Skip to main content

View Diary: Book review: David Neiwert's 'And Hell Followed With Her' (240 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Are you saying no one here has used that exact (12+ / 0-)

    ... terminology or the acronym for that phrase?

    Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

    by Bob Johnson on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:17:04 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Actually Easy To Prove How Full Of Shit You Are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea

      Just Google this:

      site:www.dailykos.com "shit hits the fan"

      And you will see references to climate change, the debt ceiling, etc

      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

      by bernardpliers on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:19:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's easy to find numerous examples, bernard. (19+ / 0-)

        Here are two that I found in just a few seconds:

        This is a diary by an RKBA member:

        New Jersey became a microcosm of what a large scale SHTF scenario can be. No power, heat, grocery stores.
        Here's a comment from an RKBA member:

        Both considerably wise decisions (3+ / 0-)

        The lever-action is a good gun to have for hunting, defense, or SHTF. I am generally against having "safe queen" guns, unless they're of substantial historical value (such as some of the guns that my wife's grandfather brought back from Europe when he came home from WWII).

        And if the dealer bought it for $1600, they're selling it for $3200.

        Here's a comment from the leader of RKBA at Daily Kos:
        I don't have an appropriate repeater. (2+ / 0-)

        Closest thing (with a stock) is a 4 shot Remington 740 in .308.

        Do you have an extra SHTF firearm you can send me as well? ;-D

        We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

        by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 11:29:33 AM

        CST

        There are many, many more, bernard. These are just a few I found that use the acronym.

        Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

        by Bob Johnson on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:32:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  None Support Your "Fear Induced Paranoid" Premise (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          Swing and miss Bob, because nothing there supports your premise that DK is infested with black helicopter conspiracy nuts.

          Example one  - hurricane, and doesn't mention guns
          Example two - ambiguous, since he's talking about hunting rifles  and not any paranoid or government conspiracy.  
          Example three - a joking reference from someone that only owns a shotgun

          Maybe DK black helicopter conspiracy nuts are like the black helicopters themselves - only visible to special people. Seen any little green men? Pink elephants?  

          So now that you've dug yourself into a hole, do you intend to keep digging?

          There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

          by bernardpliers on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:42:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  infested with black helicopter nuts? No, but (7+ / 0-)

            there are a few, even on DKos.

          •  bernard, as much as you want to deny it... (17+ / 0-)

            ... a number of the conceal carry/open carry crowd here has espoused SHTF scenario preparation as the very reason they carry their weapons.

            Why are you so vehement in your denials of a provable fact?

            I have had an RKBA member here tell me that SHTF scenarios (natural disasters like Katrina, as the poster noted) might require the use of an AR15.

            This isn't me making stuff up, bernard. It's what others have written.

            I note that these facts may make you angry, but they are facts, nonetheless.

            Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

            by Bob Johnson on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:55:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's Some Real Babbling Gibberish There, Bob (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea, Tom Seaview
              ... a number of the conceal carry/open carry crowd here has espoused SHTF scenario preparation as the very reason they carry their weapons.
              People on DailyKos are  carrying weapons right now because they afraid of the SHTF while they drive to Krogers?  You know, those "paranoid....apocalyptic....end of the world" beliefs you mentioned

              Also,  "concealed carry" literally means "concealed carry." It's terribly convenient to try to win arguments by making up words when you find yourself painted into a corner, but "concealed carry" means someone is carrying potentially at any given time, as in right now, not some day, not after the end of the world.  

              You're explicitly saying that people at DK are carrying guns today because they believe that the world as we know it is going to end as early as this afternoon, and that you have seen people here confirming your claims, a lot, apparently, except you can't find any examples.

              There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

              by bernardpliers on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 02:41:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You said it, not me. (14+ / 0-)
                People on DailyKos are  carrying weapons right now because they afraid of the SHTF while they drive to Krogers?
                I think the folks I'm talking about have a definition of SHTF more akin to that than the end of the world (though some are worried about marauders overrunning them in the event of natural disasters, too).

                I gave you this example.

