General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEveryone's heart goes out to Boston. Everyone but the NRA and Gun Nuts. They don't care.
http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/everyones-heart-goes-out-to-boston-everyone-except-for-the-nra-and-other-gun-nuts-they-dont-care/Makes me sick.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Using a high-school student's statement to broad brush a large group of people, and then blog about it, seems, well...high schoolish to me.
hack89
(39,171 posts)at least we know where you are coming from.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Read the post again, and this time pay attention to the actual words used, not the ones you think are there.
hack89
(39,171 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I've always inferred it to mean, all things being equal, an extremist; much as the pejorative 'fundies" is also not inclusive of all Christians.
However, I do realize we will often interpret a thing as to better maintain our melodramatic martyrdom.
hack89
(39,171 posts)owning an AR-15 or more than one gun makes you an extremist.
riqster
(13,986 posts)ksoze
(2,068 posts)Although you appear to have simply titled this post the same as this one off blog post, don't be surprised if you get flack. If you use the same title of an inflammatory obscure blog post, expect to be lit up.
riqster
(13,986 posts)If someone wants to argue that "gun nuts" = "all gun owners", well, I'll beg to differ. Especially since I am a gun owner who despises gun nuts.
Debate is why we're here.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)There are millions of gun owners and NRA members who are just as horrified at this cowardly act as any one else in the country.
riqster
(13,986 posts)But the NRA and the nutters are not representative of us. The blog post specifically calls out the NRA and gun nuts, not all gun owners.
Robb
(39,665 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)I have my positions on guns. I do not derive them from NRA/militia/ "patriot"/"sovereign citizen" fantasies, nor do I regurgitate their talking points in defense of my opinions. They feel the need to whip people into a frenzy of fear in order to get political action.
Of course, the gun-control side does as well, so logic and reason, which should be enough... isn't.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Gun nuts don't think they're nuts, it's everyone else who's just being illogical. Film at 11.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)n/t
Robb
(39,665 posts)Everyone else is the problem, aren't they? Just like everyone else's gun is part of the problem, maybe, but certainly not yours. Yours are magical, special snowflakes.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)And that thus the opinions derived from those misconception are therefore, at the least, questionable.
But you'd rather call people names.
Robb
(39,665 posts)I'm not the one that comes running every time someone chastises gun nuts for being gun nuts.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...and then acts surprised when people notice, or you don't get a civil conversation.
Robb
(39,665 posts)...but choose to be offended every time someone talks about gun nuts, you're either an apologist for the gun nuts, a gun nut yourself being insincere about your self-identification, a horrific board nanny, or suffering from tremendous low self-esteem, lying awake nights wondering whether everything negative on the internet might be a slight aimed at you.
I have nothing against gun owners who align themselves with the cause of effective gun safety legislation. I have everything against the rest.
Consider this: if you spend all your time telling everyone how you're the real adult in the room, you're probably not.
TL;DR version: fuck the NRA and their witless apologists.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)But transferring the insult to the problem of the insulted is something I associate with the other side.
How many times have you heard "I'm sorry if somebody was offended..."? The non-apology apology.
And, sorry, but you will not even tolerate a discussion on "effective gun safety legislation", or what "effective" even means.
Robb
(39,665 posts)You're on it already.
Response to Robb (Reply #57)
Post removed
Robb
(39,665 posts)On their behalf, or something? Vicarious indignation?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...that anybody that disagrees with you must be crazy.
Robb
(39,665 posts)...who just don't give a whit about saving anyone's lives but their own in some zero-likelihood-of-ever-happening shootout?
How could ANY term manage to make them smaller than they already are?
premium
(3,731 posts)But the gun nuts are a small minority of gun owners in the country and just because the NRA hasn't commented on this, doesn't mean they're not just as shocked as the rest of the country.
riqster
(13,986 posts)The NRA was quiet after Newtown, and remember what they said when they did open their organizational yap? They used the tragedy to whip up the Gun Nuts and push other crap that the majority of Americans reject.
premium
(3,731 posts)it remains to be seen.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Useless, inflammatory horseshit...
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Hell, the NRA is probably thinking up a new campaign to use this tragedy as a new excuse to push their all Americans should be armed nonsense. They have no shame.
former9thward
(32,019 posts)A high schooler makes a jr. high remark (assuming it is real and not made up by the blogger) and so you think all people that support gun rights own the remark. You must be sick a lot.
riqster
(13,986 posts)It said gun nuts, not "all people that support gun rights". You must not read a lot.
hack89
(39,171 posts)former9thward
(32,019 posts)Not defined of course. That way you can always say "Oh I don't mean you!" to whatever group or individual that you choose. I have read countless posts on DU that define anyone who believes in gun rights to be a "gun nut". Whenever I read the term "gun nuts" it is always by someone who does not respect any gun rights whatsoever.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I am a gun owner. So your statement "Whenever I read the term "gun nuts" it is always by someone who does not respect any gun rights whatsoever." is pretty clearly not applicable to me.
