Drivel from an anti-rights co-worker

Status
Not open for further replies.
-Rape is subjective. Sometimes 'no' means 'yes'. -when I then asked "does it mean 'no' when she points a gun at the attacker and says 'I said NO MOTHERF***ER!'?" -he said "no, it's still subjective".

Try convincing 12 of your peers that "no" doesn't mean "no" and hope that the prosecution didn't put a bunch of women in the jury box?
 
Folks like this guy are conditioned by those around him.Some people are meant to offer no resistance,others like us have other ideas.That's why we go out for Pizza,and guys like him hit the Sushi Bar with his other delicate friends.I just keep my distance from folks like this as they do me.
 
What it boils down to, is anti-gun liberals do not believe that their life or anyone else's is worth defending with deadly force.

Unfortunately, this guy's misguided ideals are accompnied with some serious misogyny.
 
Sounds like the few brain cells he has are busy telling his heart to beat and his lungs to keep taking in air.


I agree that it sounds like he has SERIOUS issues regarding women. Does he have a wife or a girlfriend? Any kind of normal family life?

I have seen idiots advocate that women get martial arts training to defend themselves against rape. Usually from morons who have never experienced a violent altercation in their life. The most skilled female 100 pound martial artist on the planet is in a world of hurt if a 250 pound man decides to rape her in a dark alley. Unless she's got a 9mm in her purse.


Your coworker is:

1.) Stupid
B.) A sociopath
III.) An unthinking bliss ninny who believes they can talk their way out of violence in every situation.
 
Folks like this guy are conditioned by those around him.Some people are meant to offer no resistance,others like us have other ideas.That's why we go out for Pizza,and guys like him hit the Sushi Bar with his other delicate friends.I just keep my distance from folks like this as they do me.

Or why we hunt for deer, elk and small game while they go to PETA meetings.
 
Or at least have some sort of contempt for women?

Anti's agendas always stem from some category directly associated with the need to control.

I couldn't agree more. It sounds like the OP is talking to someone who is not just anti-gun, but anti-social.
 
I've met quite a few people like the OP's "friend." They appear to have strong convictions, but in truth they are built on a foundation of sand. All of this gentleman's positions are vapor when confronted by reality. I can only hope that he never has to find this out for himself, and can blissfully continue on his merrily ignorant way.
 
Why waste time and/or energy fretting over the guy's attitudes? Good grief, some folks can't be helped, don't want to be helped, and apparently believe that they don't need to be helped. Fine. Let this bozo simmer in his own stew, and good luck to him. If he makes it through life with an incident or accident, good for him. If he doesn't, he only has himself to blame.

It's my view that we in the gun community spent far too much time worrying about people who can't be changed or persuaded and who don't want to be changed or persuaded. We should spend our time and energy instead on those who can be changed or persuaded, or on those who truly matter in the fight: legislators, jurists, policy-makers.
 
Y'know, this guy's whole argument is so far-fetched that it's essentially its own strawman. It really doesn't do any of us any good to get our blood boiling about someone who thinks that rape isn't a violent crime and that you somehow only get the "right" to own a gun if you've been victimized 10-20 times.

And, yes, I know that there ARE people out there who are like this ... but how many are there, really? There's also people out there who think that psychic Bigfoots are controlling their mind with microwave lasers, but it doesn't make sense to address their arguments either, because: 1) they're extremely irrational, and 2) there aren't enough people with those viewpoints to make it worth your time to dispute what they think is true.

I am all for dialog among people with different ideological positions - if we all actually talked with each other instead of driving by spouting off bumper sticker slogans, I think we'd be a lot better off. But, this guy is so far out in left field that I don't really think his views represent anyone but himself.
 
Most of my friends are liberal. Heck, I'm a little liberal on topics that don't include guns or fiscal discipline (nobody has that lately). This guy was extreme and illogical. I think a much more common view among liberals would be something like, "I don't mind *you* having guns. I just wish there was a perfect way to make sure only reasonable sane people could get them."

I actually agree with him, it's just how to implement it that we differ on. Some gun owners will push back at every attempt to keep guns away from criminals and the mentally insane. I'm ok with good gun laws, I just think most of them are bad. I have no problems with silencers, grenades, fully auto weapons, etc. I also have no problem with registration, background checks, etc. We are for keeping guns away from bad guys right?
 
Ask him to put up a "Proudly A Gun Free Home" in his front yard.

We are for keeping guns away from bad guys right?

Yes, did you notice how the murder rate has been 0 nationwide lately?
 
Replace the word "gun" with "steak knife" and see how kooky it sounds.

Then ask him why killing someone with a knife is any different than killing them with a gun.

-If a woman can use a gun to stop a rapist, why wouldn't she use the same gun to shoot a guy she is with just because she wants to.

If a woman can use a steak knife to stop a rapist, why wouldn't she use the same steak knife to stab a guy she is with just because she wants to?

-*Nobody should have a gun unless they can prove a need to have one.

Nobody should have a steak knife unless they can prove a need to have one.

If your belief is credible for one deadly weapon, it is credible for ALL deadly weapons. If it sounds stupid for one deadly weapon, it is stupid for ALLdeadly weapons.

Otherwise, he will have to prove why being killed with one is better than being killed with another.
 
Rape is not violent

I can confirm that statement. I've seen it in the movies. The bold guy grabs the reluctant girl who struggles at first. Soon her struggle diminishes and she is a willing if not eager participant.
 
Posting someone's private contact information, especially if they aren't a figure in the public eye is an extremely bad idea. Posting this person's contact info will result in it being deleted.
 
Your friend said:
-For home defense, you can put out bear traps
No, you can't! Setting traps for burglers and home invaders is illegal in every state in the union. (There are reasons, but they don't matter: for ex., to protect firefighters, EMTs and police when they have to respond to an emergency at the house).

Our THR responders have noted
"anti-gun liberals do not believe that their life or anyone else's is worth defending" AND "Anti's agendas always stem from some category directly associated with the need to control"
Exactly! Power and control trump all other considerations for a liberal. Victims of the thugs and the misguided are expendable, mere statistics. Never mind that guns save lives. Lives are unimportant.

Your friend is NOT out of the mainstream of modern ideological liberalism. In fact, he is quite moderate (for them!) when he says
-*Nobody should have a gun unless they can prove a need to have one
His intellectual fellow travelers would not even agree to that, but, if forced to, would take comfort in the fact that it would be their statists to whom one would have to "prove a need to have one" and, of course, in their minds there can never be a need and hence never be a proof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top