If shooting paper silhouettes of people is not murder, then looking at porn is not adultery.
Timothy A Campbell
July 13, 2012 Tweet
[This Internet thing exposes the crazies in the anti-gun crowd.
With the intellectual capacity of our opponents at this level it’s no wonder we are winning.—Joe]
Our opponents don’t shy away from having nut jobs represent them and I’d say Tim’s one of them. Looking at porn isn’t adultery. His arguement isn’t one at all. Raw unrestrainted emotion with no attempt at proof reading his own comments to see if they make any sense.
My wife doesn’t think either of those things are true.
Of course unlike Timothy, my wife isn’t completely insane…
This looks fun. Can I play? Looking at pictures of autos or homes that aren’t yours isn’t stealing. Walking past a restaurant and smelling the aroma of the food isn’t stealing the food.
Saying that government should be limited in scope and power isn’t rebellion (oh, wait, the Leftists are too sensitive and are crushed by the knowledge that somone somewhere disagrees or disapproves for this to be true).
Actually porn is bad because of projection. If it’s bad for men to look at porn, because the women think they are comparing acts and body features, then it’s equally bad to look at home decorating magazines because they’re comparing quality of providership. Like that will ever fly.
This tweet would be more informative if he offered any example of a target that was acceptable to aim and shoot at, in order to preserve or improve one’s shooting ability. Surely he is not against training for self defense with a firearm?
He is just taking the current practices of shooters to an absurd conclusion. After all, many ranges already limit the targets one can use to bullseyes and silhouette humans, rather than identifiable likenesses of zombies, political personages, or photos of one’s high school teacher. I’ve even gotten in trouble at an outdoor range for shooting Peeps marshmallow bunnies, leftover from Easter. And they were PINK, so not quite an accurate representation of an animal. So he has history on his side.
So if a silhouette is not acceptable either, are bullseyes? The name implies animal welfare is at risk, so I would guess not.
As for me, I can shoot contentedly at almost anything, but prefer reactive targets, such as the stale Peeps, or rubber bouncy targets. And there was that one time at the outdoor range that a fat, stupid racoon walked from the cornfield on one side of the target pit to the woods on the other, and everyone stopped firing. So perhaps our self control is better than that projected upon us by the tweeter.
Discernment, the ability to tell (discern) one thing from another, is sometimes said to be a Holy Gift. Evidently, some souls were in a different line that day.
While for religious reasons I would avoid porn, there’s a major difference between porn and silhouettes: you don’t need porn to have a satisfying relationship with your spouse, and no one is going to die if you somehow get things “wrong”. If you are facing an armed intruder, however, and you aren’t comfortable pulling the trigger to stop him in his tracks, you and your family could end up maimed or dead.
Hence, the need to use silhouettes as targets: to get more comfortable for the possibility that you might have to shoot a fellow human being, and to better place shots in that human being if it has become necessary to do so.