Try to read the words that are actually used by the people you're arguing with instead of inserting your own.
former9thward
(32,019 posts)Who knows what you think of gun rights. Again "gun nuts" is not defined so that you can attack anyone who does not have the same view as you concerning rights. The fact you are relying on an alleged quote by some high school student to attack others shows where you will go.
riqster
(13,986 posts)In my case, I am 55 years old, and so too would be any of my "high-school classmates", nicht wahr?
And anyone who owns a gun cannot be "someone who does not respect any gun rights whatsoever" , now can he?
Attention to detail, Grasshopper...
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)TacoD
(581 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Both I and the classmate are now 55 years old.
We didn't like each other very much back in the 60's or 70's either, but he's on the FB list for reunions, obits and such.
sakabatou
(42,152 posts)But I don't see how that goes for every gun nutter.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)here on DU, our "pro gun progressives"* were running around the forums screaming about how unfair it all was - to "RKBA enthusiasts."
Not ONE word of sympathy or expression of regret for what happened to those kids.
Not ONE murmur of disapproval for the kind of gun culture that produced and helped perpetuate such horrors as had gone on that day.
Not ONE backing down of rabid and fanatical defense of the NRA, and the entire right-wing, GOP-owned gun lobby.
NOT ONE.
Instead all we got was reasons guns were great, and braying about how what was needed to remedy the situation was MORE guns, not less. It truly is sickening, just as you say.
*( )
riqster
(13,986 posts)ApocalypseHow, that is brilliant.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)sarisataka
(18,663 posts)note the times posted.
Within five minutes of the report, there were calls for more gun control, without and mention of sympathy for any victims- at the time it was unknown if there were any.
Pro-2A posters were some of the first to express concern...
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 16, 2013, 05:07 PM - Edit history (1)
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)issue; we knew from the second that the story broke that what it amounted to was some asshole(s) with a gun(s) on a rampage. The facts bore that out. 2(b) FALSE. 3. No, they weren't: and to the extent that they did, it was only within the context of braying about their "right" to tote around high-powered, military-grade weaponry unimpeded, which is to say the "concern" expressed was insincere. Which it was.
Class dismissed.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)2(a)"So what?" I don't think I even need to counter that
2(b) saying it is false does not make it so. Advance search is down or I could show you.
3. Mind reading again? You know if people are sincere or not reading a post, you're good. At the risk of being in error, I would venture there was not one person braying about their right to tote around high-powered, military-grade weaponry unimpeded that day. Probably not any mention of guns at all except in counter to knee jerk reactions.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)sarisataka
(18,663 posts)VPC
Brady Campaign
MADD
WWF
WWE
Planters Nuts
None of them have made statements on Boston. I am sure some of them and the NRA and many others are looking to make political hay about this as well.
Ter
(4,281 posts)I oppose all gun-control, does that make me one? I think the NRA is too weak, I prefer the no-compromise GOA. With that said, my love goes out to everyone hurt in Boston.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Using a tragedy less than 24 hours old to attack a political enemy.
Really shameful.
Btw, have you read DU GD yesterday and today? More than a few focused on blaming the personal political boogeymen, based on nothing.
Talk about making DU suck...
riqster
(13,986 posts)Not so. Here is what the blog post responded to:
I wonder if the people that blew the booms in Boston had or did a mandatory background check to see if they were mentally stable to have explosive devices??????
Nor was it the only example of such sentiment being expressed. Some I have seen were far worse. I'm sure you can easily find tthem yourself. So, it wasn't based on nothing.
I'd also take exception with "attack a political enemy." The post expresses disgust and rage at the inhuman lack of regard for innocent lives that were lost, the terror inflicted, the damage that was done...the gun nut who posted that bit o' shit above in bold does. not. care. Nor do those who think like he does.
I'd submit that expressing outrage at the demonstrated and documented behavior of a person or persons does not necessarily equal attacking a political enemy.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Your post is about a blog (yours?) ranting about a facebook post from some highschool kid. And you use it to attack the NRA and "gun nuts" (love that all purpose term).
You are blind to your own hypocrisy, and yeah, it's pretty damn shameful to use the deaths of people who just yesterday were living to try to score points against your political enemies. It's sickening and indecent.
That's why there are a number of posts calling you out for it.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Whether you choose to believe me is not within my control: it is also not particularly important to me, given the tendentiousness of your posts towards me on this thread.
Here, by the way, is another example of the phenomenon I am objecting to. You'll notice that it is not from me and not from a Facebook post on my timeline: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022686877
As I have said elsewhere, this is a widespread and corrosive attitude on the part of gun nuts and the NRA. I suggest we attack that rather than each other, but you must choose the path that you will walk.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Just sayin'...
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)Until an unspecified period of time after Monday's bombings has passed.
RZM
(8,556 posts)Well, I guess that pretty much covers it.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Rush Limbaugh: http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/17/1202460/-Limbaugh-Jokes-About-Boston-Bombs
It ain't just one asshole on my FB list.