Our discussions are a lot of wishful thinking and venting. But none of it will be reality.

Our discussions "about ending slavery" are a lot of wishful thinking and venting. But none of it will be reality.

Ever forward

Exactly right.

I rest my case.

You have no case.

Now is the time to make change.

Resting a case on mere prophecy is irrational. Expected, yet still irrational.

(insert logical fallacy below to maintain pretense of critical thought...)

as fine people as they were. The Civil War ended slavery. With 600,000 dead to cement it.

Once we hit your magic target of 600,000 corpses, can we please have some sensible gun regulation?

doesn't always have to be accomplished with violence and death.

I remember a time when no one believed the rights of non-smokers mattered much. Smokers lit up anywhere, anytime. Many smokers have seen a 180 change in attitudes toward their habits. That happened without violence when enough people became convinced that the actions of the smokers impacted the health of others.

I don't think we will ever change the culture of violence we have allowed to develop. It has undermined our sense of security and safety. We can still mourn the loss though.

Statistics tell us that fewer Americans are armed than ever, but there are more guns because some gun owners are hoarding caches. They are the dangerous ones. They act like they are in an arms race, and the rest of us are at their mercy.

Unarmed Americans' lives matter too. And maybe our need for safety trumps the gun fetishists' constant desire to escalate their arms race.

But I doubt it. The ones whose guns compensate for inadequacies in their lives will not give up their security blankest even if it means their infantile needs put everyone else's lives in danger. Ask the NRA why they are so scared they have to point their rifles in our faces.

cigarettes are more restricted than guns are. There are many places where you can legally carry a firearm but not legally smoke. Can you own a firearm before you turn 18? I think you can in most states. But you can't buy cigarettes. In my state, i think they changed the law to 21. You can join the Army at 18, but you can't drink or smoke til you're 21? I'm sure this point has been made before, but it still Seems incongruous. BTW, of course kids shouldn't smoke and drink... but damn. It's a long ways from being trained to kill people in far off lands.

...sides are so incredibly predictable that they both have frickin' 'Bingo' cards, but neither one is capable of working something out nor seeing that they're being fed those cards by the people who want them fighting.

Ah, well. Maybe one day the Joy of Outrage will give way to the Cause of Fairness.

penis reference by mother jones really makes it hard to get people on your side. I am very surprised that mother jones allowed this "bingo card" to be published.

as I told a couple of members here.
If this is all the gun control organizations have, then they are in really bad shape and the pro 2A org. have nothing to worry about.

Almost as good as this...



That's Ron Jeremy, world renowned actor.

Spectacular.

I'm horking that!

They pick the dude with the 10" cock to mock about penis size. Massive gun grabber fail

You are using a right wing phrase to accuse someone else of fail?

Whatever label you prefer

toting their weapons for attention I assume they are lacking in certain areas - penis issues are one of them. I am not the only one either.
When guys are fixated on their weapons to the point of talking about them often and/or being an exhibitionist with them, they may think they look tough etc. The actual reaction from others may be something entirely different.

because the post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. But we will have proven the point if they do...

seriously - WHY?

Ansent! lots of lost opportunities. Democratic Party doesn't do anything for fear of losing elections. Republicans just don't want to do anything.

n/t

reference by mother jones really makes this "bingo card."

K&R!

Seems childish and immature.

nuts are obviously compensating for something they feel is missing. They lean on guns to boost their bravado and masculinity. I've seen that with my own two eyes. So, again, what is it that we can attribute it to without being judged by you as being "immature"?

John Holmes dick while he's holding a gun means nothing to me and does nothing to answer my question.

It was just a reminder, that your 'opinion' does not seem to reflect reality, at least at times.

makes guys like John Holmes salivate over big guns. So far you have failed to answer the question I posted.

If someone had posted a picture of John Holmes salivating over a big gun, I might have some idea as to why you're asking.

the little dicks theory but have no ideas otherwise. Thank you.

The picture doesn't show him 'salivating' over a gun big or small.

So whats the deal with women who like guns then, the 'no dick' theory?

I told the wife a minute ago what this whole 'dick theory thing' is supposed to mean, and reminded her that I haven't bought a gun in ten plus years. She tells me its just big happy coincidence.

this whole topic about little dicks and guns ... and big-dicked male porn stars.

Your wife is witty .

To be fair, I did look for a picture of John Holmes but all I found was one of Howard Stern.

/sarcasm

Seriously, do you call-out ~every~ redundancy?
If so, your post-count would be a ~lot~ higher.

You think comparing firearm owners to a limp dick is the proper way to have a debate?
Sorry, but my opinion is that it's childish, immature, and does nothing to further the debate.

what or what is not proper for this debate.

Please answer the question.

I've never known someone like that.
There probably are a small minority that are compensating for something, but to compare firearm owners with a small dick is, again, childish and immature IMO.

can fucking tell you that if you haven't been around them, you cannot judge the opinion of those who have. I don't know if it's about little dicks, but I can damn fucking sure tell you what it looks like. And while I realize how childish it might look when someone attributes it to a little dick, I can tell you that it sure as hell is as common an opinion as there is here where I live. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard "He must be compensating for a little dick" by people here who don't like guns. I guess they're all childish then. Personally, I don't think about dick size as much as I think about them needing guns to look tough or to feel like a man or to be perceived by others as a man. The reason for this might just be little dicks. There's no way to know for sure. But, even if it's not about little dicks, it's about something. Which was the question I asked you, since you have judged the most common reason people entertain as being "childish".

And let's be honest here, the childish and immature comments come from extremists on both sides of the issue, I've done it on occasion, but lately, I've been trying to avoid it, 3 time outs in 2 months tends to do that to one's attitude.
Anyways, you have a great night, it's raining here.....again.

...do go enjoy the rain.

PS: Been there, done that re: time outs. Glad you're back with us, please try to stick around, lol.

And most would also say they are paranoid. IMO.

because I no longer care what the gun fetishists have to say.

people more offended by penis jokes than by massacres

After they get over the injury they suffer from penis-related humor, the larger argument tends to break down into two camps:

1. We should take serious steps to stop these weekly massacres from happening

2. MORE REGULATION WON'T WORK!1!!!
[font color="white"]2. [/font]MENTAL HEALTH BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!1!!
[font color="white"]2. [/font]2ND AMENDMENT NOBODY BETTER TAKE MY GUNS!!!!!1!

It seems that those that are amused by that graphic would rather have some fun instead of actually attempting to reach a compromise on gun control. I believe that a UBC bill could become law with some serious nefotiations. It appears the gun-control advocates on DU would rather poke fun at the issue. I have seen many anti-RKBA cartoons on DU that only inflame the gun control issue rather than to seek a aolution.

The gun humpers are about as reasonable on this subject as Kim Davis.

They have the political clout and will to kill any reasonable reform. The only viable tactic is to shame them.

If the pro-control side gives up that easily, it is not surprising that there is little progress made in getting a UBC passed.

It would have been DOA in the House.

The key is not to reason with gun nuts, but to marginalize them.

Good luck to you. (sigh)

...which will not be done

...over the intended shamee. "Do what we want, or we'll make more
dick jokes about you" doesn't exactly cut it...

Treating them like the deranged cargo cult weirdos they are is the only way to work around their crazy asses.

They care more about guns than human lives.

NRA= Tea Party on steroids.

Fuckem.

Where you lot go to your keyboards, they write checks, go to meetings-and have a
high voting rate.

In the real world, elections matter and empty slacktivism doesn't. Mother Jones had this
to say about the subject:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/gun-controls-biggest-problem-most-people-just-dont-care-very-much

(And regular old shootings for that matter) do, indeed, have moral authority over people whose hobby contributes to things like Newtown or Today's latest killing

...than the other side it will be all for naught.

Anything that doesn't get voters to the polls is mere slacktivism, however high-minded
it may be.

It's not just the bribes ("campaign donations&quot , it's the hundreds of millions of dollars given to groups like the NRA for the express purpose of mobilizing voters. I believe they're a minority's of voters, but they're loud and they actually get out and vote.

...you would do well to listen:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/gun-controls-biggest-problem-most-people-just-dont-care-very-much

The dick jokes are just so many sour grapes.

I fail to see how my collecting Hummel figurines has anything to do with shootings.

Including the death threats, directed at me and my family. Enough is way more than enough.

All of these were said here on DU in rhe last few days. There were a couple more expressions of desire for gun owners to simply be killed but I brush it off as hypocritical rhetoric.

Expressing desire for children to die is sick. To some (or many- since there has been little said against these statements) it is ok because it is just the 'gun humper's children.

It's hyperbole, but it's not hypocritical. I submit that no one who posts such messages actually wishes harm to befall the children of even the most rabid gun-advocate. It's intended as rather straightforward hyperbole, and it's interesting that such a rhetorical device is lost on you.

The most vocal gun-advocates are famously and plainly (and proudly) insensitive to the horror and suffering endured by survivors and the families of victims of mass shootings and the like. The gun-advocates' callous worship of so-called "gun rights," exhalting them even while the bodies are still strewn about the crime scene, reveals their inhuman cruelty. They mock the actual deaths of these innocent victims solely for their own political (and/or economic) benefit. It is a disgusting, perverse and pervasive sentiment that proves conslusively that such people should be forbidden to issue proclamations on any gun-related issue. Although most gun-advocates aren't that kind of vile sociopath, gun-advocates clearly have no interest nor desire to rein in those horrific assholes.

In contrast, what you're seeing on DU is hyperbole. If you think it's over-the-top, then alert on it. If you truly think that anyone is calling for the deaths of these children, then you should drop what you're doing and notify the police.

This is the bizarre lesson, repeatedly proven in recent days: any discussion of gun violence must screech to a halt if a gun-advocate can find some turn of phrase by which to be offended. Whether it's apopleptic indignation at the evil of penis jokes or the inability to understand hypberole in contexts, we see again and again that gun-advocates are remarkably fragile, unable to withstand written text that offends their delicate sensibilities.

Maybe the pen is mightier than the sword, after all.

"I am so offended by violence that I want more violence", hyperbole or not. If something similar came from the right it would roundly and justly be condemned here.

You talk about how gun-advocates refuse to reign in the assholes. Yet you will excuse gun control advocates from acting like similar assholes. I refuse to sink to the bottom of the swamp.

I have rebuked some of the gun-advocates that have gone too far. I alert very rarely and have a 90%+ hide record. Most of the ones that did not get hidden were such over the top calls for death to gun owners and their families. I have come to accept that there is a double standard.

Well, no, that's not what it's saying. What it's saying is "These people are so callously dismissive of the victims' suffering that it would be helpful if they could be made to empathize with the victims of gun violence." It's the "walk a mile in his shoes" sentiment with a slightly harsher edge.

I understand that it's important for you to paint your opponents as reactionary hypocrites, but that's simply not the case.

Would it? Would it really? Give me an example, because your hypotheticals don't interest me. Show me an example of someone from the right calling for violence in response to a violent occurrence caused by or dismissed by the left. Otherwise you're making it up.

Not really. One one side we have a group that is sick and tired of unchecked and largely unregulated carnage perpetrated weekly, and that side uses harsh, hyperbolic rhetoric to convey its long-standing and quite reasonable frustration.

On the other side, we have a group that will go to preposterous lengths to resist any effort at sensible, effective gun regulation, and they'll roll right over the actual bloodshed and tragedy.


You're trying to equate a clearly hyperbolic rhetorical device--that harms no one--to an active and ongoing campaign to exploit the actual deaths of actual gun victims in real time. Your comparison is simply untenable.

go on

that is NOT the general sentiment on DU - there are always those who sink to the level of the people they're angry with

Yes, I still encounter that one from time to time, if you can believe that. Other than that, spot on.

I mean, throwing out ideas for their (alleged) minds to chew on, such as the pen being mightier than the sword. Or the idea that one who lives by the sword is likely to die by the sword.

Of course, Einstein will then reply that he doesn't understand what swords have to do with guns....Swords might be too much for these guys to swallow....

On second thought, all metaphor may be ill-advised with these kookoo-birds. They don't seem capable of complex thought such as symbolism, do they?

I guess I answered my own question as to whether reasoning might be possible.

Yeah, I heard that one today.

Right here, on the DU.

What that poster said is more people are killed in bicycle accidents than by assault weapons. Which is a true statement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11729858

But the real reason nobody can argue with gun nuts is the same reason as nobody can talk with anti abortion zealots. Communication doesn't happen at all!