Guns, Guns, Guns.
POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Monday, June 30, 2025 05:56
VIEWED: 46757
PAGE 17 of 44
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:We don't support violence you moron! Someone seriously needs to kick your ass.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
He is an enabler of violence. Frem is an enabler of violence. Geezer is an enabler of violence. Anyone who can observe the situation and want to keep things EXACTLY THE SAME in order to allow EXACTLY THE SAME VIOLENCE is a supporter of violence.
Chris,isall
I get someone who says 'yanno, this is a problem and I would love to do something about it but I have no idea what to do'. They don't condone the system, they understand it's broken, they just don't have a fix for it. But someone who says 'you can't change ANYthing' and ensures that things will stay exactly the same is an enabler. So, which are you? Do you think something needs to change? Or do you want to keep everything exactly the same?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You have a point.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
He's equating the the mendacity of the voter-ID folk with the heartbreak of the parents of those children. He's trivializing the real problem, negating the real grief, invalidating the real people who are living through this. And you think that's OK. That it's just a matter of explaining it, and that will make it good.
Quote:You also have a point here, though I wish it could be expressed with less abusive language toward Anthony. I think his history as a reasonable voice in these parts has earned him that much.
HKC was right so long ago. He pointed out that AnthonyT's absolutism was a psychological problem. I think we're seeing it play out.
I have the utmost respect for both Anthony and Frem, but in this case I see something coming up short in them. I see the same sort of fear-based almost-psychosis that has been ruling the Conservatives for the past few decades and making any sort of forward progress impossible. Frem hasn't posted as much so here I can't make claims about him, but it seems clear to me that Anthony is terribly afraid of losing his basic rights - which really are in no danger - that any kind of discussion of gun control, much less a *compromise* is impossible.
Perhaps it's because he has never grokked gun "control", rather than gun "ban".
I am a strident supporter of abortion rights. But I recognize that there is a difference between a woman who just discovered she's pregnant but doesn't want to be a mother, and a woman who's just gone into labor and suddenly decided she wants to kill this being that is hours, perhaps minutes from being an independent life form. Limiting a woman's right to destroy a fully formed newborn is not an attack on my right to choose my own destiny after a condom breaks. I understand this. There is a line in between these two extremes which is fuzzy and hard to define, but I am willing to have that conversation.
I can make this separation. Clearly, Anthony can't. I have tried to get him to define the far extremes of "allowable" guns, just to start a discussion, and all I get from him is OMG YOU WANNA TAKE ALL MY WEAPONS YOU'RE BAD! which I cannot see as anything short of a kind of psychosis. His fear of losing his symbol of manhood (and puh-lease don't tell me you haven't heard that analogy, Anthony, or that you haven't looked yourself in the mirror while you're gun stroking to exactly how perfect a penis-stroking metaphor it is) is so severe that he cannot bear any kind of discussion or possibility of compromise. No matter how many innocents die needlessly: it seems to folks like Anthony that we cannot separate limiting nukes from limiting pea shooters. I disagree. One must be limited. One clearly should not.
Where's the line for the fuzzier cases in between? Well, both sides have to be willing to talk or we won't find an appropriate dividing line. That's life. That's how we optimize things.
Anthony is not willing to talk. I find this enlightening, in a sad way, that such an interesting open mind is completely shut regarding this one matter.
No compromise, no discussion, no way. Why is Anthony like this about this topic, and no other? What is it about guns that do this to him? Does nothing else make you feel safe and secure, Anthony? Can you not compromise on things that have no effect on your personal hunting gun collection so that countless others can finally feel, and be, safer?
[Edited for many typos, as usual]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And the consequence for Anthony of his fear-based argument is that he treats kiki about as poorly as I've seen him treat anyone.
Hello,
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Quote:
It's shocking. Anthony, that was a serious dick move on your part. Not clever. Not appropriate. To presume that she was too dumb to know exactly what you were doing and to persist in your nasty joke, not cool.
I didn't presume anybody was dumb. And it wasn't a 'joke' so much as a way of comparing two situations by placing the other person in my shoes.
Quote:
And that dig about abortion, coming from my fellow XY, not cool, man! Not remotely.
I didn't dig about abortion. I responded to a stance. My ex-wife and I had the ordeal of a late-term abortion, and quite frankly I find her stance on body freedom to be intrusive.
Quote:
And jeez, it so did not win her over or serve your argument at all, did it? What do you think you're doing?
I thought I was helping someone to recognize what I see when someone talks about whittling away my rights with a few common sense restrictions. But no, I don't think any argument of any stripe would win her over. That makes her committed to her positions and it makes me psychologically astray.
Quote:
Anthony, you got a style, y'know? And for the most part it works. Charming, funny, enlightening. But when you get into a particularly heated exchange with someone all it sounds like is snide, snide, snide.
My style is to avoid the kinds of vicious, nasty, personal attacks that other people make when they are angry.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I got that hours ago. All you're doing is reinforcing in my mind what as asshole he is. He equates the solution to a non-existent problem as being JUST LIKE the solution to a real problem. He's equating the the mendacity of the voter-ID folk with the heartbreak of the parents of those children. He's trivializing the real problem, negating the real grief, invalidating the real people who are living through this. And you think that's OK. That it's just a matter of explaining it, and that will make it good.
He's debating. If you would get off that high horse of yours for a damn minute you might get that. Voter ID laws on there surface make all the sense in the world, even with little problem. If everyone could get state IDs at no cost or hardship there would be no argument against ID laws. Yet that point is never argued because somehow the very idea of proving who you are to vote is a big deal. How the hell do we than expect to get gun restrictions past. That is AnthonyT argument as I understand it.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
But I don't see the types of firearms available as the problem that is so desperately in need of change.
You're a smart man. How can you not see how an assault rife is more of a problem in these situations than a pistol or a hunting rifle? Assault rifles are designed with killing multiple people in mind. That is there function.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.
...and now a Fundie!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53359
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I am upset about what I see as a societal trance that believes we're essentially violent creatures. That idea makes me plenty angry because my life has been a living example of how a person with an extraordinarily violent upbringing can find the essential goodness in himself and in our species as a whole. I promise you, no one was there to teach me empathy, quite the contrary. Sometimes I really wonder how I was able to find empathy and compassion at all. But I did. So, I can, from time to time, feel obligated to speak my mind on the topic. I don't think my response to that lie about human nature is out of proportion, but I absolutely understand if you didn't understand WTF I was talking about or how I got there from what you said. It happens.
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
I didn't mean to imply that we are essentially violent creatures, but that we have the capacity for violence or aggression, if you prefer. ie the 'fight; in fight and flight. We also have the capacity to suspend empathy which we do on a pretty regular basis, when we eat meat, when we step over homeless people etc etc.
I did say I wasn't sure if empathy was learned or not, but I believe it should be fostered in all circumstances. I do think that we will never achieve a society where everyone has the capacity for empathy - signy said it better in an earlier post.
So I do believe we have capacity for both. Both traits make us human. Aggression, while not being pleasant, has its uses. Happy to have this conversation at more length maybe in another thread.
None of this means I am just shrugging my shoulders re the human race to say we are hopeless, violent maniacs. I don't believe that. If anything, we're not the least empathic that we have ever been. There have been times when public executions, torture etc were considered fun entertainment. But I don't think we're heading in a direction that will make anything better for a long time
Anyway respond more when I have more time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I have tried to get him to define the far extremes of "allowable" guns, just to start a discussion, and all I get from him is OMG YOU WANNA TAKE ALL MY WEAPONS YOU'RE BAD! which I cannot see as anything short of a kind of psychosis.
Hello,
By and large, my weapons aren't really at issue in gun control debates. Most particularly my favored guns aren't usually at issue. Jong made some odd statements in another thread about locking gun ownership at the technology level of the 1870's. This would actually leave the majority of my arsenal and all of my favored guns intact. There is no serious gun control proposal on the table currently that would take my guns away.
Quote:
His fear of losing his symbol of manhood (and puh-lease don't tell me you haven't heard that analogy, Anthony, or that you haven't looked yourself in the mirror while you're gun stroking to exactly how perfect a penis-stroking metaphor it is)
I hear this metaphor a lot, actually. Which is really just a way of belittling someone's position. No, I haven't looked at myself in the mirror while gun-stroking in a perfect penis-stroking metaphor. This is something that happens inside of other people's minds.
Quote:
is so severe that he cannot bear any kind of discussion or possibility of compromise.
