We are RIGHT, they are WRONG
- Thread starter Drjones
- Start date
- Status
Mike Weber
Member
Here's a link. http://www.michaelmoore.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=6
If you head over there be sure to bring your Kevlar and Nomex, the place is a real cesspool.
If you head over there be sure to bring your Kevlar and Nomex, the place is a real cesspool.
Harold Mayo
Member
I went over there and looked around and now I don't feel clean...
The ignorance of some of those people is incredible. Not just on the gun stuff, but on social issues and politics. Here is a quote by a proponent of socialism:
"If you are an owner of a hugely successful company raking in thousands and millions, you didn't get there purely through your own hard work. You got there through exploiting other people's need for money to make more for yourself. A car factory is nothing without it's workers.
If you get taxed from being rich I don't think the idea is disciminaion because you are rich, I think the idea is more; ok, you have plenty of money and a luxury lifestyle, some people have nothing, we're going to take a little bit of your money because you have too much anyway and give it to someone who really needs it. If you moan; don't be so damn greedy.
Unfortunately many governments don't spend taxes on anything sensible (ours recently bailed out the bankrupt nuclear ndustry and are preparing for a pointless and destructive war).
Wealth addicts are more dangerous than drug addicts.
This guy has definite issues with people who get ahead in life financially. "Exploiting other people's need for money to make more for yourself"? How ELSE do you make money? HOW ELSE?
:banghead:
The ignorance of some of those people is incredible. Not just on the gun stuff, but on social issues and politics. Here is a quote by a proponent of socialism:
"If you are an owner of a hugely successful company raking in thousands and millions, you didn't get there purely through your own hard work. You got there through exploiting other people's need for money to make more for yourself. A car factory is nothing without it's workers.
If you get taxed from being rich I don't think the idea is disciminaion because you are rich, I think the idea is more; ok, you have plenty of money and a luxury lifestyle, some people have nothing, we're going to take a little bit of your money because you have too much anyway and give it to someone who really needs it. If you moan; don't be so damn greedy.
Unfortunately many governments don't spend taxes on anything sensible (ours recently bailed out the bankrupt nuclear ndustry and are preparing for a pointless and destructive war).
Wealth addicts are more dangerous than drug addicts.
This guy has definite issues with people who get ahead in life financially. "Exploiting other people's need for money to make more for yourself"? How ELSE do you make money? HOW ELSE?
:banghead:
Harold Mayo
Member
I made a mistake and went back...now I need a long, hot shower.
A quote:
"In a mature government, with an extensive police network (and the exchange of rights that occurs there), many liberals would argue that guns are superfluous and dangerous in the hands of private citizens. "
"Mature government"? What, pray tell, is that?
It's a cop-out, of course, on a huge scale. Obviously, any government that is not "mature" is one where there are still survivors who believe in individual rights. Good examples of mature governments would be Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Mao's China.
A quote:
"In a mature government, with an extensive police network (and the exchange of rights that occurs there), many liberals would argue that guns are superfluous and dangerous in the hands of private citizens. "
"Mature government"? What, pray tell, is that?
It's a cop-out, of course, on a huge scale. Obviously, any government that is not "mature" is one where there are still survivors who believe in individual rights. Good examples of mature governments would be Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Mao's China.
Harold Mayo
Member
I'm sorry, fellow forum members, but one last posting in this thread for me...
I forgot about Bowling For Columbine. It being early in the morning, I quite naturally thought that the initials "BFC" in reference to Michael Moore meant Big Fat...and then a compound word dealing with sucking that I'm sure the word filter won't let me use.
His forums are like a stinky fart...you hate it but you just can't NOT smell it...
I wish that link had never been posted...
I forgot about Bowling For Columbine. It being early in the morning, I quite naturally thought that the initials "BFC" in reference to Michael Moore meant Big Fat...and then a compound word dealing with sucking that I'm sure the word filter won't let me use.
His forums are like a stinky fart...you hate it but you just can't NOT smell it...
I wish that link had never been posted...
triggertime
Member
I read a review of 'Bowling for Columbine' where the person praised Michael Moore and then suggested that he run for President.
My stomach still hasn't recovered.
My stomach still hasn't recovered.
