Canadian defends guns against Americans...

Status
Not open for further replies.

LeafsFan

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
110
That would be me, BTW. ;)

Don't know if any of you heard about the shooting incedent here in Bloomington, IN two days ago - long story short, some drunken college student living in an off-campus apartment walked out onto his balcony at 7am and fired a dozen rounds into the air from an AR or AK (he owned one of each) and then went back inside to watch t.v. The cops busted his stupid ass half hour later and hauled him away with no injuries.

(Kudos to the LEOs for handling this situation smoothly and efficiently, well done!)

Anyway, next day I was in my history class and when the prof comes in one kid asks if she heard about the shooting, and a discussion ensued about the article in the paper and on t.v. about the "Bloomington Sniper" who "Opened Fire" with an "Automatic Assault Rifle". (...:scrutiny:)

I was shocked that everyone except one other guy was horrified, outraged, that he could even own an assault rifle, etc. There were comments like:

- Another reason to get rid of all guns

- I never thought it could happen here.

- They should make those things illegal.

- I don't feel safe anymore because of this.

Then, just as the subject was about to be changed to something else I suddenly blurted out,

"I seriously doubt that he was firing an assault rifle."

As one man, every kid in the class cried out, "Oh yes he was... I SAW A PICTURE OF IT ON T.V.!" :banghead:

I cooley responded with, "Are you sure? Because an assault rifle is capable of automatic fire, like a machine-gun. Did they show pictures of it doing that?
Also an assault rifle is a Class III weapon that's heavily regulated, not to mention extremely expensive. It seems unlikely that a college student in a cheap apartment owned two of them.
No, I suspect that this guy just had a regular semi-auto rifle; you pull the trigger once, it fires one time. They do look like the military versions, but that's all."

By this point the jaws of every kid in the class had slackened and their eyes had glazed over, the facts and truth I'd presented having made the noble attempt to pierce the media propaganda which they'd already swallowed whole and digested without questioning.

I just found it ironic that in a class with 17 Americans and 1 Canadian it was the Americans who were calling out for gun control so they could feel safe again. It was very surreal.

Anyhow, I doubt that I made a difference, but hopefully it gave them something to think about (...until they get distracted by the latest news on Britney Spears' child custody battle or something. :rolleyes:)
 
If there is one thing I think they should put on the signs at our border (what there is of one) is this:

"Caution Foreigners: Many Americans are as stupid as they look."

This should keep the expectations low. I for one am incredibly tired of the ignorance of the masses.
 
Good job. Ignorance is not a national identity, it's an individual decision. Sounds like you have your work cut out for you. Good luck...
 
Just think of how stupid the average person is. Then remember that half of them are even dumber.

Luckily, I attend college in a small town that's in a heavily conservative area of the state. Lots of ranchers, hunters, etc, who know the muzzle from breach. I don't think they'd get away with those kind of statements without a serious argument getting started.
 
The majority of Americans (and the majority of people around the world, for that matter) are probably ignorant to varying degrees with respect to firearms and the Second Amendment.

I got into a debate with a guy at my work amid a similar group atmosphere dominated by anti-gunners. Despite the fact that I calmly dominated and completely won the debate in a kind, calm manner with literature, research, and logic on my side (to the point that he was left speechless searching for more comebacks), he now looks at me like I club baby seals in my spare time.

The funniest part is that he's a "tolerant, progressive, liberal," and yet after finding out that I have an opinion on one issue that differs significantly from his, he now treats me 100% differently (in a negative way). How's that for "tolerance"?

The interesting thing is, he makes negative comments about law-abiding gun owners and lumps us in with murderers. Yet, he strongly opposes how the media associate law-abiding Islamic Americans with terrorists (He is Islamic). Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? He thinks it's OK to associate an entire group of law-abiding people with murderers--but only if he's not that group.

I love it when "progressive, tolerant" anti-gunners expose their own prejudice and hatred of large groups of people based solely on ignorance. They do my work for me. :neener:
 
I have thought about this a lot, I think that we should use the phrase skinz. Because really it is just a semi-auto rifle encased in another "skin"... Just like cell phones, web browsers and such.... I think people would understand that, or at least kids in the college class would.
 
"The interesting thing is, he makes negative comments about law-abiding gun owners and lumps us in with murderers. Yet, he strongly opposes how the media associate law-abiding Islamic Americans with terrorists (He is Islamic). Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? He thinks it's OK to associate an entire group of law-abiding people with murderers--but only if he's not that group."

I was going to say you should bring that point up to him, but in an anti-gun work atmosphere, it may not be the best idea. Sad times.
 
And this was a History class. The one person in that room whose professional competence should have included that knowledge and who should have corrected the misstatement: the teacher of that History class.

Unless, of course, he thinks that the Greeks and Romans carried "assault spears" and both sides in the American Revolutionary War were fought with "assault muskets."

I suppose it doesn't take much to be a university History teacher nowadays.
 
Unless, of course, he thinks that the Greeks and Romans carried "assault spears" and both sides in the American Revolutionary War were fought with "assault muskets."

I suppose it doesn't take much to be a university History teacher nowadays.

It's easy to make up your own history when opposing viewpoints are wrong-headed, evil "assault textbooks", "assault articles", "assault facts", and "assault opinions". Building or promoting an understanding of all aspects of an issue or historical event never offers people the simple, black-and-white answers they desire, and consequently, it doesn't sell any books or speaking tours, and it doesn't win the hearts and minds of freshly-indoctrinated college leftists.
 
The funniest part is that he's a "tolerant, progressive, liberal," and yet after finding out that I have an opinion on one issue that differs significantly from his, he now treats me 100% differently (in a negative way). How's that for "tolerance"?

The interesting thing is, he makes negative comments about law-abiding gun owners and lumps us in with murderers. Yet, he strongly opposes how the media associate law-abiding Islamic Americans with terrorists (He is Islamic). Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? He thinks it's OK to associate an entire group of law-abiding people with murderers--but only if he's not that group.

That's pretty much standard for that side of the spectrum. You've got the affirmative action types who hate racism, except when it favors them. You've got Dems in Congress who talk about compromise and coming across the aisle, aka dropping your principles and agreeing with them completely. You've got the tolerant "everyone has their own personal truth, and it's OK" types who somehow want to stamp out Christianity in every form.

Tolerance means you tolerate them. Compromise means you agree with them. Your values, ideas, and feelings are not worthy of reciprocity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top