                I think a number of these folks see threats lurking around every corner like in this thread.

                I think a lot of folks use SHTF precisely to mean a bad guy suddenly whipping out a gun and confronting them or a group somewhere when they're out and about, whether the grocery store, mall or just walking down the street.

                As I noted in the post, some folks have cited urban centers like Chicago or New York as inherently dangerous. Ironically, most of the conceal and open carry crowd seem to live in rural areas where one would think the crime rate is much lower, especially given how they fret about places like Chicago or New York.

                Yet millions of people live in these big urban centers without feeling the need to pack heat in case some bad guy suddenly appears out of nowhere to attack them or others.

                Go figure.

                Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

                by Bob Johnson on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 04:10:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  They could be lying, but so what? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Smoh, Avila

                Maybe they really believe it.  Maybe they are just using the SHTF scenario as a bad faith argument.  It is irrelevant.  They use it.

                It's like the "it's to defend us against tyranny" argument.  Nobody knows whether the proponents believe it, or are just using the argument that conveniently argues for an invidivual to be as well armed as the USG.

                That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                by Inland on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 10:09:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  As a non-gun owner, I like having the option to (0+ / 0-)

                  own as many guns and ammo as the "USG" does plus 1.

                  It's freedom of choice, remember that concept?  The argument has been that the right to keep and bear arms must be "justified".  Nope, I've never believed an enumerated individual right needs justification.  

                  The gun control advocates have employed a dishonest debating technique to ensnare those of us that believe the USG should follow the rules we set out for them.  The dishonest technique of "framing the issue" on one of need.

                  Then when some of us give examples of why "it may be needed", it then can be used to beat us over the head with it.

                  That game has been revealed here:

                  It's clear to many of us that gun control isn't going to pass in any meaningful way this time around so the tactic being employed is to attack the people that support the Bill of Rights and label them to avoid an honest discussion of the issues we must contend with.

                  1.  Violence in this society.

                  2.  Why do people become violent.

                  3.  Legitimate constitutional solutions that will help all of us, not just a select few in Suburban White Neighborhoods.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 10:33:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "I'd like the option". (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Smoh, Avila

                    So would North Korea. Plus, I'd like the option of a button that would stop people from equating their "likes" to a constitutional or human right. But whatever. Let's vote on your wish list.   It's still a democracy.  

                    That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                    by Inland on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 11:14:53 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Maybe, maybe not: (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Joieau
                      Let's vote on your wish list.   It's still a democracy.  
                      http://www.nationaljournal.com/...

                      The majority of these "United States" have voted to deny me, a transgender woman, the right to marry whom I chose.

                      Does this mean that what they did was constitutional?  Clearly by their own State Constitutions it was.  

                      Do you support these efforts now?  Since you want to restrict the right to keep and bear arms through a popular vote?  

                      See how "the tyranny of the majority" works yet?

                      "If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them."
                      Alexis de Tocqueville, "Tyranny of the Majority," Chapter XV, Book 1, Democracy in America
                      You'd have us utilize the same method that the "Moral Majority" has to strip me of Equity Under Law.

                      I find this position very dangerous to us all.

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:39:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Is it constitutional? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Smoh, Avila

                        I dunno: is "I'd like" in the constitution?  Or more precisely, is what "You'd like" in the constitution, because for some reason, I'm supposed to bow down to your druthers in wanting to be as well armed as the United States Government and pretend like it's not the talk of a crazy person, and you never seem to give a shit what I'd like.  Not even to ask.  Such as, "How do you feel about me being the world's superpower? Do you like that or not"?

                        When do I get rights?  Yes, I'm asking, since it seems to be up to your whims.

                        That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                        by Inland on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:53:36 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I've never advocated you losing any rights. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Joieau

                          You wish for it to be true so that you can ignore what I've actually stated.

                          My rights end where yours begin and vice-versa.

                          You've never asked me what I wanted, you've told me what you're going to do, Government by Decree.

                          As for this:

                          I'm supposed to bow down to your druthers in wanting to be as well armed as the United States Government and pretend like it's not the talk of a crazy person,
                          http://xroads.virginia.edu/...
                          In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.

                          -cut-

                          Fetters and headsmen were the coarse instruments that tyranny formerly employed; but the civilization of our age has perfected despotism itself, though it seemed to have nothing to learn. Monarchs had, so to speak, materialized oppression; the democratic republics of the present day have rendered it as entirely an affair of the mind as the will which it is intended to coerce. Under the absolute sway of one man the body was attacked in order to subdue the soul; but the soul escaped the blows which were directed against it and rose proudly superior. Such is not the course adopted by tyranny in democratic republics; there the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved. The master no longer says: "You shall think as I do or you shall die"; but he says: "You are free to think differently from me and to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but you are henceforth a stranger among your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow citizens if you solicit their votes; and they will affect to scorn you if you ask for their esteem. You will remain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow creatures will shun you like an impure being; and even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they should be shunned in their turn. Go in peace! I have given you your life, but it is an existence worse than death."

                          I neither wish for your adulation's or scorn, I wish to be free to decide my own fate against your "tyranny of the majority".  A freedom defined by equity under law and enforced by our created government.

                          You use your scorn in an attempt to deny me these things.  Thanks, but no thanks.

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 01:11:27 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Ever heard of citizenship? Democracy? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Smoh, Avila

                            I think that my ability to vote for or against gun laws, or to elect reps who do it for me, is my right as a citizen.

                            You don't.  

                            And you want to make sure that my rights as a citizen in a democracy is eliminated in favor of your "I'd like".   Well, not just my rights, of course, but all the rights of the majority.  

                            Amazingly, you consider any restriction on your whim in a democracy to be tyranny.   When in fact it's the other way around: the person who is free to do as he wishes without regard to anyone else's legitimate desires is the tyrant.  Just because your ambitions as far as we know is limited to your idee fixe on guns doesn't make you less antidemocratic, if not antisocial and dangerous in more ways than bullets.

                            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                            by Inland on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 02:29:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What does this have to do with what I stated? (0+ / 0-)

                            You wish for the abrogation of rights you don't like or agree with.  The same ideological trick used by the "Moral Majority".  

                            Government by Decree is tyranny hon, look it up.

                            And by the way, I've never owned a firearm, this isn't about me owning one but about us all having the right to do so if we so chose.  

                            Your "democracy" has denied me the right to marry.  Prove that your position isn't any different than theirs.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 02:48:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not rights, and not "I". (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Smoh, Avila

                            The actual majority, not some group, in our consitutional republic.That's not "I".

                            But if it makes you feel better to pretend that laws passed by majority rule or through elected represenatives is "government by decree", go ahead.  But in reality, it's the person who declares that "I'd like" has the force of law is the person who is, literally, saying that his decree is the law.  

                            Your "democracy" has denied me the right to marry.  Prove that your position isn't any different than theirs
                            Shrug.  I already know you dislike democracy for all the wrong reasons.  I''m not impressed that you're searching for a good one.

                            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                            by Inland on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 03:16:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Semantics meant to hide YOUR position. (0+ / 0-)

                            I believe in Equity Under Law and the rule of law that is just.

                            I believe in the expansion of our rights to all people, no matter, race, color or creed.

                            I believe our government must ensure these things, not take them away because you want it.

                            What I want is tempered by that goddamn piece of paper called the Constitution.

                            Did not the majority, through the popular vote, ie referendum, vote to deny me said Equity Under Law?  Are you not now espousing the same tactic???

                            Maybe you haven't reviewed what my State just did in January, The NYS SAFE Act denies me a right by decree, not by the "rule of law".  I am a recovered Alcoholic & Transgendered Woman, both are identified as "mental illnesses" and are part of who I am.  

                            The "rule of law" would demand that I be found guilty of some crime BEFORE I'm denied the exercise of any rights.  Not so today.  I'm denied the exercise of a right by decree, not by a court of law and a jury of my peers, as would be the requirement in our constitutional republic.

                            Soon you'll be telling me that "due process", as outlined in said document, does not mean "judicial process".

                            Oh, wait, is that you Eric Holder???

                            As for me "not liking democracy", that's a creation in your own mind.  The dangers inherent in the rule of the majority must be kept in check.  That is why we have a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.  The masses can easily be led, to their own destruction or the destruction of minority rights.  The rights of the minority have throughout history, always been abrogated, never protected from the tyranny of "majority rule".

                            I'll never support a plan that will deny the expansion of rights to all people, clearly you do.

                             

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 08:01:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And you want the right to be world's superpower. (0+ / 0-)

                            It's amazing how you managed to forget that among all your high ideals is your assertion of a constitutional right to have more arms than the USG.

                            Whatever.  No amount of wanting reasonable things can take away from the fact that you wanting...the "I'd like"...is elevated to a constitutional right, where as what I want doesn't count for shit.  I don't care how benevolent a dictator you are.   And you call ME the tyrant.  What a pile of crap.

                            The dangers inherent in the rule of the majority must be kept in check.
                            Maybe.  But not by you or any other individual who makes "I'd like" into the final word.  

                            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                            by Inland on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:57:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow, just because I want it doesn't mean I'll (0+ / 0-)

                            ever get it.

                            It's just on my "wish list", that's all.  I wish to have that right, which by the way, I currently do, if I move out of NYS.

                            ;0

                            All joking aside, the point was that we were to be the government and it's enforcer...  That our government should not have any more arms than we do.  That was to be the "check" on tyranny.  Can't have a dictator if they don't have the force.  Another reason why our government was spread out and localized or "diffused".  The concentration of power is dangerous, always has been and always will be.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:28:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  So Is Climate Change The Paranoid Kook Issue Bob? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          because there are certainly people here referring to climate change as "SHTF," but they are talking more in generational or geological time scales and nobody seems to be saying  "Getcher gun! Getcher gun!" in that context.

          There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

          by bernardpliers on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:46:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Oh And There's A Typical Troll Tactic (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea
      Are you saying no one here has used that exact (2+ / 0-)
      ... terminology or the acronym for that phrase?
      This is the "Troll reading assignment" tactic, which is a common on-line passive aggressive tactic. .

      Someone makes a troll statement then demands that other people prove or disprove there statement, rather than backing it up themselves.

      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

      by bernardpliers on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:54:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  bernard, I was simply pointing out that the phrase (10+ / 0-)

        ... "when the shit hits the fan" or the acronym SHTF has been used in relation to the need to carry a gun here by those who regularly carry weapons. I then offered examples of just such uses.

        I understand you don't like that, but it is a verifiable fact, bernard. Perhaps you've missed these mentions.

        Here's a thread with an RKBA member parroting, almost word-for-word, a Wayne LaPierre screed about being prepared with an AR15 in the event of a natural disaster and the anarchy and lawlessness that is sure to soon follow.

        This is exactly what I discuss in my initial comment in this thread.

        Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

        by Bob Johnson on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 10:05:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well Bob You Haven't Proved That Point Have You? (0+ / 0-)
          ... "when the shit hits the fan" or the acronym SHTF has been used in relation to the need to carry a gun here by those who regularly carry weapons.
          So far you haven't come up with anyone who "carrys weapons" because of SHTF worries.

          Maybe you'll find an example if you look hard enough, and then you'll only be 98% bullshit.

          There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

          by bernardpliers on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 10:07:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You know, I'm having a little trouble (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zinger99, gerrilea

          figuring out your particular objection. Is it the idea of SHTF, or the 'few' (your after the fact qualification) kossacks who point toward SHTF scenarios as another good (to them) reason to own and/or carry a gun?

          Because SHTF scenarios are a dime a dozen any hour of the day or night here, and there are quite a few issue-theme diaries dealing with various aspects of SHTF prep and/or survival and/or advocacy of policies designed to mitigate SHTF scenarios.

          I figure that if one can legitimately use SHTF scenarios for things like homesteading, food production/ preservation, knowledge of skills almost extinct these days (making soap, rendering fats/oils, designing and installing renewable power generation capabilities, etc., I'd expect that the same sub-justification applies about equally to one's choice to keep and bear arms. Why would it not?

          •  OK, Let's Review What Bob's Fabulous Claims (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea
            The more I read from the conceal carry/open carry crowd, the more I wonder how that feeling continues to infect so much of the gun crowd.

            When I read comments here on Daily Kos from those who regularly carry weapons about being "prepared if the shit hits the fan," I have to wonder what kind scenarios must be playing out in there heads.

            This kind of fear-induced, paranoid belief is stoked by the NRA. In fact, some of the writing I have seen here is a direct echo of the Wayne LaPierre fear formulation about the horrendous and frightening world that takes place after natural disasters, for example.

            The fact that Forde was able to combine this kind of "end times" vision with fear of the "other," is just a further extension of what has been playing out in the gun culture for the last couple of decades when the place of guns on society has transitioned from hunting and varmint elimination to "self-defense."

            The development of the language of fear has been the only way for gun manufacturers to ratchet up sales as hunting has declined in an increasingly urban population.

            Now, we get even a number of folks here who paint this doom scenarios as their very reason for packing heat.

            Bob is explicitly stating that there are people on DailyKos who want a gun on them at all times ("concealed carry," "carry weapons," "packing heat") because of their apocalyptic beliefs, which involve the looming instant collapse of society (like "Doomsday Preppers").  There are people like this, and they can be found on far right wing web sites where they all worry about having to hike home from TGIFs shooting their way through a horde of radioactive zombies (or Puerto Ricans).

            Furthermore, Bob claims that he sees people on DailyKos actually saying they need a gun on their hip at all times because the world might just end in the next  couple hours.  Now he's digging himself into a hole.

            There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

            by bernardpliers on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 12:46:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, you haven't been exactly (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Quicklund, gerrilea

              Mister Calm and Rational in this either, but I do understand your objections. I was merely asking Bob how come a defensive weapon is any less legitimate than staking out a defensible and productive piece of property away from the city and learning how to grow corn is when it comes to notions of SHTF.

              Given scenarios where shit hits fan, of course. Everybody's got their own ideas of when things become so disarranged that survival mode kicks in. Hell, my limit of tolerance was exceeded twenty years ago, my family will do fine when/if some big version of SHTF happens. Some would consider global financial collapse to factor large in such a scenario, and that's been happening for half a decade already. As the energy situation becomes completely untenable, natural resources are done with being depleted, and the Norquist zombies get their wish for total anarchy, others will take whatever steps they can and feel are necessary if they care to survive.

              I'm just wondering where Bob draws the line, or if he truly believes there's nothing going wrong in this country/world that voting for some fully pre-approved and duly leashed politician can't cure.

              •  Bob's Theme Is Used For Threadjacks Day After Day (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea

                And there's the usual gang of people willing to HR anyone who complains, but they've actually been well behaved today.

                This should be a concern about anyone that really wants some form of gun control, because this sort of highly repetitive wankery isn't really helping their cause (if in fact they give a rat's ass about guns).

                You notice, I'm not even taking a position on any of these issues, I'm just calling him out for making up shit.

                There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

                by bernardpliers on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 04:58:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Meh. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gerrilea, Smoh

                  Bob's talking points are no more canned tripe than the NRA's. After awhile, it's pointless from either direction. The rhetoric of the gun control issue hasn't changed, probably never will. I'd just hoped that this time the public outcry and strong levels of support would result in some reasonable restrictions to an unfettered right to willful mayhem. If not on rifle styles, at least on magazine capacity and background checks. Maybe ammo as well. Hell, I'd have added liability insurance requirements.

                  If we couldn't even get that much, Bob's rhetoric doesn't mean shit to a tree. I'm sure that's a lot more frustrating to him than his repetition of canned talking points is frustrating to you.

                  •  NRA Talking Points Don't Threadjack On DK (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gerrilea

                    I don't see people randomly threadjackinng with NRA talking points here.  I do see people trying to conflate gun ownership with paranoia and white supremacy on a daily basis on DailyKos.  Browse my comments for examples.

                    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

                    by bernardpliers on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 08:32:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, fact of the matter (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea, Smoh

                      is that given the actual diary to which your comments have predictably resulted in this march to the right, it is you who have done the threadjacking. The diary is about a notable murderous psychopathic right-winger nut job, not about Bob's grumpy one-liners (for which he and his dog are famous), nor is it about your defensive sensibilities on prominent display.

                      You should have figured out by now that there are lots of kossacks who abhor guns and/or cower in abject fear of guns. Jacking threads and/or diaries denigrating guns and gun owners on those terms is pointless, nobody's mind gets changed.

                      I am a gun owner. Of course my gun is a display of my fear (paranoia) of the things/situations I may need a gun to deal with. The question there is whether or not there's good reason for me or anyone else to be paranoid enough to own a gun, and THAT is the thrust of my question to Bob. Sort of an "aren't things weird enough for you yet?" type of thing per the SHTF reference.

                      I see no reason to get personally offended whenever someone notices the implicit paranoia of owning a gun. I think it's rather humorous, in fact, that people who whine the most about gun owners being paranoid are those who are the most paranoid of guns.

                      Nobody shoots anybody via the internet. And nobody disarms anybody via the internet. See how that works?

                    •  Or, to make it easier, (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea, Smoh

                      I now have a question for you...

                      Are you trying to claim that owning a gun for defensive purposes does NOT display paranoia of people/situations where you might need a gun to defend yourself?

                      •  An individual (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Joieau, gerrilea, andalusi

                        may or may not have a degree of concern/fear that rises to the level of actual paranoia, but still own a gun expressly for possible defensive use.

                        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                        by happy camper on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 09:30:13 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I wasn't going to get picky (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          happy camper, Smoh

                          about the specific term, since it's bandied about from so many directions so indiscriminately these days that it's lost all particular specificity. Just means "afraid" of whatever the term is tossed as applying to. Not much punch as an epithet.

                          I see 'paranoia' in the watered-down sense as being entirely legitimate on both sides of this coin. For whatever that's worth.

                          I would never advise someone terrified of guns to get a gun for defensive use. In that scenario they are much more likely to end up shot by their own gun. Nor would I ever try to prevent someone sincerely afraid of criminals from getting a gun for defensive purposes. Even though they too are much more likely to end up shot by their own gun. It's a right, people choose to exercise it or not.

                          People who are not afraid of guns or people with guns are the only ones who don't deserve the watered-down label 'paranoid'.

      •  bernardpliers, you've utterly out-trolled Bob here (19+ / 0-)

        Bob made one reasonable, thoughtful comment responding directly to the substance of the diary. It was his opinion, and you clearly think he's exaggerating his case.

        Since then, you've thrown a lot of insults and over-reactions (blowing small details out of proportion) at Bob, and have managed to thread-jack one third of the comments in this diary with your personal animus towards Bob.

        Also, since Bob is speaking with a calmer voice, and backing his points up with actual examples, you are making your whole side of the argument appear representative of "gun nuts" who blow up instead of discussing things civilly.

        You do make Bob's work easy.

        "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth" Samuel Johnson

        by Brecht on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 10:13:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bob's Straw Man Arguement Is Used Daily Here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          The premise that DK is infested with right wing conspiracy nuts has become the conventional wisdom among a group of users here, and it gets aired nearly every day, sometimes in multiple diaries.

          If this rose to the level of a metaconspiracy theory (that the supposed conspiracy nuts at  DK are all colluding in some sinister design), then it would rise to the level of CT or Witch Hunt and it could be HR'd on sight.

          There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

          by bernardpliers on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 10:41:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And Bob Compares DK Users To White Supremacist (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          ...child killers.  And I outdid that? Really.

          There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

          by bernardpliers on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 10:49:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (55)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (29)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Media (18)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Labor (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Law (16)
  • GOP (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Health Care (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site