These Repubs need to learn to differentiate between their guns and their Dick S. Serious. Too much of their identities is wrapped up in this. It’s silly.
Siara
February 4, 2013
Comment to Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die So That Broader Gun Policy Legislation Can Live
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]
It isn’t an identity wrapped around owning a gun but an identity of being a citizen and not a slave or a serf.
We can differentiate between the two – why can’t liberals?
It is my opinion that they think in a manner completely different from us. Perhaps more different than we can think.
I’m reminded of the difficulty the U.S. Army had with the Nez Perce Indians. The Army could not comprehend that the Indians did not have a “Supreme Leader” and command structure. They tried to map their organizational structure onto very loosely ordered collection of people.
Many of our opponents cannot comprehend that personal firearms have use beyond, perhaps, hunting. Self-defense, in particular with a gun and perhaps in any form, is an alien and unfathomable concept to them. We cannot understand that they cannot understand such a simple concept and ascribe deliberate evil to them when it not true in many and perhaps most cases.
In the last few months of attacks on our rights none of the proposed laws would have prevented the tragedy they used as the purported “reasons” for the laws they demanded.
One of the scary things about dealing with these people is that because they will and/or cannot think rationally it is difficult to predict what they will do next. We are frequently left with reacting to their actions rather than being able to prepare for their next move.
Barb L. and I both have had extensive exposure to people that were not rational. We are still in recovery and tell stories to each other nearly every day of our experiences. Sometimes we still ask, “Why did they do this?” We have concluded, but still have to remind each others sometimes, “You can’t explain crazy. Don’t try.”
I think that is the answer to your question too.
Just yesterday I was with my daughter. She was driving. She’s a learning permit holder, so very inexperienced. Driving in town traffic, I spotted an irrational driver, and told her; “That’s an irrational driver up ahead – give that rig plenty of space.”
“Yeah yeah” she says, “WHOA!”
She was surprized at the next irrational move made by the irrational driver. I wasn’t. I knew it was coming, just not the exact time or the specifics of it.
I say you can predict patterns if not actual next moves, thusly;
Think of a vampire or other creature of the darkness. It can’t abide natural light. Whenever it sees a glimmer of light, it pounces, trying to snuff it out.
Apply that observation for a few months and then let me know how it works for you. I think you can darned near bat a thousand with it.
I agree with your reasoning, but my point was snarkier – I can tell at a glance that my penis and pistol are two very different things with two different uses. Apparently’ liberals can’t see that.
Why are they obsessed with gun owners’ penises? And how do they explain gun owners such as my sister, nieces, and wife? Talk about your mental health issues.
No, you can’t fix crazy. But you should be able to lock them up til they’re no longer a danger to society.
You can’t lock someone up until they’ve been proven to have violated, or attempted to violate, someone’s rights…..Oh Wait!
This, over and over. Every time I read a Markley’s Law violation I point out how incredibly misogynistic it is since my girlfriend carries and, actually, carries a “bigger” gun than I do. So she, what, has penis envy? I’ve yet to have a gungrabber even try to defend their words from that point.
Rational thought is beyond their capacity. That is why their “activist currency” is in candlelight vigils, and demonstrations and not in court rooms and academic papers.
I wore my “I carry a small gun to make up for my huge penis” t-shirt last week. Got rave reviews.
There’s also a concept of ‘I cannot be wrong’.
Part of my own growth into maturity (which took longer than you’d think — let’s not go there) was the realization and admission that I could be wrong in a situation. That, in fact, I might have my head on backwards and shoved up my ass.
This epiphany is critical, I think, to maturity — it definitely changed the way I saw things. But the problem is that many liberals do not have this epiphany. They cannot perceive a situation where they might be wrong. They cannot comprehend the results. I will grant there are people of other political stripes who might suffer the same tunnel vision, but it seems weirdly endemic among liberals.
The result, of course, is that they extrapolate that because they are right (of course!), then you must be wrong. And if you refuse to accept that, you are a bad person, and should be disciplined by fair means or foul.
If you think I am overstating this, then bounce over to the Smallest Minority blog. No, I’m not plugging for Kevin, but this is to prove a point. Look up posts by the resident lib, a guy named ‘Markadelphia’. Markadelphia is literally incapable of generating a scenario, even in a mere intellectual exercise, in which his ideas are wrong. Despite having three, four, five other posters trying to point out his errors, he soldiers on with a mindless zeal that would make a Soviet Commissar sob into his red handkerchief in envy.
I could be wrong about this, too, of course. I’ve been wrong about many things in my life.
Somehow I’m betting I’m not, though.
Yes. You disagree with them, they can’t be wrong, so there must be something wrong with you. THAT’S why you think what you think. You’re defective. Argumentum ad hominem. It can be anything, but sexual insults are the fad nowadays, and so it is the sexual insult that comes quickly to mind. Ergo; Sarah Palin is a whore and you have a small penis. In former decades they’d call you a fag (and Sarah Palin would have been a whore or a slut then too) but “Fag!” is not quite as acceptable anymore, at least not generally, but other sexual insults are extremely popular.
The John Wayne stand-up poster in one of our local coffee shops, that has a dress on it, is of the same phenomenon.
The light – it burns!
I’d say that if Jesus were here in the flesh today, they’d put a dress on him, or call him a fag, or say that he’s compensating for something, or that he’s a terrorist, but they already did one better by nailing him to a cross. Same thing, different era. Ad hominem, taken just a little bit farther than it’s being taken right now, and you get to the nailing of people to crosses. Here’s an article on the Armenian Genocide, in which young girls were crucified;
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/the-forgotten-genocide-why-it-matters-today/
Practically no American leftist today will admit to wanting to strip young girls naked and crucify them, but they fail to see that there is always a sequence, set out in front of them. A natural order – one domino falls and it tips over another, and another, and a hundred dominoes later, innocent girls are being rounded up and crucified.
Some people would rather die before they truly face all their wrongs, and in fact most of us do. Most of us will.
If we accepted her premise, then guns would be a good thing for all men! All those testosterone-compensating, violent, angry men who just want to rape, molest, and attack women would be calmed by having a phallic substitute. Remember she thinks that our identity is completely defined by our equipment. Wow! Don’t the feminists scream that women should be respected as persons first and not as sexual objects.
Since she is so worried that men are fascinated with firearms, maybe this should instead be embraced. Men would be so very happy per her logic that it should be promoted, not castigated. Violence against women would drop to zero since men would not have to prove their virility to the ladies through rape and sexual violence.
End sarcasm. I just wanted to try a new tact with this ridiculous criticism and false motivation they attribute to us.