t say” to justify his belief in the truth of the statement. **“I guess the truth just hurts” **
Both **Obama’s **and Diogenes the Cynic’s gambits are elitist as each uses a form of inductive logic to prove that their beliefs are true and they are the best qualified to determine what is true and no one should dare challenge them.
I am sad for Diogenes the Cynic as he thinks his esteem, can only be validated by others and not his self. All of us who are self-aware know that self-esteem comes from how we judge ourselves and not how others judge us. Flatly stating something is true without cite is lazy. I am honored by Diogenes the Cynic asking us to help him shed his title of Cynic and by his confidence in us that we can provide such help.
Obama is a shrewd manipulator of feelings and a cloaked fear monger with implementation of his grandiose legislative agenda as his only one selfish goal.
Suppose I value A at 8 and B at 6. Normally, my voting priority will go A, then B. But if I think the government can’t do anything about A, I will prioritize B. Is this a mathematical proof? Of course not. But it seems pretty logical to me.
Nothing about those premises implies that I am dumb. Or that I don’t really believe in B. Or that I am incapable of judging my own priorities rationally.
The only factual assumption is my actual underlying preference of A over B. But even if that assumption is totally wrong, it doesn’t make the assumption somehow elitist or partisan.