What's With The Guns?

[ExTank]

blowhard: just about everyone who has responded to you has pointed out what a crass asshole you are, and yet, in the face of everyone telling you you’re a fucking jerk, you persist.

What conceit you must have; it makes me wonder sometimes about the wisdom of “freedom of speech” when it is given to one such as yourself. Anyway, I redirect your attention here.

Specifically:

@ExTank

If you want to insult me for it, well, go ahead, you’re in the right spot for it.

And now that you’ve had your say, why don’t you just shut the fuck up and move on to your next piece of inanity, already?

Congratulations: you’re the first (and so far, only) “person” on the Straight Dope to make it onto my ignore list.

So long; you’ve been vaguely amusing in a poop-flinging, screeching monkey kind of way, but I prefer to converse with the higher primates.

[ExTank]

Okay, I’ve just been informed that telling people that you’re ignoring them is rude and unacceptable.

Apparently, calling people “Asshat” is okay, but telling them, “You’re a fucking jerk and I ain’t listening to you anymore” is unacceptable.

So, FTR: blowero is not on my ignore list.

[blowero]

@Weirddave

Oh, you lying sack of shit. What’s even stupider is that in this forum, your words are preserved as you wrote them. It’s easy to demonstrate that you’re full of shit. To whit:

I present for the masses, in all of it’s glory, straight from post #303 of this very thread, your brilliant, insightful commentary that “tore my shitty, illogical argument to shreds”:

You fucking stupid jackass! That’s not the post I was referring to. Goddamm it that’s obnoxious! You take the wrong post and pretend it was what I was talking about. You’re such an asshole.

Actually, in this thread.

Oh, super comeback. :rolleyes:

I’m fine with that. Thank you for conceding my point: By your logic, the KKK is not to blame for the murders I mentioned earlier in this thread. I think you’re screwy for arguing that, but it’s consistent at least.

Now you’re just spewing gibberish.

As I have demonstrated, the person embarrassing them self is you.

Oh, gee - another fantastic comeback. “Nu-uh, YOU are.” :rolleyes:

Insults do not make a coherent argument, nor grandiose pronouncements of “it is so” actually make it true. When you can tell me how a voluntary association is the same as a genetic trait, I’ll admit that you’re correct.

You are the most obtuse person I have ever encountered. What part of THAT’S NOT THE POINT don’t you understand? You know what I just can’t fucking STAND? People like you who continue to repeat a point after I’ve already addressed it multiple times and just ignore what I’ve said. Fuck you.

I’m not backpedaling at all. Ex-Tank was assaulted by a group of anti-gun fanatics.

Again repeating a point that has already been addressed.

Referring to these people as “the anti-gunners” is entirely consistent with the facts of the story and common usage of the English language. He never said that all gun opponents were proponents of violence, you inferred that.

Nonsense.

When you read what he wrote, your knee jerked so hard it smacked you senseless, and you proceeded to jump to a conclusion that took you right off a cliff.

Bullshit.

[blowero]

@ExTank

blowhard: just about everyone who has responded to you has pointed out what a crass asshole you are, and yet, in the face of everyone telling you you’re a fucking jerk, you persist.

Oh, please. You mean the gun-lover circle-jerk you guys are having? What, that’s supposed to scare me off? Fuck you.

Here’s a clue, dimwit: The people who are being rude assholes to me are all doing so simply because they are pro-gun, and I am anti-gun. No big mystery.

What conceit you must have; it makes me wonder sometimes about the wisdom of “freedom of speech” when it is given to one such as yourself.

Hey I’ll call you out for your bullshit any day, and I will continue to do so as long as you keep spouting garbage. If you make asinine, false generalizations, I’m gonna be right here telling you what a jerk you’re being. Don’t like it? Tough shit, bitch!

So long; you’ve been vaguely amusing in a poop-flinging, screeching monkey kind of way, but I prefer to converse with the higher primates.

That’s hysterical, coming from someone like you who couldn’t come up with a logical though if his life depended on it.

[blowero]

@ExTank

Okay, I’ve just been informed that telling people that you’re ignoring them is rude and unacceptable.

