My (point) is that guns are for those with tiny penises.
And that they’re for people who want to kill w/o any skill.
Mark in Minnesota @mark_casper_usa
Tweeted on July 7, 2019
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
H/T to less fat Dave @BigFatDave.
Oh, and he blocked me. I find that very telling. His ideas can’t stand up to even the most casual of criticism.—Joe]
The projection is strong with this one.
You have to wonder though, why are leftists so obsessed with sex and genitals? Do you think it’s because they’re not getting any? Is it really that simple?
Sigh. One reason I am armed is because people like Mark in Minnesota are often a source of violence. Please see Ferguson, Portland, DC, and other liberal cities for the painful truth.
It would be the extremely rare person who legally carries who is on a mission to kill. They might do it once and then face all the legal consequences. No, we carry for the simple reason of self-protection. Genital size has nothing to do with it.
Pretty childish of Mark in Minnesota.
Like most liberals, Mark can’t finish a logic stream. So Mark, even if that cokehead Freud was correct about someone over compensating for their little penis by buying and showing off his big gun. How does that help you? You actually think verbal anklebiting over the internet is an effective tool for curing the “gun” problem?
I hope you didn’t pay to much for that education.
I really hope people with this opinion never voice it at work. That’d be straight-up, one-shot sexual harassment and hostile work environment.
Frankly, that’s the kind of unprofessional opinion that could make for a hostile work environment even if it were said outside of a work environment, if it were said by an identifiable person.
At least, that’s what I’m taking away from all the HR sexual harassment and diversity and inclusion and cultural sensitivity training I have to expend valuable workhours on, annually.
“… they’re for people who want to kill w/o any skill.
Apparently he never learned to shoot, but let’s run with his premise that it requires no skill;
So he’s not opposed to killing people. He’s against killing people without having to use “any skill” in the process.
So we should go back to the days before firearms, when only the strongest could defend themselves, or gang up to be the offenders, and the physically weak had no choice but to put up with it.
So he’s really only upset at the balance of power that a firearm can bring to someone who may not otherwise be the strongest or most skillful killer.
This is the thinking of the criminal mind. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. That makes it easier for them to pick the weaker, “less skilled” prey.
So he’s looking at us men who carry, and he’s wishing we were like the weaker folk he fantasizes about preying upon? If more of us men were disarmed, it would be just as good (for prey selection) as us having no penises (being smaller, weaker, less aggressive women)? So it is a type of misogyny. Or it’s misandry because he hates the greater average strength of men, and especially hates the advantages of armed men. Or it’s both because he hates the strength of man and wants us all to be his women victims.
I think we’re getting closer to the mark here. He wants to have his way with other people, he wants to view us all as more feminine (which to him means prey) but those damned guns are in the way.
Critically important to note; there’s no right or wrong mentioned in the quote either, just the balance of power being in the wrong hands (meaning not in his “skilled” killing hands, or not the hands of the “skilled” killing alliance with which he identifies).
That of course is why leftists hate the constitution as well, seeing it as “oppressive” to their intents. Same as the Ten Commendments, the constitution is a set of rules which favors the good at the expense of the evil. That’s not “fair”. It is socially “unjust”.
In fact, if you think of it purely logically, the pure democracy currently being favored by leftists is the absolute and total removal of all standards or laws from society. Only the “majority” may decide what’s what, and with no requirements, restrictions or limits. Morality becomes whatever the “majority” says it is.
It’s horribly “unfair” when Dayshawn, who is 6’8″ and 275 pounds at the age of thirteen, with an IQ of 55 and a hobby of strongarming people smaller and weaker than himself for money to feed his drug habits, gets a cure for his lead deficiency courtesy of a little old lady who objects to getting thrown out a fourth floor window for getting between him and a good time by refusing to hand over her food stamps and her Social Security check.
Such a tragedy of lost potential. Dayshawn was a good boy, who dindu nuffins. Just think of all the votes for the Democrats he could have cast if he were still alive! Why wouldn’t that stupid old woman fight fair? She was probably jealous of his superior genitalia and secretly attracted to him, or something.
To be fair, being Democrat (or heck, even if he were Republican, or no party whatsoever), once he’s dead, he’ll be providing plenty of Democrat votes….
To which I will repeat an often-used truism batted around by military vets, especially special operations types:
“If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying hard enough.”
And of course, the comment I’ve always liked:
“Fair fights are for suckers.”
Or, alternatively, a fair fight is one where the two participants agree beforehand that they are willing to fight each other, and have established the time, place and rules for the fight.
When a peaceable person is minding their own business, and is attacked out of the blue (or worse, is *still* attacked, even after doing everything reasonably possible to prevent the attack from happening), then the fight simply isn’t a fair one, and the person has every right to stop that attack.
In other words: rather than condemning the person who shoots an intruder armed with brass knuckles, the demand for a fair fight further condemns the guys who broke into the home carrying brass knuckles and clubs, and further justifies the young man with the AR-15 who shoots them.
(And come to think of it, why should we require a woman to “fight fairly” against the guy trying to rape her? This demand for “fair fighting”, put in that context, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!)
“Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” — Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921)
Col. Cooper said it best; “If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.”
I’m getting sick and tired of the notion that my life, and the life of my loved ones, is only worth the degree to which we can defend ourselves without a gun.
Incidentally, I don’t intend to shoot to kill, and in fact, death only complicates matters. If an intruder or attacker dies after I shoot them (or resort to other methods of defensive deadly or even non-deadly force) I lose an important witness who would otherwise be alive to explain why he found himself in a position where I had to provide defensive force.
Death is merely the unpleasant side effect of someone trying to stop the attacker from doing something horrible.
This is a recurring theme among pathologicals; “everything other people do is stupid simple, obvious and easy, whereas anything I do is challenging, epic, and frankly, amazing.” It’s a verbal demonstration of Dunning/Kruger.
The Washington Post is running a documentary “Why is American masculinity at the center of gun culture, but not the gun debate?”. Its central message seems to be saying that we need to redefine what it means to be a man.
Why do I have the feeling that the documentary isn’t going to highlight masculine things like “Don’t ever attack the innocent — and do what you can to protect them” and “Don’t start fights, back down when you can, but if your attacker doesn’t back down, stop the threat” or even “teach the women of your life how to shoot — it may save their lives!”?
These kinds of documentaries typically only search for the most vile aspects of masculinity, but never seem to be able to find the good parts of masculinity that should be part of the solution….
I like this definition of masculinity, from Gandhi:
“He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.” — Mohandas K. Gandhi, “The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi”, cited at http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm