The anti-rights cultists’ logic fails: on the one hand, we are supposedly high-strung, hair-trigger murderers just waiting for any and all excuses to “whip out our pieces” and go on a shooting rampage, but on the other hand, “gun control” extremists feel quite comfortable insulting and attacking us on a regular basis.
Linoge
December 12, 2011
Comment to Quote of the day—lonewolfwisconsin.
[Made QOTD at the suggestion of Windy Wilson.
It’s a good point but I’m sort of dulled from the continuous expose to the irrationality of anti-gun people. These people live with one foot into an alternate universe where the potentialities of their active imaginations are just as real, if not more so, than reality itself. I wish there were a way to make it sink in that potentialities are not actualities.
We are constrained to live in the real world. Neither the utopia they try to legislate nor the “gun-owners will start shooing over parking spaces” universe they imagine are supported by the evidence gathered from all the different legislative experiments run in all the states and the Feds in the last several decades.
Being unconstrained by reality is probably good for art but makes for very poor public policy.—Joe]
I’ve tuned out the anti-freedom, anti-gunners for so long now that when they speak I hear cows mooing instead of verbs and such. Perhaps it’s my age or just the hysterical histrionics they use to bash those of us who love freedom but I just don’t hear them anymore.
I’ve tuned out the anti-freedom, anti-gunners for so long now that when they speak I hear cows mooing instead of verbs and such. Perhaps it’s my age or just the hysterical histrionics they use to bash those of us who love freedom but I just don’t hear them anymore.
Actually, in art, it is even (if possible) more important to comport with reality than in “real life”. Fiction, for example, varies from life in that fiction is required to actually — you know — make sense.
Even Dali had to nod to reality in order to “sur” it.
M
Mark A ++…the best art, esp in the genre of film, offers a reality based look at the culture in ways it doesn’t often get treated. Totally unreal art is just that…unreal, and not worth much to anyone whose life is reality-based.
I agree all around, but for this one thing I must point out;
“…potentialities of their active imaginations…”
Rank and file leftists have no imagination whatsoever. All of what you say they “imagine” has been fed to them all their lives, and they embrace it hook, line and sinker. I believe it is truly a state of hypnosis in which they live, such that any and all alternative ideas or observations of reality are rejected out of hand. “Mind numbed robots” fits much better than “potentialities of their active imaginations”. That they all think alike, and all “imagine” the same disaster scenarios in spite of reality, should be your first clue. They’ve been implanted with sets of rigid assumptions– templates through which all input must be filtered. Don’t mistake that for imagination. It’s the opposite of imagination.
Potentiality: A crazed gunman could stand on the corner of Sunset and Vine and shoot at people randomly.
Reality: A crazed gunman stood on the corner of Sunset and Vine and shot at people randomly.
What happens when potentiality and reality collide?
Secondly, regarding the quote, insulting and attacking people on the internet isn’t quite the same as doing it in person. I don’t see a lot of “gun control extremists” attacking anyone in person, do you? Has Linoge been attacked in person lately?
Except that’s not the “potentiality” actually expressed by gun control proponents, nor is it susceptible to the legislative solutions they actually seek.
Rather they express “A non-prohibited (legal) gun owner/concealed carry permit holder/open carrier/college student/etc/etc” could stand on the corner of Sunset and Vine and shoot at people randomly”.
Reality: Doesn’t happen. Even if it did, it would be statistical noise akin to people being struck by lightning at the corner of Sunset and Vine and as deserving of (never mind as susceptible to) an equivalent legislative remedy.
“I don’t see a lot of “gun control extremists” attacking anyone in person, do you?”
Maybe not in America, but it happened at least once over here. Google “Mike Yardley GCN”. The original account was on a website that’s long defunct, but the facts are still there. To paraphrase:
A firearms expert was invited to an anti-gun rally to give his opinion on the upcoming firearms ban. He started to say that the gun owners were not to blame for Dunblane and that it was wrong to punish them with an unjustifiable ban.
The GCN chairperson repeatedly shouted “He’s a gunman!”, and her acolytes forced him off the stage and attempted to beat him.
They attacked him for having the nerve, the unmitigated gall, to tell the undisputable truth.
Now, we’ve never had the progressive attitude to firearms that America has, but you’d think such a widely-sweeping law would be defended better than lies and violence.
“The GCN chairperson repeatedly shouted “He’s a gunman!”, and her acolytes forced him off the stage and attempted to beat him.”
Boy! Talk about tweaking the beards of dead (or in this case tame) lions!
One foot? I’ve read Joan Petersons blog. She isn’t living in the real world at all.
Boring or not, thanks to the both of you for the honor :).
http://truthversusevil.livejournal.com/10439.html
cheers to you Gareth A
While I don’t have any first-hand experience of this, I can say from my participation over at opencarry.org that this does happen occasionally to those who open carry. Posters have related encounters where someone actually noticed an openly-carried sidearm, and when the answer to “are you a cop?” was “no”, the other person launched into a tirade of how the carrier is intimidating and scaring people.
The suggested response in such a situation is “If you’re so afraid if me why are you berating me to my face?”
Also, just for the sake of correcting a fallacy lest it be accepted as fact,
According to liberal / “gun control” extremist “logic”, yes, they are the same.
On the one hand, numerous “gun control” extremists have responded to comments on their forums/weblogs as actual, honest-to-God threats against their persons, even though those comments were not threatening and were written on the internet. These responses have included, but are not limited to, attmepting to bring charges against pro-rights activists (the “gun control” extremist was basically laughed out of the police precinct). As such, if we use the anti-rights cultists’ behavior as the standard of behavior, threats over the internet are effectively interchangeable with “real” threats.
On the other hand, “gun control” extremists incessantly blame Rush Limbaugh, “talk radio”, Michelle Malkin, “partisan rhetoric”, and so on, so forth, for any spree shooters who might have even a glimmer of right-wing affiliations. Those shooters never met Rush, Michelle, or anyone else the “gun control” extremists are blaming; they only heard those people’s words over the radio/internet. As such, if we use the anti-rights cultists’ behavior as the standard of behavior, words do not have to be delivered in person to be sufficiently motivating/encouraging/mind-controlling to cause someone to do harm.
Obviously, I do not hold to either of these beliefs, I am only attempting to keep “gun control” extremists internally consistent, and, in the process, exposing the illogical nature of their actions.
Linoge,
There is no gun control “logic”; only emotion. And that’s nearly impossible to argue against, especially in a convincing manner. The best anyone can do is to point out the fallacies & inconsistencies and let them speak for themselves on the rest of it.