birdog1960 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 So you want me to educate myself on the gun lobby by reading the results of an HuffPo search? maybe you'd enjoy the economist article more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 maybe you'd enjoy the economist article more. No I'd rather hear from the guy who brought up the gun movement to explain what it is and what percentage of gun owners or pro gun people are part of the movement. You did use the word largely when describing the portion of the gun community as paranoid wannabes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 No I'd rather hear from the guy who brought up the gun movement to explain what it is and what percentage of gun owners or pro gun people are part of the movement. You did use the word largely when describing the portion of the gun community as paranoid wannabes. i told you what i define it as. you don't like the answer. the paranoid wannabes is clearly an opinion. i'm not sure it's possible to quantify paranoid wannabes. it's kinda like obscenity and scotus' definition of it: you know it when you see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 i told you what i define it as. you don't like the answer. the paranoid wannabes is clearly an opinion. i'm not sure it's possible to quantify paranoid wannabes. it's kinda like obscenity and scotus' definition of it: you know it when you see it.Any chance you'd mind an attempt at defining it? Perhaps by making a few examples of both what would be, and what would not be, in your admitted opinion, "paranoid wannabes"? I understand, and don't disagree, that a lable like that would be hard to apply and directly quantify, but certainly there must be examples, which in your mind fall just over that line in one direction or another. It may be valuable to the conversation if you could do so, and I'd be grateful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) Any chance you'd mind an attempt at defining it? Perhaps by making a few examples of both what would be, and what would not be, in your admitted opinion, "paranoid wannabes"? I understand, and don't disagree, that a lable like that would be hard to apply and directly quantify, but certainly there must be examples, which in your mind fall just over that line in one direction or another. It may be valuable to the conversation if you could do so, and I'd be grateful. According to me he told me how he would define it but it didn't see his definition anyplace. I really just want to know if, as a gun owner, I would be considered a paranoid wannabe. It's just something I'd like to know. Edited February 24, 2015 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 A world of pain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 According to me he told me how he would define it but it didn't see his definition anyplace. I really just want to know if, as a gun owner, I would be considered a paranoid wannabe. It's just something I'd like to know. I don't believe that would be the case, as if I remember correctly, he's a gun owner himself. I don't believe he'd characterize himself that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I don't believe that would be the case, as if I remember correctly, he's a gun owner himself. I don't believe he'd characterize himself that way. No I'm not implying he thinks all gun owners are paranoid wannabe because yes he said he is a gun owner. I just what to figure out how many gun owners he things are paranoid wannabes seeing he used the work largely. And what traits that a gun owner would posses to cause him to consider them a paranoid wannabe. And BTW a wannabe what?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) other than the bolded rhetorical question, i applaud your efforts here. the <fill in the blank> community are largely paranoid wannabes that have yet to achieve their desired places and secretly believe they can achieve them by force and even revolution if necessary. some eagerly await anarchy and the chance to utilize their finely honed <blank> skills. the movement, at it's heart, is largely about the possibility of mass treason. it's not about <purported cause>. Not to pile on, but I think it's funny how this reads if you replace "gun" with various ethnic, religious, and minority groups. Like "black," "Jewish," or "Muslim." See how it works with "gay" too. Really puts it in perspective. Edited February 25, 2015 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Not to pile on, but I think it's funny how this reads if you replace "gun" with various ethnic, religious, and minority groups. Like "black," "Jewish," or "Muslim." See how it works with "gay" too. Really puts it in perspective. The best part is how he "believes" the people who don't agree with his political views are the ones who are paranoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Not to pile on, but I think it's funny how this reads if you replace "gun" with various ethnic, religious, and minority groups. Like "black," "Jewish," or "Muslim." See how it works with "gay" too. Really puts it in perspective. this is clever. but show me where a supreme court justice champions another cause so specifically and in such a radical way. now that would be really clever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I don't believe that would be the case, as if I remember correctly, he's a gun owner himself. I don't believe he'd characterize himself that way. That's typical of the left. YOU can't be trusted with a gun but due to there heightened state of enlightenment they can. this is clever. but show me where a supreme court justice champions another cause so specifically and in such a radical way. now that would be really clever. Radical? explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 this is clever. but show me where a supreme court justice champions another cause so specifically and in such a radical way. now that would be really clever. I assume you're speaking of Scalia? If so I'd be interested to hear your rationale on this. And to a lesser extent how it alters the nature of your generalization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 That's typical of the left. YOU can't be trusted with a gun but due to there heightened state of enlightenment they can. Radical? explain. i can be trusted with a 12 gauge shotgun and would gladly submit to a screening process before taking possession. i wouldn't trust myself with an automatic weapon designed for killing humans nor would i desire one. and i wouldn't want anyone to have access to any gun without a thorough background check. I assume you're speaking of Scalia? If so I'd be interested to hear your rationale on this. And to a lesser extent how it alters the nature of your generalization. read the economist article i linked. can't articulate it any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 here, i'll make it easy: Nonetheless, I applaud Mr Scalia for doing his part to make this aspect of the gun-rights debate clearer. If the purpose of the second amendment is to enable citizens to resist the government, then the entire regime of current gun restrictions needs to be overturned: citizens need to be able to buy fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, military-grade explosives, remote detonators, armoured vehicles with mounted artillery, surface-to-air missiles, light bombers, armed drones, everything. If some citizens want to keep and bear arms in order to take on the power of the federal government, that's what it's going to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 i can be trusted with a 12 gauge shotgun and would gladly submit to a screening process before taking possession. i wouldn't trust myself with an automatic weapon designed for killing humans nor would i desire one. and i wouldn't want anyone to have access to any gun without a thorough background check. read the economist article i linked. can't articulate it any better. Interesting you don't trust yourself. Possibly you're projecting your thoughts on others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 read the economist article i linked. can't articulate it any better. The article's a bit misleading, but even taken at face value I really don't see how that's any more extreme than any number of justices on any number of issues. And even if it's absolutely nuts I still don't see how that makes your generalization any more accurate or applicable than the alternatives I suggested. here, i'll make it easy: Nonetheless, I applaud Mr Scalia for doing his part to make this aspect of the gun-rights debate clearer. If the purpose of the second amendment is to enable citizens to resist the government, then the entire regime of current gun restrictions needs to be overturned: citizens need to be able to buy fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, military-grade explosives, remote detonators, armoured vehicles with mounted artillery, surface-to-air missiles, light bombers, armed drones, everything. If some citizens want to keep and bear arms in order to take on the power of the federal government, that's what it's going to take. That's clearly not what Scalia said. That's the author's attempt at a reductio ad absurdum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 here, i'll make it easy: Nonetheless, I applaud Mr Scalia for doing his part to make this aspect of the gun-rights debate clearer. If the purpose of the second amendment is to enable citizens to resist the government, then the entire regime of current gun restrictions needs to be overturned: citizens need to be able to buy fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, military-grade explosives, remote detonators, armoured vehicles with mounted artillery, surface-to-air missiles, light bombers, armed drones, everything. If some citizens want to keep and bear arms in order to take on the power of the federal government, that's what it's going to take. The old all or nothing argument of the left. "The governments too big." "You want no government? Move to Somalia." It's the debating device of the weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) The article's a bit misleading, but even taken at face value I really don't see how that's any more extreme than any number of justices on any number of issues. And even if it's absolutely nuts I still don't see how that makes your generalization any more accurate or applicable than the alternatives I suggested. That's clearly not what Scalia said. That's the author's attempt at a reductio ad absurdum. you don't see absurdity in the suggestion that shoulder mounted missile launchers should be available to the general populace? part of his documented argument involves maintaining the option orf rebelling against the gov't. it's right there in black and white. if that's the goal then much more radical laws must be written or interpreted. Edited February 25, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 you don't see absurdity in the suggestion that shoulder mounted missile launchers should be available to the general populace? That's not what he said. He dodged the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts