Skip to main content

View Diary: The Gun Culture vs. The Fear Culture (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You are being silly. Assault weapons serve (6+ / 0-)

    no useful purpose.

    Take back the House in 2014!!!!!!!!!!!! (50 state strategy needed)

    by mungley on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:45:21 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  The same could be said of religion, privacy, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Canis Aureus, VectorScalar, fuzzyguy

      Freedom of the Press, etc.
      This reminds me of when the right-wing tried to tell me that 'warrantless wiretapping is fine, so long as you are doing nothing wrong'.....I assume you agreed with them.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:06:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you know what happens when you assume? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kutting, Laconic Lib, Kevskos

        Unrestricted gun ownership is a stupid idea.

        Conflating a desire for reasonable regulations on the ownership of weapons of mass destruction and the invasion of privacy or free speech makes you look insincere at best.

        Reread the second amendment, where it says "A well regulated militia."
        That's the opposite of "Lawless pretend cowboys with high powered rifles."

        Good luck to you.

        Take back the House in 2014!!!!!!!!!!!! (50 state strategy needed)

        by mungley on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 07:51:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gun ownership isn't unrestricted currently. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy

          "weapons of mass destruction" If you consider firearms as WMDs, then you must conclude that GWBush was honest when he said Iraq had WMDs.....you had may as well, you are already coopting his rhetoric.
          "Read the part where it says 'well-regulated milita"
          I have. And it makes no mention of a well-regulated milita being a prereq for the Right of the People to keep and bear arms.

          You are willing to sacrifice Constitutional liberty for the perception of security.
          I am not. Not with Gitmo. Not with warrantless wiretapping. Not with torture. And not with the 2nd Amendment.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:00:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  When you assume you demonstrate that you are (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Laconic Lib, Kevskos

            either unwilling or unable to engage in a reasonable dialog.

            By assuming that a believe something, you are putting words in my mouth, so that you don't have to listen to the actual words I say.  

            This is poor rhetorical device, and one that always leads to failure.

            You can bludgeon me over the head with your opinion, while never listening to me, but you will inevitably fail at whatever it is you are trying to accomplish.

            Assuming that you know what I think gives you license to dismiss my opinion out of hand.  It is essentially the assault weapon of rhetoric.  I will end the debate by telling you how you feel.  That is the path of fear and cowardice, just like the use of assault weapons is the path of cowards.

            I have no idea why you engaged me in 'conversation."

            We need to regulate the sale of 'assault' weapons.

            Thank you for nitpicking the definition of weapons of mass destruction. I meant "mass mayhem," and will take the time to type the correct word in the future.

            You can hide behind your interpretation of the Constitution all you want, and you can repeat your opinion until we all vomit, but the reality is that assault weapons and high volume cartridges are a threat to my liberty and the liberty of those I love.

            Take back the House in 2014!!!!!!!!!!!! (50 state strategy needed)

            by mungley on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:39:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Don't bother trying to engage this troll (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laconic Lib, Gorette, mungley

              in rational discourse, mungley.  He's a troll of the first magnitude.  He published a diary yesterday designed to do nothing more than stir up shit.

              Funny thing, I saw a post on Facebook today from FrankRose.

              Frank Rose First of all my heart goes out to all of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary school and the families. This was a horrific act by a disturded individual who unfortunately had access to fire arms because of a Negligance of a gun owner. Fire arms of any type need to be Safeguarded at all times to assure they do not get into the wrong hands.

              In the very near future there will be attempts
              to limit the types of fire arms we should be allowed to own. They will attempt to limit the types of magazines amminition you can own and how much you should be allowed to own. They will attempt to place extremely high taxes on both and require registration. The will attempt to limit How, When and Where you can purchase your guns and ammunition. The reasoning will be that, we as gun owner should be okay with this becasue it will not be a direct Infringement of the 2nd Amendment Rights, as well as, for public safety.

              The anti gun movement will be coming at the gun owning commuinty from all directions. However, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation there are more than 30 million individuals in America who enjoy some form of the shooting sports. Now more than ever we need to support each other and respect each others choice of shooting disciplines.
              We can not allow them to pit one group against another.

              We can not allow any compromising of our Rights.

              Pretty sure it's the same guy, aren't you Frank?  You know, the one with the cartoon on your FB page showing someone pissing on a liberal.  You seem to have lost your way and turned up on a website that supports progressives.  The sooner ou disappear from this site the better off we'll be.

              A petty criminal is someone with predatory instincts but insufficient capital to form a corporation. --Clarence Darrow

              by stlsophos on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:04:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Lets just say that your detective skills are (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fuzzyguy

                lacking.
                'FrankRose' is a play on President FDR's name.
                As for 'trolling' asking a question on a word definition is not an example of 'trolling'
                However, using invented words to dismiss and/or ridicule generally is.

                I plan on staying as long as I like. Sorry that hurts you so.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:14:01 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Didn't suggest it was your name. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Gorette, mungley

                  But I see you do not deny that you're the FB poster to whom I referred.

                  Several Kos members gave you sincere and easily understandable responses to your question yesterday, yet you rejected them all (of course without offering your own definition or even a statement that "gun fetishist" is an unintelligible bit of jargon).

                  It won't hurt me to have you on this site.  I'll ignore your meaningless drivel as I do all trolls here.

                  A petty criminal is someone with predatory instincts but insufficient capital to form a corporation. --Clarence Darrow

                  by stlsophos on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:37:00 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I assumed nothing. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fuzzyguy

              I simply used  YOUR definition of 'WMDs'
              You claim firearms are WMDs
              Bush claimed WMDs were in Iraq
              Iraq had firearms
              Hence, by YOUR definition of the word 'WMD', Iraq had WMDs

              "Threat to my Liberty"
              No, it is a threat to your percieved security. So was the 9/11 attacks.
              The right-wing backed sacrificing liberty protected by the 4th Amendment with warrantless wiretaps.
              You support sacrificing liberty protected by the 2nd Amendment.

              Words have meaning, mungley. Those meanings do not change at your whim.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:25:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Remember when I thanked you for correcting me? (0+ / 0-)

                I conceded your point and you continued to attack me for my admitted mistake.

                You either have no interest in discourse, or you do not understand how conversation and language work.

                I suspect the latter.

                Have yourself a merry little solstice.

                Take back the House in 2014!!!!!!!!!!!! (50 state strategy needed)

                by mungley on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 02:45:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  My mistake. My apologies. (0+ / 0-)

                  When you accused me of 'assuming', I thought it was entailing the point about Iraq.
                  However, I have no idea why you think the invented phrase "Weapons of mass mayhem" adds any credibility.
                  Generally, if you have to invent words, your argument isn't very strong.

                  "how language works"

                  "Liberty--- lib·er·ty NOUN:
                  1. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                  2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                  3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights."

                  You want to surrender Liberty for Security.
                  I do not.
                  Not for warrentless wiretapping, not for Gitmo, not for torture, not for the Patriot Act.....and not for limiting the 2nd Amendment.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 03:44:42 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site