And by the way, it’s o.k. for you not to respond to me (and at this point I rather wish you would stop responding, since your poor reasoning skills and schoolyard mentality are really starting to grate on my nerves); you’re just not allowed to make statements about who is or isn’t on your ignore list.

[E-Sabbath]

Blowero, is the real reason you’re so upset about guns… well, could it be that you’ve shot your own balls off?

I’m still waiting for a reasoned response from you, but you seem much more interested in tonguing the barrel and fondling the trigger.

[enipla]

@blowero

Oh, please. Hate to break up the circle-jerk, but ExTank’s very presence in this thread is what makes rational debate impossible.

You’ve got to be kidding me. May I present your first post. Post 42 The debate was going along fine until you showed up.

[catsix]

I think it’s pretty clear that blowero’s only interest in this thread is to froth at the mouth and try to get pro-gun people to do the same.

[Weirddave]

@blowero

You fucking stupid jackass! That’s not the post I was referring to. Goddamm it that’s obnoxious! You take the wrong post and pretend it was what I was talking about. You’re such an asshole.

Let me see if I can phrase this another way, one that is simple and easy to understand:

You are a fucking liar.

Yup, that seems to cover it. What I quoted is the only response you made to me on that point. However, if I’m willing to give you the chance to prove your point. In your reply to this post, please quote your response that “tore my shitty, illogical argument to shreds”. Include the number of the original post where you made this devastating argument so that someone simple like me can find it, and a link to the post if you’re able.

I’m waiting.

@blowero

You are the most obtuse person I have ever encountered. What part of THAT’S NOT THE POINT don’t you understand? You know what I just can’t fucking STAND? People like you who continue to repeat a point after I’ve already addressed it multiple times and just ignore what I’ve said. Fuck you.

Again repeating a point that has already been addressed.

While you’re at it, why not do the same for the point we’re discussing here. Hint: Saying “That’s not the point” doesn’t make it so. You need to explain why you think something is not the point. Give me a link to where you provide that explanation.
This is your chance to put up or shut up. Go on, prove me wrong.

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Nametag

“Able” to take care of oneself? Nothing wrong with that. It’s not what I’m talking about, of course. “Individualism” is not “self-sufficiency” – it’s an attitude that goes beyond ability into defiance. It says “dammit, I’m going to handle this myself.” Admirable, if you’re threading a pipe; not so admirable if you’re enforcing the law. Those who depend on the police to capture criminals, those who rely on public transportation, those who endorse their labor unions to engage in collective bargaining, those who support and make use of universal health care – these people are not moral defectives, nor incompetent weaklings. They are civilized people who have discovered that interdependence is one of the crucial lubricants that keeps society working smoothly. Those who refuse this give and take often throw sand in the works, preserving their independence at the cost of others’ well-being.

Of course, a fully functional citizen must both give and receive, and there’s much to be said for taking only what you need, for minimizing one’s drain on resources, and for maintaining the ability to function without a net. But there’s no virtue in clutching one’s personal prerogatives like a child who won’t share his toys.

nametag said it better than I could.

The hardass, black-and-white right offers only extreme choices. If anyone is dependent, they start talking “What if everyone were dependent?” I imagine the next logical step would be to say, “You can’t spell ‘interdependency’ without ‘dependency.’”

Deep down, these people do not have humanistic values. (I think they’d readily admit that.) They believe in their tribe, and see thinking outside the tribe as moral decay and the beginning of the End.

If the choice really was between a nation of wimps and a nation of Wacos, Ruby Ridges, and Deadwoods, I’d take the wimps.

E-Sabbath, I guess I should rephrase…
Do you feel more American than someone who doesn’t own a gun?
Than someone who doesn’t want to own a gun?

[enipla]

@Nametag

“Able” to take care of oneself? Nothing wrong with that. It’s not what I’m talking about, of course. “Individualism” is not “self-sufficiency” – it’s an attitude that goes beyond ability into defiance. It says “dammit, I’m going to handle this myself.” Admirable, if you’re threading a pipe; not so admirable if you’re enforcing the law. Those who depend on the police to capture criminals, those who rely on public transportation, those who endorse their labor unions to engage in collective bargaining, those who support and make use of universal health care – these people are not moral defectives, nor incompetent weaklings. They are civilized people who have discovered that interdependence is one of the crucial lubricants that keeps society working smoothly. Those who refuse this give and take often throw sand in the works, preserving their independence at the cost of others’ well-being.

Of course, a fully functional citizen must both give and receive, and there’s much to be said for taking only what you need, for minimizing one’s drain on resources, and for maintaining the ability to function without a net. But there’s no virtue in clutching one’s personal prerogatives like a child who won’t share his toys.

I see your point better now, but understand that self defence, or just owning a gun != taking the law in your own hands. No one here is advocating vigilantism

[Nametag]

@enipla

I see your point better now, but understand that self defence, or just owning a gun != taking the law in your own hands. No one here is advocating vigilantism.

Actually, quite a few people here have done so, in one fashion or another. Not to mention that there’s a slippery slope there, no matter how much we try to bright-line it. Remember Bernie Goetz? Was that self-defense or vigilantism?

[enipla]

@NameTag

Actually, quite a few people here have done so

Quite a few people here have advocated vigilantism? I don’t remember seeing those posts, can you point them out?

[blowero]

@E-Sabbath

Blowero, is the real reason you’re so upset about guns… well, could it be that you’ve shot your own balls off?

I’m still waiting for a reasoned response from you, but you seem much more interested in tonguing the barrel and fondling the trigger.

Huh? Reasoned response to what? Your quip that I shot my balls off? :rolleyes:

[blowero]

@Weirddave

You are a fucking liar.

Yup, that seems to cover it. What I quoted is the only response you made to me on that point.

That’s a lie.

Look, buddy - I’m not gonna play your little game where you say something, I respond, and you just say the same thing again and pretend like I didn’t answer you. Go fuck yourself. Get some reading skills, and get back to me.

[blowero]

@catsix

I think it’s pretty clear that blowero’s only interest in this thread is to froth at the mouth and try to get pro-gun people to do the same.

While I admit that watching gun-nuts flail wildly with their specious reasoning and spew their venom at those who don’t share their obsession is entertaining, it’s not the main reason I’m here. Having a battle of wits with people who come to the fight unarmed is fun, but it gets rather like shooting fish in a barrel after awhile.

No, the main reason I got back in the thread was because of ExTank’s truly obnoxious statement, which I’ll re-post for convenience:

Well said. I came to the same conclusion years ago, and really just got sick of arguing about it and defending it here on The Straight Dope to people who, in my opinion, didn’t wan’t to let facts get in the way of their prejudices.

In searching for another class of people who compare somewhat equitably to anti-gunners for block-headed obstinancy, I have come to the conclusion that only hard-core racists meet or exceed them.

I really did have a point, and that was to say that this statement is utterly without merit, and beneath contempt. The pile-on started from there, and then the furious backpedaling - trying to say that, even though he used words like “class of people”, that he didn’t mean it as a generalization, and then the false protests of “why don’t you answer my question?”, when I already did, and well…it just went downhill from there. So yes, even though ExTank is entertaining just by himself, in a Neanderthal kind of way, I did have a point.

[ExTank]

The real problem here is that some folks are trying to have a debate (in The Pit, no less), and screech-monkey is doing his level best to be a juvenile jackass; to his credit, he’s in the right place for it, and he’s doing an excellent job of it.

What I suggest is taking it to GD, where his behavior can be mitigated by the rules of conduct for that forum (should he care to actually participate).

Other than that: DNFTT.

[blowero]

Oh, and I forgot to mention his habit of comparing people to racists. That’s got to be the lowest form of discourse*. :rolleyes:

@ExTank

Or did I just hit a little too close to the mark with my comment about anti-gunners being as stupid, block-headed and obstinate as racists?

Booo!

[blowero]

@ExTank

The real problem here is that some folks are trying to have a debate (in The Pit, no less)

There’s no debate here. You turned it into a wank-fest a long time ago.

What I suggest is taking it to GD, where his behavior can be mitigated by the rules of conduct for that forum (should he care to actually participate).

I can’t believe how hypocritical you’re being. If you want to exchange insults, o.k. - that’s what the pit is for. But you’ve given as good as you’ve gotten, so quite acting high & mighty. It doesn’t become you.

[blowero]

By the way, I thought you were ignoring me. What happened to that?