Politically Incorrect
Member
I found this from Drjones's link to MM message board (fifth post down) by the name of mrsuicide.
So someone uses an illegal gun to rob, rape or murder someone (while they are not allowed to defend themselves with a gun) and it's just the police's problem? With this much logic, I'm surprise they can open a can of soup!
Do we really have to live next door to these people? :banghead:
So someone uses an illegal gun to rob, rape or murder someone (while they are not allowed to defend themselves with a gun) and it's just the police's problem? With this much logic, I'm surprise they can open a can of soup!
Do we really have to live next door to these people? :banghead:
Last edited:
natedog
Member
I've got an idea- Let's put her in a locked room with several sexual predators, and have someone with a gun right outside ready to come in and intervene. She can call for help anytime she wants. I wonder what would happen......
Oleg Volk
Moderator Emeritus
The person outside will consider the source of the appeal, possible legal consequences, possibility of this being entrapment by enforcers of gun prohibition...and keep on walking. Human lives are worth defending.
Phillip K. Dick has a great story called "Human Is". By the logic shown in it, I would sooner come to the aid of a decent kengaroo or a Martian than some of the folks who would spend their extended lifespan trying to trample over me and my rights.
Phillip K. Dick has a great story called "Human Is". By the logic shown in it, I would sooner come to the aid of a decent kengaroo or a Martian than some of the folks who would spend their extended lifespan trying to trample over me and my rights.
Kaylee
Member
Why... by taking it from someone by force for the greater good, of course. Extortion is less selfish than commerce, you know.
-K
King
Member
I've checked those folks out over at Michael Moore's forum and it appears to me that they (the posters) are generally very young (like 15 to 17 years of age and maybe early 20's) and there are a lot of Europeans.
Basically, they operate on emotion and rattle off the anti-gun screed the best way they know how. Unfortunately, they reduce themselves to name calling and to putting down others on a regular basis. They generally do not have the depth of experience that many on this forum do.
Due to their general youth, they don't appear to know "how" to debate or discuss issues concerning guns and the other hot topics of the day (like we do). Many are filled with "piss and vinegar" to coin a phrase and that is as I would expect (having been there myself). Addtionally, the Europeans don't understand Americans or the American way. The European frame of reference is simply different.
I 'll at least applaud them for taking a stance and trying to defend it. As they mature, their views may become more in line with those on this forum. Perhaps not. They would be eaten up by this group.
Just my $.02.....my opinion on this one will be worth exactly what you paid for it.
Basically, they operate on emotion and rattle off the anti-gun screed the best way they know how. Unfortunately, they reduce themselves to name calling and to putting down others on a regular basis. They generally do not have the depth of experience that many on this forum do.
Due to their general youth, they don't appear to know "how" to debate or discuss issues concerning guns and the other hot topics of the day (like we do). Many are filled with "piss and vinegar" to coin a phrase and that is as I would expect (having been there myself). Addtionally, the Europeans don't understand Americans or the American way. The European frame of reference is simply different.
I 'll at least applaud them for taking a stance and trying to defend it. As they mature, their views may become more in line with those on this forum. Perhaps not. They would be eaten up by this group.
Just my $.02.....my opinion on this one will be worth exactly what you paid for it.
aikidoka-mks
Member
All this talk of "debates" has me tempted to bring up the rkba issue on a chicago forum I frequent. Im currently in 2 debates now on other issues so Ive been holding off so as not to stretch myself to thin. I think a few might agree with us though - to bad there arent enough to change illinois :-(
Mark
Mark
Hkmp5sd
Member
Some psychiatrists view anyone who sees "the need for a gun" as serving "libidinal purposes...to enhance or repair a damaged self-image....and involving narcissism, passivity and insecurity."
Other shrinks reject this theory because it does not account for female gun ownership. In fact, 50% of those who own a gun only for protection are women, even though women are less likely than men to own guns for sport.
Also noted is that if this theory were accurate, male gun owners would lean toward the largest barrel and bore weapons available. But the uniform popularity of different sized guns debunks this theory.
They also bring up Freud's view that weapons may symbolize the penis in dreams. Actually, Freud said that this is true for dreams involving any long object (sticks, umbrellas, poles, trees) but especially objects that may be viewed as penetrating and injuring. This passage refers to dreams in general without distinguishing gun owners from others.
When talking of weapons specifically, Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons.
-----------------------------------------------
Referrences:
"Guns, Murders and the Constitution" by Don B. Kates Jr.
"The Major Writings of Sigmund Freud" (1952)
"Dreams in Folklore" by Freud and Oppenheim (1958)
BogBabe
Member
You are absolutely correct in your first post in this thread, Drjones. There is not a single honest, valid study anywhere that supports gun control, from either a practical viewpoint or a moral or ethical one.
I used to be moderately pro-gun control, even while believing that I supported the Second Amendment. I was one of those who believed that yes indeed, the Second Amendment protected our right to bear arms, but there was nothing wrong with "common sense" regulation of who was allowed to own a gun, and various other such laws. I wasn't "afraid" of guns, and I wasn't an anti -- not like the people we've seen on the MM forums. But I had been exposed to so much gun control propaganda, for my entire life, that, prior to doing any research of my own, it was one of those unquestioned beliefs that seemed to make sense.
I remember when I bought my first gun -- back before Brady, before NICS -- I walked into a gun shop, tried out a few, picked one, and filled out a form in which I checked "No" in some boxes stating that I wasn't a criminal or insane. The owner told me the form stayed in his files and the gov't could only see it if the gun was recovered after being used in a crime and the cops were trying to trace its purchase. I walked out with my gun that day, no background check, no NICS call, no nothing. I remember thinking to myself, "They don't verify any of that information on the form -- I could be a convicted criminal and they wouldn't know. Wow, anybody really could get a gun!" I wasn't real comfortable with that.
After becoming a gun owner, though, and having had that experience, I started paying more attention to gun control issues. Remember, I started out supporting "common sense gun control" at the time! But the more I read and researched the issue, the more I became a hard-line gun rights supporter.
Every honest study, every valid study, every bit of empirical evidence, supports an unlimited, individual right to bear arms with no governmental interference whatsoever. Everything from the unyielding ethical argument that everyone has the innate right to possess the most effective means of self-defense, to the purely utilitarian argument that gun control does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals but only disarms law-abiding citizens, supports that position.
Every study that appears to support gun control, OTOH, falls apart when examined. Every one of those studies twists the facts, misrepresents the evidence, and uses highly selective data from artifically narrow populations and time periods to present a factually incorrect perspective. Kellerman's thoroughly debunked study comes to mind. So does the latest "Report Card" from HCI, in which the states that got Ds and Fs for their gun control laws just happen to have the lowest crime rates in the nation, while those with As and Bs just happen to have the worst crime rates. And that stupid study that uses the fatally flawed "Cooke's Index" (do a search on TFL if you don't remember it) to determine that the states with the highest number of guns deaths have the highest number of gun deaths.
I started out not as a blank slate, not with a totally open mind, but with a moderately pro-gun-control mentality, and every bit of research I found weakened that position.
Every bit of research I found turned me into more of a pro-gun-rights person. Eventually I became what I am today, which is someone who believes that the government at any level has no business passing any laws whatsoever regulating or restricting in any way my right to buy and own any gun I darn well please, at any time.
I am convinced that anyone who is willing to look at the facts -- as opposed to purely emotional reactions and naive wishful thinking -- has to eventually come to believe the same thing. We are right, and they are wrong -- but when we're confronted by the blissninnies at the MM forums who refuse to consider the facts and instead deliberately, obstinately, continue to ignore the evidence and rely on their irrational emotional fears and naive wishful thinking, we're eventually reduced to nothing more than "I'm right and you're wrong."
What can you do with people who willfully ignore the evidence and deny reality? No amount of evidence, facts, or rational arguing will ever reach a closed mind. I think the best we can hope for is to reach the lurkers and fence-sitters who might be truly open to modifying their beliefs when presented with facts and evidence.
I used to be moderately pro-gun control, even while believing that I supported the Second Amendment. I was one of those who believed that yes indeed, the Second Amendment protected our right to bear arms, but there was nothing wrong with "common sense" regulation of who was allowed to own a gun, and various other such laws. I wasn't "afraid" of guns, and I wasn't an anti -- not like the people we've seen on the MM forums. But I had been exposed to so much gun control propaganda, for my entire life, that, prior to doing any research of my own, it was one of those unquestioned beliefs that seemed to make sense.
