I really think this should not get lost in the morass of that thread.
My position, in short: people who carry guns do so in order to defend themselves from assholes like Scumpup, and are probably embarrassed to be associated with his likes.
I hope the Queen of England invades your house when you are cleaning your guns and cannot use them to defend yourself.
I don’t need your courtesy. You can still carry your gun for whatever reasons you want, but not for a minute think you are doing me or anyone a favor.
(And my apologies to all if, once again, I am pitting an established troll/retard/laughingstock. I am normally out of the loop on these things)
I think there should be a new internet law. If you imply that someone you disagree with is soiling themselves or–if male–wears female underwear, or in fact if you make any grade 7 taunt against your opponents masculinity, you automatically lose the argument.
Uh, I thought primarily “pants-wetters” was referring to people who freak out at the sight of a holstered gun, and he carries concealed for the benefit of those people.
On which point I agree with him, frankly–if the sight of a properly holstered gun freaks you out, perhaps you need to take a deep breath occasionally.
So THATS why society frowns on people mating with monkeys…
What got me was the line about it being such a sad and pitiful life to be afraid of guns. Well, sad and pitiful about sums up anybody that feels the need to “carry guns everywhere. Bars. Malls. Dry cleaners. Restaurants. Everywhere.”
So, the OP would lose, too, by referring to his target as scumpoop?
People who carry do so in part to defend themselves from thieves and murderers, but mostly because they can. Unless and until we start seeing lots of stories in the news that start out like Doors’s post but end up with a taster-wielding moron dead on the floor, I’m perfectly okay with people carrying. And even then, if all they do is weed out morons like the guy with the taser, I’m still pretty okay with it.
I think this and posts like it serve a purpose in that they provide an example to other would-be Internet Tough Guys of just how ridiculous they can sound.
Sadly, in my experience the standard ITG has such a low level of self-awareness that the lesson is lost, but it helps that it’s out there at least.
I find it extremely amusing that the guy who’s afraid enough of The Big Scary World to carry a gun everywhere he goes is referring to other people as pant-wetters.
The sight of a properly holstered gun on the hip of some dude in the mall doesn’t bother me at all. The sight of a gun stored in any way would bother me in a bar. I mean, I’m not afraid of cars, but I’m sure as hell afraid of a drunk guy in a car.
Apparently carry has become the new battle line of the gun/antigun debate: if you carry, you’re an arrogant in-your-face cowboy who’s making the trouble to begin with. If you object to carry, you’re a hysterical gunphobe who demands that the world respect your neurotic fears.
This simply isn’t debatable; it comes down to what axioms form your worldview, which no argument will change.
I wouldn’t say it that way, but in a way I agree with you. For me I think a lot of it is that I just don’t comprehend why people would need to carry a weapon in most situations.
No, he’s covered by both the “Username Mockery” and “Fecal Reference” exception clauses, which (judiciously applied) have carried me over the dialectical finish line on more than one occasion.
One hour and ten minutes and you already solved the first word of the subject line. Good boy. Have a cookie and continue reading. It might do you some good.
Not technically, no. I am not referring to what’s on his underwear but to the totality of his being. Addressing the general turdiness of a person is still acceptable.