This is one of those things that makes me think our opponents have mental health issues. They think in terms of “messages” being sent rather than in facts and logic. While I recognize there is value in “messages” the problem is they find whatever they want to find rather than the obvious direct messages. In the case of having armed people protecting our children the obvious messages are that we are willing and able to deliver predators a copper jacketed hollow-point message of “Don’t hurt our children!” This sends a message to the children of, “We can and will protect you.”
I dealt with someone for decades that would, in extreme cases, repeatedly insist there were hidden messages in email that communicated something completely different from what was actually written. Verbal exchanges were frequently like walking into psych ward. I would ask a question and they would respond with something that was only tenuously connected to what I asked. Repeating the question would get something again only tenuously related to my question and unrelated to their previous answer. Asking them to repeat my question back to verify they heard the question would result in them insisting they heard and understood my question but they would not be able to repeat it or even summarize it. They didn’t need to be able to do that because, “I know how you think.” They literally insisted they knew what I was thinking and my words and actions were not necessary for them to act upon “what you really mean”.
The people that relate to the cartoon above are like that person. They live in a world that only intersects with ours enough that we can catch a glimpse of their alternate reality.
These people want to control us because their world is chaotic and they desperately want stability. Having a higher authority exercising control over others brings the sense of the stability they seek. For us to say, “No! We will not be unconstitutional controlled by you or anyone else.” increases their anxiety and insistence that we need to be controlled.
I don’t know how this can end well.
I suppose that depends on your definition of “well.”
Peacefully.
I notice that the armed guards are not protecting the children, but rather the principal. It’s a microcosm of the left’s vision of government where the high political leadership gets armed guards and the peasants get nothing.
Where indeed would Billy get the idea that he might be entitled to the same protection the principal gets?
Very good point.
Do you really equate “taking your gun away from you” to “having control over you”? Is a gun required to be in control?
Of course, Ubu Reine; you blood dancers are trying to take away our means of self-defense.
No one who says “drop your weapon and you won’t get hurt” has good intentions, ubu.
Duh. Left out “says ‘drop your weapon and you won’t get hurt’ to an innocent person”.
“”
Do you really equate “taking ” to “having control over you”? Is required to be in control?
“”
That clear it up?
Or do you think people who would aim to throw you in prison for saying things they don’t like aren’t trying to control you?
Oh is egg on my face. Guess the greater than and less than signs I used to demark an edit got eaten.
Let’s try this again.
“”
Do you really equate “taking (personal property that is explicitly protected under this country’s foundational document) ” to “having control over you”? Is required to be in control?
“”
That clear it up?
I’m rather surprised you’d say something like this. Are you not familiar with the quote ‘All political power grows from the barrel of a gun’?
Do you really think you could take something from me without having some form of control over me? Isn’t having some kind of control over me a prerequisite to taking something from me? In a best case scenario (as far as freedom and individuality is concerned) you have come into my home in my absence to steal, which means at the very least you have temporary control over my stuff. In a worst case scenario you get to dictate what I own from a position of power.
It is not weather I own a gun or not that dictates who has control, it is weather I have the right to choose to own a gun or not. But I guess that distinction has always escaped you.
So, a few days into the “discussion” and ubu’s primary MO is in full swing: throw a loaded pile of poo into Joe’s comment section (in the form of a comment that shows absolutely no understanding of the material under discussion, despite the fact that Joe has covered this exact topic numerous times in other posts) and then abandon the field when she gets responses showing how absurd her thinking is.
ubu, this is not how you show you are a calm rational person who should be taken seriously. In a normal debate you provide a point of view or factoid, we provide a reason for why that is incorrect/irrelevant/off topic, and then you either acknowledge the point or provide more detail backing up your position. This goes on for a little while, with bot sides presenting evidence and interpretations until we either find the fundamental disagreement or one side or the other acknowledges they need to reevaluate their position.
Throwing a comment, which at this point can only be taken as a veiled insult (“You neanderthals think you need a gun to be in control? What kind of sick thinking is that?”), and then running away with your fingers in your ears is not how you win hearts and minds. Instead it makes you look a little mentally deficient, exactly like Joe mentioned *in this very post.* It takes less than 30 seconds to reply to one of the 10 or so people who corrected your comment with a “Ah, I see. Never mind then.” If you are going to fling loaded comments, at least have the courtesy to respond to people who correct you.
It’s called trolling. She jumps back and forth over the line all the time.
I’m not sure if she is here trying to convince herself to see things our way or gets pleasure from seeing us raise our blood pressure a few points.
Yeah, but I have not problem tearing into the argument and laying out a complete reason for why it is absurd. The irritating thing for me is I cannot improve my rhetoric or strengthen my position if no one attacks it. Unlike our opposition I do not want an echo chamber, I want to see where my argument is weak. I want to believe what is right, and I will change my beliefs if necessary. I do not want what I believe to be “right”, at the expense of rejecting any (correct) argument that shows what I believe is wrong.
I guess the long and the short if it is I will argue with ubu not for her sake, but for the sake of readers to follow. With any luck they will see her argument as so weak she will not even defend it, and there will be enough info in the comment for them to know *why* it is that weak.
Any suggestions for improving my communications are of course appreciated.
You have it exactly reversed. Not having a gun means those with guns ARE in control, and you exist at their whim. I seek not to control them, but by God they (criminals both with a government paycheck and common street thugs) seek to control me. They cannot do that safely, or as easily, if I am armed. I seek independence, they demand subjugation.
Yes. Telling people what they can and cannot possess is having control over those people.
This is not exactly a complicated concept, but I am not surprised you do not grasp it.
“Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.” – Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith, Hope (2001)
Yes, put down your weapons and let big brother take care of you.
It worked so well for the Native American people.