Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 easysauce wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I never said owning. I asked why, when those would make other patrons uncomfortable, do you need those weapons in that establishment? When a hand gun is just enough to suffice for protection.

why do people need to be gay? surely a vagina or a hand would suffice?

why do people need to be transgendered? surely their original parts will suffice?

the guns they have, AR's, are functionally IDENTICAL to every other semi auto there is...

and are far better tools for self defence then a handgun is.

There are a lot of jokes to be made about sexual frustration in gun owners based on this post.

Blackhoof wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:
The reason this is ironic, is that the anti gun people proclaim that these laws and rules they make. For example they feel safer about putting a sign up, telling good semeritans that have a legal right to carry concealed weapons that they aren't allowed to bring their legal firearms to their restaurant. The owner is implying in his liberal thought that, this sign will prevent gun crimes, when in fact, it advertises to criminals that the establishment is a gun free zone and most likey an easy score.

Ooor you are making gak up and the owner put up a sign to say that patrons can dine in a gun free environment. You know, without the insane belief that a sign somehow magically protects you from all harm... you know, like a gun does...

I would never blame a rape victim for being raped, but it's still probably not a good idea for a women to walk down a dark alley drunk and naked.

So... you would blame a rape victim if they did that and were subsequently raped?... so you would blame a rape victim. I see.

I would blame the rape victim for being as stupid as someone who stuffed chunks of raw meat in their pockets and strolled into a cage with freshly caught Lions for what ensued.
If you go willingly alone and vulnerable into areas where people of ill will are known to frequent, gak is gonna happen, so don't act hurt and surprised when it does.

Except that people are not lions, nor are rapes accidental. They are thinking, rational beings capable of thinking and reason, and they can realise that rape is wrong whether or not a woman is naked or "asking for it". So no, a rape victim is NEVER asking for it, no matter what he/she does, unless they literally ask for it. Supreme culpability is NEVER taken from the perpetrator, no matter what the victim did to contribute to the situation.

Perhaps you could say to the woman wandering in an alley at night "well, you shouldn't have done that..." and in hindsight, no she shouldn't have, but who decided to rape her? Who bears the fault for her rape? The rapist, of course.

Never said rape was accidental or the rapist blameless. P

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Unless you are born a gun, this might be the most out there comparison in this thread yet.

Im a gun, but I was born in the body of a sexy sexy man.

Can't disprove it

Explains the quick fires and negligent discharges...

 d-usa wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Unless you are born a gun, this might be the most out there comparison in this thread yet.

Im a gun, but I was born in the body of a sexy sexy man.

Can't disprove it

Explains the quick fires and negligent discharges...

Oh god you got me, i cant stop smirking at work.

 Polonius wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I never said owning. I asked why, when those would make other patrons uncomfortable, do you need those weapons in that establishment? When a hand gun is just enough to suffice for protection.

why do people need to be gay? surely a vagina or a hand would suffice?

why do people need to be transgendered? surely their original parts will suffice?

the guns they have, AR's, are functionally IDENTICAL to every other semi auto there is...

and are far better tools for self defence then a handgun is.

There are a lot of jokes to be made about sexual frustration in gun owners based on this post.

THEN MAKE THEM! I could use a laugh! Even if its a cheap one on the ol "gun owners have small pee pee's trope" that anti gunners love to stereotype away on.

at least follow d-usa's lead above, geese.. I would have thought this was the quote to make jokes about

 d-usa wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Unless you are born a gun, this might be the most out there comparison in this thread yet.

Im a gun, but I was born in the body of a sexy sexy man.

Can't disprove it

Explains the quick fires and negligent discharges...

also explains the 18.5 inches, why I need a high capacity assault clip, barrel shroud, and that shoulder thing that goes up.

remember, always set it to safe and practice safe sex, dont want to impregnate anyone that forcefully...

 easysauce wrote:



THEN MAKE THEM! I could use a laugh! Even if its a cheap one on the ol "gun owners have small pee pee's trope" that anti gunners love to stereotype away on.

Naw, nothing like that. Just the choice to compare wanting a specific gun to a person's preference for the gender of their partner, or even their own gender, is interesting. It was clearly meant to trivialize those, by comparing wanting a toy to a sexual orientation, but in many ways it speaks instead to the profound longing and unhappiness rooted in so many gun enthusiasts.

I'm not saying they're all gay (though I'm sure there's more than zero deeply closeted gun guys), but rather I wonder what sublimated fears or desires are expressed through the gun?

 Polonius wrote:
but rather I wonder what sublimated fears or desires are expressed through the gun?

Or more likely they just like a sweet toy which also doubles as home defense.

I mean, if your gonna protect yourself, might as well do it in style. Gotta have swag man Don't want to just shoot that burglar, you want him to piss his pants in fear when he stares down that jet black barrel you've got leveled at him or hears you rack your 12 guage.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
but rather I wonder what sublimated fears or desires are expressed through the gun?

Or more likely they just like a sweet toy which also doubles as home defense.

I mean, if your gonna protect yourself, might as well do it in style. Gotta have swag man Don't want to just shoot that burglar, you want him to piss his pants in fear when he stares down that jet black barrel you've got leveled at him or hears you rack your 12 guage.

Oh, I'm a firm believer in the "barbie's dreamhouse" theory of gun ownership. Boys and their toys, and all that. My buddy has six guns (but a barely running car) for the same reason I have well over 200 paints: because they are cool.

Still, I don't feel passionate about my paints, or openly carry them, or anything like that. I guess it's not the desire, but the profound level of desire. Gun guys feel about guns how teenage characters on CW dramas feel about each other.

 Polonius wrote:
Still, I don't feel passionate about my paints, or openly carry them, or anything like that. I guess it's not the desire, but the profound level of desire. Gun guys feel about guns how teenage characters on CW dramas feel about each other.

I wish some people had this same idea when it came to their political opinions. The type of guy that would carry an AR in to a restaurant just to make a statement is the same kind of person that will lock themselves naked in a cage on the sidewalk for PETA.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Again, can someone explain to me, other then fore sport shooting, why they need those guns? Surely a handgun is enough for protection?

Because they have very small penises.

I'm sure other people own very similar guns for entirely sound reasons, but for those two guys need those guns to compensate for small penises.its definitely compensation.

My first comment made it look like I only have two schools of thoughts: hippies or if you own a gun, you're a psycho. That wasn't the message I intended to convey. Apologies. I still think the signs are an invite to rob. And not much is gonna change my mind on that.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/23/conservatives-misplaced-schadenfreude-over-robb/199452

Seems as though there is no link between "no-gun zones" and criminals selecting those places for crimes.

You would think that there was, but there isn't, apparently, or at least not an obvious one.

The fact that a store even has to put up a sign saying "No guns!" speaks to a far more ingrained problem.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The fact that a store even has to put up a sign saying "No guns!" speaks to a far more ingrained problem.

And what problem do you believe that to be?

Blackhoof wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/23/conservatives-misplaced-schadenfreude-over-robb/199452

Seems as though there is no link between "no-gun zones" and criminals selecting those places for crimes.

You would think that there was, but there isn't, apparently, or at least not an obvious one.

Just wanted to point out that Media Matters is heavily biased. Take that with some salt with that.

But, it was likely a way to discriminate CCW folks than a way to "ward off" potential robbers.

 Polonius wrote:

 easysauce wrote:



THEN MAKE THEM! I could use a laugh! Even if its a cheap one on the ol "gun owners have small pee pee's trope" that anti gunners love to stereotype away on.

Naw, nothing like that. Just the choice to compare wanting a specific gun to a person's preference for the gender of their partner, or even their own gender, is interesting. It was clearly meant to trivialize those, by comparing wanting a toy to a sexual orientation, but in many ways it speaks instead to the profound longing and unhappiness rooted in so many gun enthusiasts.

I'm not saying they're all gay (though I'm sure there's more than zero deeply closeted gun guys), but rather I wonder what sublimated fears or desires are expressed through the gun?

Tell that to my cross dressing/trans range buddy...

he thought it was hilarious.

FYI, it was not meant to "clearly trivialize" anything... people can think they are whatever they want, believe they are a man/woman, believe in god, simply because they feel like it, no proof required, nor proof of "need".

also, that you attach so many emotional ... irregularities/conditions to people simply because of a tool they own, is a stereotype, and a false one. Most gun owners I know are successful happy people, who at the very least, tolerate every kind of person. That you paint "so many" as having huge holes in their lives that need a gun to fill them is just as much a wrong stereotype as sports cars owners having small pee pees, or gay people being effeminate perverts.

Anyways, lets just give each other the benifit of the doubt, IM sure you dont actually believe the majority of gun owners are actually the stereotypes you seem to be saying they are, and Im not trivializing peoples sexuality.

By comparing the two, I am in fact, saying its just as important to be able to express/be/ect whatever sexual identity you want, despite some people finding it distasteful or not understanding why, as it is to be able to own whatever firearms despite the same.

 whembly wrote:

Just wanted to point out that Media Matters is heavily biased. Take that with some salt with that.

Given some of the sources you use I'm not sure you can make that judgment.

 easysauce wrote:

FYI, it was not meant to "clearly trivialize" anything... people can think they are whatever they want, believe they are a man/woman, believe in god, simply because they feel like it, no proof required, nor proof of "need".

Sure, if they're sitting alone in a room. But once said person starts interacting with others in a manner which involves their belief reasons, and proof of those reasons, are required.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Just wanted to point out that Media Matters is heavily biased. Take that with some salt with that.

Given some of the sources you use I'm not sure you can make that judgment.

Well... pox on you too!

Media Matters is like the opposite spectrum to Breibart or the Blaze. When's the last time you see me sourced them boyo?

 easysauce wrote:


also, that you attach so many emotional ... irregularities/conditions to people simply because of a tool they own, is a stereotype, and a false one. Most gun owners I know are successful happy people, who at the very least, tolerate every kind of person. That you paint "so many" as having huge holes in their lives that need a gun to fill them is just as much a wrong stereotype as sports cars owners having small pee pees, or gay people being effeminate perverts.

Just wanted to repost this, for anyone who may have missed it.

 whembly wrote:

Well... pox on you too!

Media Matters is like the opposite spectrum to Breibart or the Blaze. When's the last time you see me sourced them boyo?

You recently sourced Bloomberg Business Week, which is just as biased as Breitbart or The Blaze.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Well... pox on you too!

Media Matters is like the opposite spectrum to Breibart or the Blaze. When's the last time you see me sourced them boyo?

You recently sourced Bloomberg Business Week, which is just as biased as Breitbart or The Blaze.

Sources justifying claim?

 djones520 wrote:

Sources justifying claim?

Yes, when I click on it the link goes to his original post.

Otherwise, Whembly is being pushed into the theory of justification.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Sources justifying claim?

Yes. Whembly is being pushed into the theory of justification.

No, I was asking for your source. Since it's Editor in Chief came there from Time Magazine, and the only real claims of bias I've seen from them is that they lean only slightly left, I'm curious how you'd equate them to rabidly biased sources such as Media Matters and The Blaze.

 djones520 wrote:

No, I was asking for your source. Since it's Editor in Chief came there from Time Magazine, and the only real claims of bias I've seen from them is that they lean only slightly left, I'm curious how you'd equate them to rabidly biased sources such as Media Matters and The Blaze.

The post Whembly cited?

Think we're looking at it wrong As pointed out earlier, I think. Our education system is at a new low if they could not read "No Guns"

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Just wanted to point out that Media Matters is heavily biased. Take that with some salt with that.

Given some of the sources you use I'm not sure you can make that judgment.

 easysauce wrote:

FYI, it was not meant to "clearly trivialize" anything... people can think they are whatever they want, believe they are a man/woman, believe in god, simply because they feel like it, no proof required, nor proof of "need".

Sure, if they're sitting alone in a room. But once said person starts interacting with others in a manner which involves their belief reasons, and proof of those reasons, are required.

So, you are asking all trans people to prove that they are in fact, the gender they claim to be, as opposed to the gender their genes/naughty bits say they are?

So more of "they are crazy, and their identities are just insanities" then.

Same thing can be applied to god, or the lack of god, have fun presenting me with proof of either....

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The fact that a store even has to put up a sign saying "No guns!" speaks to a far more ingrained problem.

You spelled imagined wrong.

 Breotan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The fact that a store even has to put up a sign saying "No guns!" speaks to a far more ingrained problem.

You spelled imagined wrong.

Yeah, seriously...

Jebus. We have some serious education system issues that we need to improve.

 easysauce wrote:
Most gun owners I know are successful happy people, who at the very least, tolerate every kind of person.

That's been my experience in real life as well. On every range I have ever been on, generally, there has been an air of friendliness and camaraderie. Unfortunately, there is a very vocal cadre of gun owners on them there interwebs that really, really warp that template. This is the general, public facing view of gun culture the average non-gun owner is likely to encounter, probably.

I love guns, I like shooting, but I am really turned off by gun culture. I wish it was possible to divorce the shooting hobby from the, in my opinion, fairly extreme political views that seem inextricably entwined with them.

 djones520 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The fact that a store even has to put up a sign saying "No guns!" speaks to a far more ingrained problem.

You spelled imagined wrong.

Yeah, seriously...

I think HBMC had a reasonable supposition, truthfully. I mean, that sign got there for a reason. I know what assuming makes me, but I have to presume there was some kind of incident(s) that led to it going up, and that incident was not an armed robbery, as no reasonable person would expect such a sign to fix that issue....

But, who knows - not any of us 4, anyway.