[imsocool]

If you want to see a person who is a major hypocrite when it comes to calling herself a non-violent, peace loving gun control advocate, go to Marilyn's Non-Violent Planet (http://www.non-violent.com) you will see what I mean.

[Tequila_Sauer]

John Kerry was for that site before he was against it.

[Preacherman]

From that Web site:

If I could re-write the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, this is precisely what I would love to see:

"We, the people of the United States, in order that we shall have the right to preserve a State free for all races, shall achieve this end by the use of non-lethal weaponry only for our continued survival as human beings. This free State entails our personal self-defense as well as our right to our food consumption. In keeping with current government law, if we so choose to possess a non-lethal weapon (be it either upon our persons or within our private homes), we are obligated to store these aforementioned weapons plus any ammo relating to its use in a manner which will serve to protect the welfare of a minor child. To further secure our persons, we have the right to wear bullet-proof body armour, plus live in bullet-proof houses as well as drive bullet-proof vehicles."

:what: :cuss: :fire: :barf: :banghead:

[MrTuffPaws]

John Kerry was for that site before he was against it.

Bush said he did his service for that web site after college, but can't produce any proof of said service.:)

[trey gil]

Come on Preacherman, the best part is right below that....no one can take her seriously!

From the site:

You know I've been thinking of a perfect non-lethal weapon. You've heard of paint ball guns? well how about poop ball guns? LOL after all, since we have so much dog poop in our country how about utilizing it to our advantage by creating dog poop balls that would be shot out of guns invented for this purpose only. The balls would explode upon contact onto a person's body upon the battlefield during a war. If anybody feels like backing me on this idea, I really do believe that it would be feasible to explore the possibilities

[Cousin Mike]

:what:

:eek:

:confused:

:fire:

:barf:

My emotions, in chronological order, as I read the insanity that is documented on that page. I'm starting to feel like people should be required to take a breeding test so we can start getting this kind of defect out of the gene pool.
Complete and utter foolishness.

[kfranz]

From that Web site:

by the use of non-lethal weaponry only for our continued survival as human beings.


Wow, and I thought the stuff I read yesterday was the stupidest thing I'd seen on the internet. Just, Wow....:uhoh:

[R.H. Lee]

The concept of non violence is a completely valid principle. Now, it may be unworkable and ineffective, but it should be respected just the same.

[Scottmkiv]

I give the concept no respect

Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay–and claims a halo for his dishonesty. - Robert A. Heinlein, Double Star

[shaldag]

I don't know about hypocritical, but that individual must qualify as one of the stupidest people on the planet......

[Can'thavenuthingood]

I'm lost again.
Just what is a non-lethal weapon?

Non-lethal and weapon don't fit together. Virtually anything can be used as a weapon. The degree of lethalness comes from the heart. Or mind, as in attitude.

Vick

[Darth Ruger]

Looks like they have a new discussion forum that just opened
a few days ago, no posts yet.
How 'bout if we all go over there and start talking guns like we do here? :evil:

[R.H. Lee]

I give the concept no respect Fine, but just admit an element of hypocrisy on your part if you count yourself as a freedom loving individual.



Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay–and claims a halo for his dishonesty. - Robert A. Heinlein, Double Star Interesting to see a pro-collectivist argument from Heinlein.

[Twycross]

well how about poop ball guns? LOL after all, since we have so much dog poop in our country how about utilizing it to our advantage by creating dog poop balls that would be shot out of guns invented for this purpose only. The balls would explode upon contact onto a person's body upon the battlefield during a war.
And the point of that would be....? War isn't a paintball game, where people who get hit COM have to sit out for a while.

I like the idea of hitting their discussion board. :evil: :evil: :evil:

[Sindawe]

I like the idea of hitting their discussion board. So I take it that those supporting invasion of Marilyn's forums would have no issue with a like invasion of THR by flower flinging peaceniks or the foamy mouthed DU crowd?

[brekneb]

Beautiful, just beautiful craftsmanship of the English language; the usage of grammar and the seamless blending of wording in addition to the choice of wording is simply resounding. As well such brilliant spelling. Speechless. Speechless am I.





This free State entails our personal self-defense as well as our right to our food consumption
To further secure our persons, we have the right to wear bullet-proof body armour, plus live in bullet-proof houses as well as drive bullet-proof vehicles.

[Tom Servo]

Wow, and I thought the stuff I read yesterday was the stupidest thing I'd seen on the internet. Just, Wow....:uhoh:
Trust me, every time I think I've read the stupidest thing on the internet, something else pops up that's even worse. The gene pool needs some serious chlorine.

As far as a "non-lethal weapon," what the heck is that? Tasers are supposed to be non-lethal, but in the wrong cirumstances, they can be fatal. Same goes for chainsaws, baseball bats, alcoholic beverages, tree limbs and kitchen cutlery. Remove "lethal weapons" ie. guns, and people will just resort to others. Look at England for example.

Oh, and why do we need to preserve the right to live in bulletproof houses and drive bulletproof cars if nobody has guns anymore?

Oh wait, I already know that.

[Lupinus]

Thats just uhm....wow. We can only hope whatever wrote that doesn't have a child and its genes are removed from the kiddie pool

[MechAg94]

The concept of non violence is a completely valid principle. Now, it may be unworkable and ineffective, but it should be respected just the same.
The concept is okay as long as you know it has limits, just as violence does. As the Heinlein quote implied, sometimes violence is required to insure the freedom and welfare of the group. If someone is absolutist and insists on complete non-violence, they are living off the efforts of others that allow them their illusion. They should recognize that and had better be contributing useful something to the group to make up for it. Bad philosophy isn't useful. When people are dicussing their "principles" against violence, they really should attempt to separate necessary violence from petty and useless violence.

I'll try to grant people common courtesy, but real respect is earned and I don't see that I need to respect idiots that believe the stuff posted above. Any constitution that references "in keeping with current government law" is completely useless. Things like that should be obvious to anyone that is serious about what they are doing.

[ARperson]

I think her only real hypocritical action (or lack thereof) is in stating that she is a non-violent person, but could not stand idly by and let a violent act occur.

And just how does she plan to stop it, if not with some level of "violence" (isn't it funny how physical force gets equated with violence when it suits one's purposes?)?

Upon further review, maybe she's not hypocritical. Maybe she's just delusional about her own level of "perfection."

[Justin]

UGH!

I didn't even read any of it because the design was so eye-gougingly hideous.

Ban Comic Sans (http://bancomicsans.com/)

[Hypnogator]

UGH!

I didn't even read any of it because the design was so eye-gougingly hideous.

Ban Comic Sans (http://bancomicsans.com/)
+ 1 on that, Justin

I'm all for non-violence. And I'll kill anyone who says different! :rolleyes: :evil: :evil: :evil:

[rero360]

I feel dumber for reading that dribble,
how do you discredit a pacifist and show that pacifism doesn't work? slap them in the face repeatedly until they hit you back, automatically going against what they preach.:evil:

[bigun15]

until my dream of living upon a planet where NOBODY has to rely upon guns, or for THAT matter, ANY kind of lethal weapons of mass destruction,

I have a weapon of mass destruction? SWEET!!!
And good luck with the planet thing.

[Janitor]

So I take it that those supporting invasion of Marilyn's forums would have no issue with a like invasion of THR by flower flinging peaceniks or the foamy mouthed DU crowd?
Uh ... could we like vote or something before anyone does anything we'll all regret?
-

I'm sorry. I tried reading the tripe on that website. I really did - I just do NOT have the stomach for that sort of thing. Not when it's that intense.

I'm awe struck. Really. I am.

[Darth Ruger]

So I take it that those supporting invasion of Marilyn's forums would have no issue with a like invasion of THR by flower flinging peaceniks or the foamy mouthed DU crowd?No, but we do have an issue with people that don't
know a joke when they see one. :rolleyes:

[Kaylee]

Fine, but just admit an element of hypocrisy on your part if you count yourself as a freedom loving individual.

Feh. It's entirely possible to acknowledge someone's freedom to do something, while giving them no respect for doing so.

[Farnham]

To (loosely) quote Stan Marsh,

Well, that whole experience sure did suck.

S/F

Farnham

[GregGry]

The thing I don't get, is why people keep bringing up the non-leathal wepon bit. The fact is, a person could kill someone with a pencil, a paper clip, a paint ball, a spoon, or even a snow ball. You can shoot someone, and if aren't killed by the shot (assuming it hit them) it was a non lethal hit. There is no such thing is something that is non-lethal. A down pillow can suffocate some one, thus becoming a lethal wepon in that case.

It seems like a lot of the uneducated gun people must live in some cave, where no crack heads break in. I would hate to be one of thoes people that goes about my life saying the the USA is so safe that nobody would ever need to have a gun for protection. If I did think/believe that, I would be quite foolish. Just last week a house not even 4 blocks away was broken into, and the owners were tied up. The perps had pistols with them, and could have killed home owners. Now I live in a good area of my city, so it just goes to show you never know what will happen.

[XLMiguel]

She demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of human nature, let alone the nature of predatory animals. I wonder what color the sky is in her world?:rolleyes:

Ghandi hisownself said that if the choice was between violence and cowardice, he'd go with violence. [insert Twilight Zone music here]

[DelayedReaction]

Please understand that intrinsically I am a non-violent person. This, however, does NOT mean that I would stand idly by while one of my loved ones, myself, or somebody I didn't even know were actively being hurt in front of my eyes because to MY heart and MY soul, doing absolutely nothing to stop an act of violence from being carried out, is condoning an act of an even MORE violent nature. Ok...so now that I've shared all of this with you, I leave it up to your own descretion to decide whether or not I am a hypocritical person.

Decision made. :D

Now this next statement of mine may come as quite a shock to you, but believe me, I have twisted it and turned it inside and out until there was no other way for me to look at it but THIS way and so here it is exactly as I FEEL it.............I sincerely do not believe in my deepest heart of hearts that responsible, law-abiding human beings who have first gone through a background check should have to be forced to endure any type of societal prejudice that would cause them to feel that their guns ought to be taken away from them as long as the rest of the world is allowed to keep their own. In light of this fact, now all we need to survive on this planet are bullet-proof body armour, bullet-proof houses and bullet-proof vehicles.

So, in other words, as soon as guns are banned we have to give them up? I'm all for the continued distribution of defensive armor (Maryland requires you to go through the same process to get a bulletproof vest as a CCW, which basically means you'll never get it), but I think poor Marilyn needs to spend some time thinking about reality.

One of these days someone is going to have to explain how we're supposed to live in harmony if I'm not allowed to smoke, eat steak, or shoot stuff.

The rest of that website is just too weird for words.

[GunnySkox]

I made a pose in "Marilyn's" Guestbook. Here it is:

"Howdy; like a lot of other recent visitors, I expect, I found a link to your page via a thread on www.thehighroad.org, a RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) and shooting-oriented forum.

Now, I'm not going to argue any point about what your "Gun Safety" page says about firearms or the ownership and use thereof, because nothing I could ever hope to say, no matter how eloquent, or direct, or true, or false could ever sway you from your beliefs, just as nothing you could ever say, no matter how eloquently put, or direct or roundabout or true or false could ever sway me from my beliefs, but I will say that, as that page is about "Gun Safety", I think it ought to include a copy of the Four Rules, the basic tenets of the safe handling of firearms by which all responsible gun-owners and operators abide:

Rule 1:
ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED. ALWAYS.
(This rule is intended to remind the owner/operator that a firearm is never a thing to be fooled around with.)

Rule 2:
NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
(In case of an accidental/negligent discharge, a firearm pointed in a relatively safe direction (at the ground, at a solid backstop, etc.) is far, FAR less likely to have tragic consequences)

Rule 3:
KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
(Prevents any reflexive clenching or erroneous finger movement from causing an accidental/negligent discharge in an unsafe or undesireable direction)

Rule 4:
BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT
(Self explanatory, don't shoot at targets that don't have a proper backstop, don't use a gun that's likely to massively overpenetrate a person and walls for home/personal defense, don't shoot anything unless you are fully cogniscent of what IT is, and what's around and (especially) behind it.)

I hope you'll take into consideration these central tenets of responsible firearm handling and put them on your website. Who knows? Someone, even if they don't come away sharing your beliefs, might learn those rules that could safe their life and limb."


I think some other like-minded High Roader might want to make a post in the GB recommending that he/she also include a notice about teaching children something along the lines of Eddie Eagle's thing (be sure to note that it's an NRA program :D ) of "Stop, Don't Touch, Find an Adult" or somesuch.

~GnSx

[Cousin Mike]

Nice one. I wonder what she'll have to say about that.

[Darth Ruger]

This, however, does NOT mean that I would stand idly by while one of my loved ones, myself, or somebody I didn't even know were actively being hurt in front of my eyes...If she were suddenly exposed to a violent, brutal situation in which some poor wretch were "actively being hurt" in front of her eyes, I have a hard time believing she would do anything other than run screaming for help.



...now all we need to survive on this planet are bullet-proof body armour, bullet-proof houses and bullet-proof vehicles.And blissninny-proof websites. :barf:

[dasmi]

May we all evolve to a higher plane in life where instead of physically/mentally harming one another, just like bullies do in order to achieve something that they want, we use non-violent, non-lethal, conflict resolution methods, which will surely grant us everlasting peace, love, understanding and respect.
Um, what?

[Preacherman]

Yeah, Dasmi - wonder what would happen if I tried that approach on the hardened criminals in the high-security facility where I work?

:what: :evil: :D

[DelayedReaction]

Yeah, Dasmi - wonder what would happen if I tried that approach on the hardened criminals in the high-security facility where I work?

:what: :evil: :D

You got it backwards. The criminals need to use that approach on you before they should expect reciprocation.

[Twycross]

May we all evolve to a higher plane in life where instead of physically/mentally harming one another, just like bullies do in order to achieve something that they want, we use non-violent, non-lethal, conflict resolution methods, which will surely grant us everlasting peace, love, understanding and respect.
Ahh yes, lets rewrite human nature and erase all of recorded history. And I still fail to see how it is that putting averyone in straightjackets and gags will give us heaven on earth.

As for her vision of 'everlasting peace, love, understanding and respect', it sounds nice. I hope to reach that state shortly after I die. Until then, it looks like I may be stuck with the occasional necessity of employing righteous violence.

[Twycross]

ROTFL! She believes that every one should watch 'Independance Day' as a motivational movie! No glorification of violence or lethal weapons in that one. :D :D :D

just viewed what I believe to be one of the most significant films ever made.
Geeez. If you are going the pick a movie for 'most significant film', at least stay away from the cheap sci-fi. I do like ID4, just not that much.

[The_Ferret]

As others have quoted, I think the concept of a non-lethal wepon is pretty much one of those abstracts with no real bearing on real life. I'd like to add my own little take on it, though...

If you want to see what all can really be used as a weapon in a place where you find yourself, you could imagine having to defend yourself with weapons of improvisation there. That certainly gives some insight. But to really grasp what can be a weapon, try a little role-playing...
Picture yourself as a criminal. Not a victim, a criminal. Now imagine that you want to murder someone wherever you are. Not defend yourself, but actually ambush (like a criminal would) and injure/kill someone. Now what all is available as a weapon? The element of surprise on the unprepared adds some choices which can be overlooked and are not feasible when thinking strictly in terms of defense. But to a criminal...

I try this vicious little role-playing exercise from time to time to keep in mind what I could find myself up against in a confrontation. Kind of a situational awareness thing. For me, it just renders the concept of a non-lethal weapon completely null. Even the "non-lethal" by design are lethal when used as such.

-The_Ferret-

[joab]

I think her only real hypocritical action (or lack thereof) is in stating that she is a non-violent person, but could not stand idly by and let a violent act occur.That would make Ghandi a hypocrit also.

Guys this is obviously a young girl trying to weigh the conflicts within her own morality to choose a path in life.

Going over to her site to berate her and insult her grammer is certainly not the way to show her the validity of our position on the matter neither is spouting the typical progun propaganda

And for what it's worth
When the world transforms itself into the Utopian society that she desires I will beat my guns into plowshares also.

All except the plinkers

[magyvor]

I can understand some of the responses about this girls website. I just read a few things and made my decision that her and I dont agree on much.

So I thought to myself, trying to be open minded mind you, that maybe she just doesnt get it about some things. Is she just hoping for a world where guns and diseases and violence dont exist? Thats an abmirable wish. I wish the same sometimes. So do Ms universe contestants.....ppfttt.

Then it hit me...........How can we EVER hope to explain ourselves to those who wont see reality? She says shes not a violent person, well, neither am I. I believe a violent person is one who would CAUSE harm. If I use violence to stop harm from being caused, I am NOT a violent person. For example..I have no doubt whatsoever if this girl saw her infant daughter being molested and there was a 45 sittin within reach, she would use that tool in a violent manner to stop the VIOLENT PERSON.

I dont know, but to me, I understand her wishes and wants..they are not that far off from what we all want. But seriously, so many people out there feel as she does. How can we as RTKBA believers show them or explain to them or give them an option to actually do something thats helps the constant struggle to the freedoms we have...including the freedom she has to voice her (misguided) beliefs.

I had 4 or 5 smartazz remarks to make about her and her site.......but I just dont have the gumption to do so. Instead, I think I will try and figure out how to find a common ground so I can forge some kind of an aliance with those I care for who think like that girl. We all know someone who feels as she does. Any Ideas ? Maybe we can show them that by reloading we are helping the enviornment, recycling and all that.

There has to be SOMETHING!:banghead:

[Scottmkiv]

Fine, but just admit an element of hypocrisy on your part if you count yourself as a freedom loving individual.

There is no hypocrisy in my position. I don't propose pacifism be outlawed, merely scorned. Freedom loving doesn't mean witholding judgement of every kook that walks by, it simply means not wanting force initiated against anyone.



Interesting to see a pro-collectivist argument from Heinlein.

It isn't a collectivist argument, he is saying that pacifism is a parasitical philosophy. In order to practice pacifism, you are forced to rely on the protection of those who don't; and then you scorn them for protecting you.

[grimjaw]

A good example of using non-violent actions to complete an objective: civil rights protests in the 1960's led by MLK.

The following would have been a bad example of using non-violent actions to complete an objective: the War of Independence, circa 1776, led by George Washington.

So both have their place, IMO.

jmm

[Scottmkiv]

There is a big difference in a non-violent protest or campaign, and forgoing violence completely.

There are many many situations where violence is not appropriate, but by the same token, there are some situations that demand violence.

[Sindawe]

No, but we do have an issue with people that don't know a joke when they see one Gosh, I musta missed the invisible [joke] tags there Darth. :o

Besides, this far along into the Internet thingie I expected (wrongly is would appear) that folks know that the only one's permited to go a cyber-viking are those who regularly post on alt.religion.asatru :neener:

[gunner03]

Did any of you check out the essays by mn. shcool kids?

I don't think Minnesotans should carry guns, period! Nowadays, kids can get into anything, including firearms, and that scares me. I think they should think more about the youth than about themselves.

Now, for me and my family, it's a little different. I had to carry a gun in my household because my garage door was broken and me and my family were afraid that someone might break in. My mother thought it would be a problem because she's a deep sleeper. So, she taught me a little about guns just in case something might happen. I was very afraid at first, but I thought to myself and said, "I guess I've just got to do what I've got to do to protect me and my family."

There were some good ones to but holy cow!!!:cuss:

[Twycross]

Gosh, I musta missed the invisible [joke] tags there Darth.
To be honest, I'm not sure myself whether I meant it as a joke or not. I still don't know. Looking back, it probably would be a stupid and rude idea to flood her forum with opponents, as enjoyable (for us) as it might be.

[GunnySkox]

I signed up for the forum. I hope activity there picks up. It'd be a wonderful opportunity to debate and discuss with people, maybe bring some of "them" to the fence, and bring some of the fence sitters out to the range, plus, there's a plethora of other topics on the forum there, too.

Now, if the Tech Webmail would just come back up so I can get at my bloody confirmation email!!

~GnSx

[carebear]

A good example of using non-violent actions to complete an objective: civil rights protests in the 1960's led by MLK.

The following would have been a bad example of using non-violent actions to complete an objective: the War of Independence, circa 1776, led by George Washington.

So both have their place, IMO.

jmm

There is a big difference in a non-violent protest or campaign, and forgoing violence completely.

There are many many situations where violence is not appropriate, but by the same token, there are some situations that demand violence.

I would submit that the opponent would be a very important consideration. Occasional brutal incidents or not at the beginning, the US and British polities of the late 20th century are a couple of the only groups EVER in history I'd feel comfortable using non-violent techniques against.

Less likely to consistently roll tanks over you and all. :uhoh:

[Kurush]

I look at a rifle, and I start thinking about what its nationality is, its make, model, caliber, years of production, things like that. Marilyn and her ilk look at a rifle and think about how it could be used to murder schoolchildren. Who's really the nonviolent person here?

