Quote of the day—“Guest”

Nothing more disgusting than a female gun nut.

“Guest”
June 2013
Comment to Children and Guns: The Fear and the Reality
[You disgust them and they want to take your means of self defense away. It sounds to me like someone is channeling the KKK.—Joe]

22 thoughts on “Quote of the day—“Guest”

  1. Some of the comments are pretty bad, but ‘Guest’ pretty much dives off the edge into ad hominem as soon as he/she can.

  2. Of course female gun nuts are disgusting. They might be smaller than you by a fair amount but still be able to say “no” in the most emphatic language, and punctuate it with a slug from a .38, and where’s the fun in that?

    • As you’ve said before, Joe, when someone doesn’t want you to be armed, it is because they plan to do something they are sure you won’t like. And because they intend to get ugly and violent in their insistence that you do what they say, they are sure you will get ugly and violent in your refusal to go quietly (it’s one of the uglier aspects of human nature that they’re the only ones allowed to get ugly and violent).

  3. I’d bet that “Guest” would claim to support “women’s rights” while accusing libertarians of waging a war on women.

    • Cute trick, but rather lame. Tack the word “irresponsible” in front of it and we could safely say that anything is disgusting;
      Irresponsible Progressive
      Irresponsible Progressive woman
      Irresponsible Progressive, Democrat woman
      Irresponsible teacher
      Irresponsible charity
      Irresponsible medical doctor
      Irresponsible civil rights advocate
      Irresponsible child surgeon
      Irresponsible environmentalist
      Irresponsible peace advocate
      Irresponsible blog comment poster

      You get the point, and I assume you got it before you made your irresponsible comment.

      Now what about the very thoughtful, highly responsible gun owner who represents the vast majority of gun owners? That’s what really disgusts you. Be responsible and admit it.

    • Okay, I’ll play along on this one, too.

      The crux is that the sex of a gun nut is irrelevant. Ubu52, please confirm that you agree with this.

      I assume that we will all agree that irresponsible behavior is often undersirable. However, merely BEING a gun nut does not constitute being irresponsible. In other words, one can own guns, even a lot of them, and be fervent about owning and using them, and still be very responsible. Ubu52, please confirm that you agree with this.

      Now, if you agree, then the sex of a gun nut is not the issue and the fact that someone is a gun nut is not the issue, can you recognize why we find the statement of the “Guest” writer so sexist?

      As mentioned by others, the firearm is a superb equalizer and is thus well-suited for use by females for self-protection (or for the defense of their children). Thus, “Guest” is ignorant and a bigot.

      • “Sex” and “gun nut” are irrelevant. The Guest writer is ignorant. Unlike others who post here, I refuse to call someone a bigot based on one small sentence. I’d have to see more.

        Irresponsible behavior is frequently bad though I have no clue what an “irresponsible peace advocate” even looks like…??? What is that?

        • Thank you for your response. I was hoping you would clarify/confirm your position for these ideas.

          I would say though that the term bigot is applicable and meets its very definition because of the sweeping and negative generalization by “Guest” of all avid gun owners of the female sex.

          A single statement like that is sufficient. Just like, “I hate all the [insert racial slur here].” (I’m keeping it clean, but you get the idea).

          • Only one statement? It could be a joke. I would say that that was a bigoted statement but I wouldn’t call the person a bigot unless they said it a few times

          • OK, you are more forgiving then I am in this case. That is commendable. I am so tired of being accused of complicity for the crimes of lone crazy gunmen (based on the proposed legislative responses) that I inspect anti-gun statements with extreme scrutiny.

  4. Ubu52, I have a feeling that you couldn’t spot an irresponsible gun nut from a lineup. If you can’t see something, such as “irresponsibility” and it still “discusts” you, then you are torturing yourself solely on what you imagine in your own head.

    Much like when someone says “Republicans discust me with their greedy uncaring selfishness.” The person is simply engaging in their own prejudice and stereotyping without engaging an individual.

    • See, and the irony is most of us would agree: ‘irresponsibility’ and firearms do not mix well. Just like irresponsibility and motor vehicles, irresponsibility and power tools, etc. etc.

      But that changes the narrative ubu and his ideological ilk want to spin. It becomes less about the OBJECT and more about the PERSON.

      • You can’t spot a pedophile out of a lineup either — but that doesn’t mean they aren’t disgusting.

        I’m not against guns in general, Toastrider. You all seem to want to put me in a box and spin that your own way too.

        • “I’m not against guns in general, Toastrider.”

          Alright, we’ve let at least one dimwit recant their stupid leftist disarmament fantasies here (lou), so I suppose there’s always hope for another. We’ll see which way you roll.

          • I’ve been here about 5 years. How long do I have to be on probation?

            I think you’re the newbie.

          • Just a data point of no particular relevance to the major topic at hand:

            This is the first comment made by anyone using the email address currently used by ubu52. That was a little over 4.5 years ago. She has made 940 comments here.

            I sometimes don’t like what she says. I frequently have thought she can’t seem to understand what I think are simple, obvious concepts. Then sometimes she points out my blind spots in a sufficiently gentle manner such that I only blush a little bit.

            When I’m in a hurry to make a blog post without my usual level of care to be accurate I pause and think to myself, “ubu52 reads these posts and she will call me out on it if I make too grand of generalization.”

            I, somewhat grudgingly, welcome her input here.

            I sometimes fantasize about her attending Boomershoot and being able to talk face to face and showing her what real gun owners are like.

  5. I’m thinking guest’s autocorrect kicked in by accident. He was going for ‘sexy’ but the “PajamaBoy” keyboard was loaded as a prank by his nephews at the Christmas gittogether.

  6. Ubu52,

    I’m very glad you wrote “You can’t spot a pedophile out of a lineup either — but that doesn’t mean they aren’t disgusting.” as it establishes that you believe the person to be disgusting. I on the other hand, believe the act of molesting a child to be disgusting.

    If you think somehow the act of “being irresponsible” is disgusting, instead of the individual that you can’t pick out of line up, now would be a good time for you to clarify what “being irresponsible” really means. Does it include operating motor vehicles?

    On the flip side, I don’t spend a good portion of my life worrying about pedophiles or lobbying for a restriction on them. I tend to think that the current legal structure has plenty of punitive measures for punishing that crime. Then again, I know that there is no such thing as a law that will stop a determined pedophile from abusing a child.

Comments are closed.