I actually can discuss this subject at length, for days on end, and without hurling insults at people.
Quote:
No matter how many innocents die needlessly: we cannot separate limiting nukes from limiting pea shooters. One is absolutely necessary. One is not.
Actually, I can separate limiting nukes from limiting pea shooters.
Quote:
Where's the line? Well, both sides have to be willing to talk or we won't find an appropriate dividing line.
I have been consistently willing to talk about this.
Quote:
Anthony is not willing to talk. I find this enlightening, in a sad way, that such an interesting open mind is completely shut regarding this one matter.
I have been consistently willing to talk about this.
Quote:
No compromise, no discussion, no way.
I have often proposed compromises. I don't remember many coming my way.
Quote:
Why is Anthony like this about this topic, and no other?
Because you don't notice when I stringently defend the freedoms that are agreed upon. Only the disagreements catch your memory and imagination.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm. It seemed like... But okay, perhaps I misunderstood *you*.
Mal4Prez has a point, and I should apologize to you. You didn't need an explanation.
I don't know anything about guns, so I don't know what to do about them. I am as useful in a conversation about guns as I am useful in a conversation about economics. All I know about guns is whatever I might have heard second hand for research for writing.
That's why I've been "moderating," because I don't have anything else to contribute to the thread.
I think I'm more snide than Anthony when I'm annoyed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All right Anthony, setting aside the gun-as-manhood thing, (which I guess isn't evident unless you're a non-gun person coming across the gun measuring and comparing threads that crop up here time to time), let's talk limits.
I will make two lists: those I see as fully, obviously allowed, and those I don't. I ask you to please understand that I am not a gun expert and will not understand fine differences. I talk generalities.
Obviously allowed: (Keep in mind - this is MINIMAL in my mind. Allowable may go far past this. This is just the obviously a basic right stuff) hunting rifles that are not automatic and must be manually reloaded after two shots. Handguns that are easily concealable in purse or belt that carry 5-6 small caliber bullets, for self-defense.
Obviously not allowed: any fully automatic weapon, any weapon that fires more than 10 bullets in a short amount of time with a short reload time (short meaning that a schoolroom full of 6 year old would have 0% chance of fleeing before the reload was done.) Uzis, rocket launchers. Not OK.
I realize that there is a whole range of semi-automatics between these extremes that would take a great deal of discussions by more knowledgeable minds than mine to decide where the line should be drawn.
There, I have defined my "Oh shit, there are two lines on the pee stick" and "my water's just broken" extremes. Lots of room is left wide open in between.
What are your extremes? And again, for the love of TPTB, please do not go into the loving details of your personal favorites. What do you think is OBVIOUSLY a gun everyone should have a right to, and what it not?
If you keep it simple, I will try to educate myself about what exactly these guns are. I wouldn't mind learning.
BTW, I fired off the Terminator package at the gun store in Veges. Uzi and pump action and laser guided and such. It was awesome. But I would never, ever, want those guns in my hands or anyone else's outside that well-monitored environment.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"He's debating."
No, he's not. He's setting up a false equivalency as a premise. It's a non-starter.
"Voter ID laws on there surface make all the sense in the world, even with little problem."
Voter ID laws make very little sense. They are a 'solution' to a non-existent 'problem'. Anyone who promotes them as such a 'solution' is starting from a false position.
"If everyone could get state IDs at no cost or hardship there would be no argument against ID laws."
But cost and hardships are the biggest arguments against them. IN ADDITION, many people have no birth certificates. A significant number of births occur at home, especially in the past, especially in rural areas, especially in the south, especially among blacks. I recently finished a book 'The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks' which, while not about birth certificates, outlined enough of the daily life and family life of poor blacks in the south that I can see the lack of a birth certificate could be a common and insurmountable problem. So insisting on an ID based on a birth certificate is not as reasonable and benign as you might think it is.
"Yet that point is never argued because somehow the very idea of proving who you are to vote is a big deal."
That was never MY objection or the objections I've heard. Honestly that sounds a lot more like the right-wing 'permanent ID' objection that anything else. My objections AND the objections I've read have all to do with the fact that the process was meant to disenfranchise specific groups of voters by setting up obstacles to voting.
"That is AnthonyT argument as I understand it."
Then it's an easily disproved one.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME