I wonder if JEB is behind this...

Jarod said:
No, not necessarily. OK and legal are two very different things in my book.

Many things that are not OK in my opinion are still legal... that's the nature of a free country.
Click to expand...

And that's also where the situation of FREE CHOICE comes in.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
zappa, save us some time and tell us EXACTLY what you think the topic is about, k?
Click to expand...


Gun nuts don't want the public to know what cowards they are, so they've paid off some Rightie politician to create some bogus legislation that would keep the press from getting their names if they shoot and kill someone, then hide behind the SYG defense.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Gun nuts don't want the public to know what cowards they are, so they've paid off some Rightie politician to create some bogus legislation that would keep the press from getting their names if they shoot and kill someone, then hide behind the SYG defense.
Click to expand...


Those who supported this law are afraid that if they run for further office will compile some statistics about who it helps get away with murder.
 
Jarod said:
One would think Gun owners would like to have that fact published in the paper.

I own a gun, I don't care if they publish that fact.
Click to expand...

Why do you own a gun? What are you afraid of? I thought you lived in Mayberry? Afraid of Sun Devil?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Can anyone point me in the direction of the part of the 2nd amendment that guarantees a gun owner protection from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

Don't want to be bothered by the press, don't go practicing vigilante justice.
Click to expand...

So the basic choice you would give people would be:

a. passively become another faceless, nameless, and anonymous victim of violence, joining the legion of massacred innocents the press dutifully ignores

or

b. defend yourself and have the press turn you into an international pariah
 
Last edited:
ZappasGuitar said:
Gun nuts don't want the public to know what cowards they are, so they've paid off some Rightie politician to create some bogus legislation that would keep the press from getting their names if they shoot and kill someone, then hide behind the SYG defense.
Click to expand...

you're projecting again. so sad.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Gun nuts don't want the public to know what cowards they are, so they've paid off some Rightie politician to create some bogus legislation that would keep the press from getting their names if they shoot and kill someone, then hide behind the SYG defense.
Click to expand...

But, why stop at guns? Can the press provide us an accounting of all of our neighbors who are collecting food stamps, living in Section 8 housing, and using medicaid, SNAP, et. al? That could actually serve a purpose in cutting down on fraud; "Hey, I read that the guy next door is collecting food stamps, but guess what? He just bought a brand new Toyota Highlander!"

How about an accounting of all of our neighbors' criminal records/convictions? That's certainly a handy bit of information to have...

Why are registered/legal firearms owners the only ones being stigmatized alongside registered sex offenders?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Gun nuts don't want the public to know what cowards they are, so they've paid off some Rightie politician to create some bogus legislation that would keep the press from getting their names if they shoot and kill someone, then hide behind the SYG defense.
Click to expand...

He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.

Of course, sexual and psychological insecurities don't account for ALL men against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are pure, who perhaps do care so much as to tirelessly look for policy solutions to teenage void and aggressiveness, and to parent and teacher negligence. But for a potentially large underlying contributor, psycho-sexual inadequacy has gone unexplored and unacknowledged. It's one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it's another to impose the same handicap onto others.

Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of crowds.

The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some assertiveness and a certain self-reliance. But if our man kept a gun in the house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of him, he wouldn't be able to later say, "He had a knife--there was nothing I could do!" Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn't be the option it otherwise is.

No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let's face it: He's a lover, not a fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife.

Of course, it wouldn't be completely honest not to admit that owning a firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That's the tradeoff with a gun: The right to defend one's life and way of life isn't without peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to do is risk his life-if even to save it. For he is guided by a dread fear for his life, and has more confidence in almost anyone else's ability to protect him than his own, preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the sporadically competent hands of authorities (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase).

In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's containment.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp
 
Teflon Don said:
He doesn't really think he is. He just heard a rumor that Jeb is running so it is time to dig the dirt.

I wouldn't vote for Jeb. Funny thing is that Jeb agrees with Jarod on more issues than Jarod would care to admit, but like all knee jerk liberals he just reflexively hates anyone with an R behind their name.

Jarod is the perfect left wing lemming. He falls in line with big Indian little indian game they want people to play
Click to expand...

Okay, JEB agrees with me on one Issue.... that is not more issues than I care to admit!!!!

You got any more?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top