[71Commander]

I don't know about hypocritical, but that individual must qualify as one of the stupidest people on the planet......

That was my first line of thought. She would make a moonbat appear smart.:p

[rero360]

+1 kurush, not to mention the role it played in history, the lives it saved, mouths it fed by taking wildlife. stuff like that

[Sinsaba]

I wonder how old she is. Some of the sentence structure and word choice would indicate someone at least in their late teens or early twenties. The concepts presented and their lack of basis in reality would indicate someone in their very early teens.

The total lack of logic would indicate a liberal running for Congress.

[Twycross]

Well, I registered. Don't know if I'll do anything though.

[RaySendero]

I think they should get some land in say Somalia or Afghanistan and start a city with just exactly that rewritten constitution! Would be interesting to see how long their "freedom" would last when the first horseman of the apocalypse kicks in to one of the neighboring warlords! :D

[Tequila_Sauer]

It's pretty bad, but it's not THAT bad.

You want crazy? I'll show you crazy.

http://www.barbrastreisand.com/statements.html

[Justin]

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

-Jack Handey, Deep Thoughts

[Darth Ruger]

Gosh, I musta missed the invisible [joke] tags there Darth.How 'bout if we all go over there and start talking guns like we do here? :evil:The devilish little smiley face at the end would be one clue.




Going over to her site to berate her and insult her grammer is certainly not the way to show her the validity of our position on the matter neither is spouting the typical progun propaganda.To be honest, I'm not sure myself whether I meant it as a joke or not. I still don't know. Looking back, it probably would be a stupid and rude idea to flood her forum with opponents, as enjoyable (for us) as it might be.For anyone that still wonders, let me clarify my position a little better: I did mean it as a joke. I wouldn't really do something like that. I wouldn't go to her forum and start rudely spouting off a bunch of pro-gun stuff and be insulting, in fact all I said is that we go there and sart 'talking guns' like we do here. But that's beside the point, since it was only meant as a joke, and I was sure of that when I said it.




I signed up for the forum. I hope activity there picks up. It'd be a wonderful opportunity to debate and discuss with people, maybe bring some of "them" to the fence, and bring some of the fence sitters out to the range, plus, there's a plethora of other topics on the forum there, too.Now that possibility has some potential. I might actually try that myself, now that you mention it. Politely debating an anti-gun person and trying to reach them through logic is something I enjoy doing on occasion, and this might be a good opportunity to try it, depending on how willing she is to listen. Many anti's refuse to listen at all.

[C. Rabbit]

I will say that her message board does appear to be inclusive. It looks like she actually is interested in hearing from the opinions of other people, unlike, say, the DU or PW.

And she doesn't disregard the importance of self-defense, she just seems to have a somewhat naive view of it. Some liberal cities have banned tasers, which are supposed to be nonlethal, after all.

I think one could 'show her the light' if one was patient and polite. She seems to recognze the need for self defense. One justs points out that guns are the most effective means of self defense, that sometimes violence is necessary in dealing with certain people, and go from there.

CR

[Fletchette]

Come on Preacherman, the best part is right below that....no one can take her seriously!

From the site:

You know I've been thinking of a perfect non-lethal weapon. You've heard of paint ball guns? well how about poop ball guns? LOL after all, since we have so much dog poop in our country how about utilizing it to our advantage by creating dog poop balls that would be shot out of guns invented for this purpose only. The balls would explode upon contact onto a person's body upon the battlefield during a war. If anybody feels like backing me on this idea, I really do believe that it would be feasible to explore the possibilities

Hmmm. This puts the whole SHTF scenario in a diffrent light.

What , er, 'caliber' for Liberal Blissininnys?

I pick double ought burrito...

[Tequila_Sauer]

Just make sure the burrito is beans and veggies. They don't eat those poor, defenseless animals.

And I agree that this is clearly a person who probably just needs some good discussions about guns and maybe even some hands-on experience. Given some debate and range-time, I think she could possibly recognize at least some error in her thinking.

[imsocool]

It's a great idea for us to post on her message board as long as we do it in a way that will keep us there debating with her without making us appear as if we are flaming her board just for flaming sake. I'm sure we can conduct ourselves as the ladies and gentlemen that we are. Maybe by doing this we can open her eyes to a whole new planet. :D

[Justin]

*sigh*

Just a note that engaging in forum wars is fruitless and lame.