Anyone get what this guy is aiming at?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ethics are more likely to be construed as personally insulting than statements about law or practicalities.
Click to expand...

Where does he get this idea from? I find laws that prohibit, hinder or alter my God-given right to have weapons are extremely insulting personally.
It means that some body of governing morons think they have the right to limit my ability to protect myself, my family & friends and my country.

He just doesn't get it.

The bullet train of understanding left the station and he didn't get on.
 
This guy is not aiming his article at us. He likely knows we’ll respond exactly as we’re now responding. Our responses here are preaching to our choir. Yes, I know I’m doing that very same thing right now.

He is not aiming at the liberal gun-grabbers. He knows that is preaching to his choir.

His article is aimed at those who are indecisive about gun ownership and he’s trying to get them off the fence and firmly into his choir.

I don’t believe he needs instruction in logic. He has carefully biased his “logic” to get to those he believes he can influence.

Unfortunately this succeeds in many cases.
 
Before picking up any tool, a human should ask, "Why do I want this? What will I use it for? What will I become through the use of it?"
Click to expand...
Well I would hope that by buying a hammer and saw I could become a homeowner, that doesn't mean it'll happen.
Though, by buying a rifle/handgun I would hope to be able to become a better marksman. But without practice, I'm as bad as I was when I started.

Just because you have a tool doesn't mean it will affect you on some psychological level that makes you behave irrationally. Until someone invents a sentient hammer, it will be used primarily for nails, aside from the few who will misuse it to break kneecaps or tear apart something.
 
Before picking up any tool, a human should ask .... What will I become through the use of it?"
Click to expand...

What bilge! I never asked myself that when I bought my lawnmower. Even if I did, I wouldn't know how to answer that.:scrutiny:
Let me see... self reliant?
 
I've met many guys like that, one tried to tell me a gun would make me shoot my neighbors cat! that guy is a psycho who thinks all people are too psychos like him or maybe he is just searching for company or/and attemtion ?:scrutiny:
 
Humans want to use the tools they love, and the complete fulfillment of the handgun involves the killing of another human being.
Click to expand...

This, quite simply, may be the most idiotic statement I have ever read.
 
What bilge! I never asked myself that when I bought my lawnmower. Even if I did, I wouldn't know how to answer that. Let me see... self reliant?
Click to expand...

Try "hot and thirsty."

The author of the piece, Wallace, probably doesn't understand firearms and is over-imaginative. If someone could just take him out to a range and let him fire off a few, he'd come around real quick.
 
The sad thing is I've heard this sort of thing about computers a good number of times, but to a lesser extent. I say to a lesser extent, because to my knowledge there aren't any groups out there dedicated to banning "assault computers" under the guise of stopping hackers, crackers, pirates, ID thieves, spammers, phishers, and/or the creators of malware. I have yet to hear anyone make the argument that's there's no reason for a civilian to own a quad core CPU with a clock speed over 3 GHz or evil hacker software like port scanners or sniffers.

I guess the writer of this blog would argue that the fulfillment of having nmap on your computer would be to break into a bank's network and steal money.

We were watching a History Channel thing on Kevin Mitnick (one of the most famous hackers) the other day. I jokingly said "the answer to this sort of thing is clear, we need more computer control! No background check, no computer, no excuses! We must end the computer show loophole! We must ban assault computers! No one needs more than 10 GBs of RAM anyways ..."

I'm tossing around the idea of starting a group called the Brady Campaign to Stop Computer Crime and seriously parroting everything they say about guns into computer talk.
 
Last year I bought a motorcycle with an air bag (08 GL1800). I never realized it, but reading the thesis by Dr. Freud's illegitimate great-grandson just made me realize that I have a burning desire to run head-on into a Ford Expedition! Who knew? :rolleyes:

The idiocy of elites is apalling sometimes.
 
His logic seems rather flawed. I'm sure there are plenty of doctors who are gun-owners and they don't walk through the ER prescribing a .45 through the cranium to patients. I'm sure there are a few pastors who own guns and you don't see them opening fire on the congregation.
 
Well, I guess one thing is definitely clear. He should NEVER EVER buy a gun. If he truly follow this logic, he has no business near a weapon of any kind.

I know the responses here are going to be preaching to the choir but I think getting the wide arrange of responses and thinking by everyone makes us all stronger, and better at debating with these yahoos. As was mentioned before, we do not argue to change THEIR minds, but to the majority in the middle who have not formed a true opinion and are being fed this horse manure disguised as deep logic and intellectual discussion.

You take his logic, and the previous posts I have seen today on the Brady boneheads going against Starbucks and you start to see the strategy they have employed. What I fear is that they will someday win, that sooner or later we will lose CCW in each state in the union and gun ownership as a whole after that.
 
This appears to me to be a classic case of an individual who has reached a conclusion and then attempts to use logic, no matter how convoluted, to support his conclusion. He does attempt to present his argument in an unbiased fashion, but I think we all know better.
 
and in all of his chestpounding I have no doubt that if put in a situation where it was him (or his family) or someone attempting to cause them harm, he would kill the BG with his own gun given the chance...


on second thought, he would probably pull out his own gun that he has despite his public views ,seeing as he is the exception to his own rule, and attempt to shoot the BG. I recall something like this happened recently...A Democrat politician (cannot remember currently who) who had voted for all out ban and confiscation of guns at every opportunity opened fire on two men who broke into his house. IIRC, he shot one in the back 5-7 times. The guy survived and i am torn as to whether I want the man to prosecute the politician using the same laws the shooter supported allowing "victims" of self defense shootings to go after those who shot them.
 
Do ya think this idiot would upon discovering he was well endowed would be go around showing every woman in sight because having a tool necessitates a new mindset for using said tool. I sure hope so, maybe he would forget his illitist attitude, and start defending his right own and carry concealed. Hell I know it's stupid but so is this idiot.
 
"the complete fulfillment of the handgun involves the killing of another human being"


Gees I hope this guy never buys a gun.
 
After reading Picknlittle's post I didn't like the way my comment came off. His summary was better than mine so I'm erasing my comments.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top