I remember when I bought my first gun -- back before Brady, before NICS -- I walked into a gun shop, tried out a few, picked one, and filled out a form in which I checked "No" in some boxes stating that I wasn't a criminal or insane. The owner told me the form stayed in his files and the gov't could only see it if the gun was recovered after being used in a crime and the cops were trying to trace its purchase. I walked out with my gun that day, no background check, no NICS call, no nothing. I remember thinking to myself, "They don't verify any of that information on the form -- I could be a convicted criminal and they wouldn't know. Wow, anybody really could get a gun!" I wasn't real comfortable with that.
After becoming a gun owner, though, and having had that experience, I started paying more attention to gun control issues. Remember, I started out supporting "common sense gun control" at the time! But the more I read and researched the issue, the more I became a hard-line gun rights supporter.
Every honest study, every valid study, every bit of empirical evidence, supports an unlimited, individual right to bear arms with no governmental interference whatsoever. Everything from the unyielding ethical argument that everyone has the innate right to possess the most effective means of self-defense, to the purely utilitarian argument that gun control does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals but only disarms law-abiding citizens, supports that position.
Every study that appears to support gun control, OTOH, falls apart when examined. Every one of those studies twists the facts, misrepresents the evidence, and uses highly selective data from artifically narrow populations and time periods to present a factually incorrect perspective. Kellerman's thoroughly debunked study comes to mind. So does the latest "Report Card" from HCI, in which the states that got Ds and Fs for their gun control laws just happen to have the lowest crime rates in the nation, while those with As and Bs just happen to have the worst crime rates. And that stupid study that uses the fatally flawed "Cooke's Index" (do a search on TFL if you don't remember it) to determine that the states with the highest number of guns deaths have the highest number of gun deaths.
I started out not as a blank slate, not with a totally open mind, but with a moderately pro-gun-control mentality, and every bit of research I found weakened that position.
Every bit of research I found turned me into more of a pro-gun-rights person. Eventually I became what I am today, which is someone who believes that the government at any level has no business passing any laws whatsoever regulating or restricting in any way my right to buy and own any gun I darn well please, at any time.
I am convinced that anyone who is willing to look at the facts -- as opposed to purely emotional reactions and naive wishful thinking -- has to eventually come to believe the same thing. We are right, and they are wrong -- but when we're confronted by the blissninnies at the MM forums who refuse to consider the facts and instead deliberately, obstinately, continue to ignore the evidence and rely on their irrational emotional fears and naive wishful thinking, we're eventually reduced to nothing more than "I'm right and you're wrong."
What can you do with people who willfully ignore the evidence and deny reality? No amount of evidence, facts, or rational arguing will ever reach a closed mind. I think the best we can hope for is to reach the lurkers and fence-sitters who might be truly open to modifying their beliefs when presented with facts and evidence.
ArmsAkimber
Member
My wife and I used to regularly attend a yearly gathering of her college chums. Two years ago, the gathering took place in the home of two of said chums who married. One is a newspaper editor, one is a novelist. At these gatherings, political discussions are common, and often heated. Most of these people are very liberal (including aformentioned hosts), but there are enough libertarianoid types to keep it interesting (such as moi ). Guns came up, and the typical boring pro/anti arguments were exchanged. The coversation ended when the host stated, "Well, I think handguns should be banned, and we will no longer discuss guns in this house." He did not want his children exposed to gun talk, he said. He didn't have any problem with rather bawdy conversation in the presence of his children later in the evening, though. Needless to say, I don't attend these gatherings in this couple's home any longer.
Is it not ironic that two people who earn their living under the light of the first amendment are so ready to take an eraser to the second.
). Guns came up, and the typical boring pro/anti arguments were exchanged. The coversation ended when the host stated, "Well, I think handguns should be banned, and we will no longer discuss guns in this house." He did not want his children exposed to gun talk, he said. He didn't have any problem with rather bawdy conversation in the presence of his children later in the evening, though. Needless to say, I don't attend these gatherings in this couple's home any longer.Is it not ironic that two people who earn their living under the light of the first amendment are so ready to take an eraser to the second.
- Status
