Karl Hungus
Member
Like I said, the 50's were a LOOOONG time ago.
[/QUOTE]3KillerBs said:I heard a salesman spout that awful line [QUOTE='Bees, quoting Some Oaf]"I always recommend revolvers for women because semi-autos are too complicated for me."
3KillerBs, I think that the salesman left a couple of words out, thus:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3KillerBs
I heard a salesman spout that awful line
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Bees, quoting Some Oaf
"I always recommend revolvers for women because semi-autos are too complicated for me."
The dude opened the cabinet, took out the gun, removed the magazine and locked the slide open, then handed it to me with the trigger lock still on it. I thought this was a very odd way to be evaluating a gun!
Yeah, they all tend to be a bit cliquish. But I also think that's beginning to change. I think even the Fudds are starting to see that we have to stick together
Honestly, IMO, the internet is bringing us all together. I think people are becoming more accepting of diversity within gun culture.
I am not sure that this is the problem. It's one thing to say, "yes, you can come be one of us". That's being accepting. But what we need is "no, you don't need to be one of us... the second Amendment is for everybody".
For now I read this forum and interact a little bit figuring that I will learn a lot from everyone here, but I have to be ready to not fit in and also to judge the input for myself and reject some of it since it is just not compatible with my own life.
However, cultural signals do exist and they do matter. The salespeople and shop owners have a right to assume that the image a person is presenting is the image that person wants to project and to adjust their reaction accordingly.
Baggy pants and an oversized sports jersey do not equate to gang representation.
Maybe not to authentic gang representation but its certainly wannabe-ism and there isn't all that sharp a line between stupidity and malice
I often see people mistake freedom of expression with not being judged on your expression. I'm free to say "god hates fags, praise god for dead soldiers." Its my first amendment right. It doesn't mean that you can't look at me like the vile despicable excuse for a human I'd be for doing so. You would, I certainly hope, treat me differently for what I've expressed. Similarly the urban youth that is emulating gangsters is going to have to deal with the effects of his freedom. He is free to express himself in that way, but not free from the effects of doing so.More recognizing of the fact, and the reality that a young black man in urban (some would say 'gangster') attire has the same inalienable rights as everyone else.
urban youth that is emulating gangsters
This may be starting to drift a little but I find it interesting, hopefully others do tooWhile I find little fault with your post soybomb, the problem is one of misidentification. Often, I see "urban youth" MIS-identified as "emulating gangsters." To someone outside the culture, or lacking a trained eye, the differences may seem subtle. But the reality is, that people often paint with far too broad of a brush.
To take another example not all skinheads are racists but if you fit the skinhead image the public has, can you fault them for not knowing the history of skinheads and the different flavors of skinheads?
Assuming the truth of what you say that would be an interesting topic appropriate for the Strategy and Tactics forum. It would be very useful to be able to distinguish between the wannabees and the real deal.siglite said:There are actual ways you can identify both gangsters and wannabees based on what they wear and how they wear it. But I think it's OT for the thread, and probably the board. I'll gladly discuss some of it in PM with you if you like.
There's a guy around here named Oleg Volk who writes a lot of stuff like that.mr.72 said:But what we need is "no, you don't need to be one of us... the second Amendment is for everybody."