Do you think they call them "bleeding heart liberals" because "bleeding vagina submissives" isn't PC?
Wow, it is starting to stink here like a place where some pigs hang out. Wait, I just caught a wiff.....OMG, it is indeed, a pig pen. Pigs eating their slop and squealing their heads off cuz all the other piggies keep disappearing.....pass the bacon, please.
(01-17-2016, 08:39 PM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think they call them "bleeding heart liberals" because "bleeding vagina submissives" isn't PC?
I don't think PC has anything to do with it, personally.
I think "bleeding vagina submissives" isn't a thing because it comes across as limp and smacks of borderline retardation.
"Bleeding heart liberals" does the trick; it's still got that super sharp "non-PC" edge that's all the rage with today's breed of badass label lovers; like a Member's Only black leather jacket. Never goes out of style.
(01-17-2016, 07:11 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I don't see it as fighting, I see it as paranoia. I say that in general, it's not necessarily directed at you.
We fight every law, rule change, EO, everything because we know that if we give in and give a inch the gun grabbers will take a mile. We don't want to end up being able to own old single shots. We like our semiauto, hi capacity rifles and hand guns. We may one day loose the fight but it will be a long drawn out bloody battle.
(01-17-2016, 08:20 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ] (01-17-2016, 07:11 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I don't see it as fighting, I see it as paranoia. I say that in general, it's not necessarily directed at you.
Of course it is paranoia and I have suggested many times, that those with similar feelings, need to go on meds......
We all give up conveniences, sacrifice certain things, etc. for the good of the masses.....We can grumble, whine, and complain, but that is how the cookie crumbles.....I don't like to be patted down when I take one of my rare airline trips, but it is for good of the majority, and my own personal inconvenience is really meaningless, in the overall scheme of the World.
I say this also, in a general way, but if the shoe fits........
For the good of the masses ? Fuck the masses. Its people with that attitude that tell me I am on the right path. It tells me there are people out there that would love nothing better than to disarm us. I say if you don't like guns, don't buy one. Simple as that. I like them so I do buy them. I am hurting no one.
(01-18-2016, 12:09 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (01-17-2016, 08:39 PM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]Do you think they call them "bleeding heart liberals" because "bleeding vagina submissives" isn't PC?
I don't think PC has anything to do with it, personally.
I think "bleeding vagina submissives" isn't a thing because it comes across as limp and smacks of borderline retardation.
Submissive is the wrong word. Idealist. Conformist. Naive. I'm just looking for a new term because I like Liberals. I'm all for the government. But I want my checks and balances.
(01-17-2016, 10:01 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, it is starting to stink here like a place where some pigs hang out. Wait, I just caught a wiff.....OMG, it is indeed, a pig pen. Pigs eating their slop and squealing their heads off cuz all the other piggies keep disappearing.....pass the bacon, please.
Why don't you go back to your "for the good of the masses" speech. At least you can claim your moral high ground.
I mean, the blatant level of willful ignorance is shocking. Never in the history of the world has everyone chosen the good of the masses. It's the prisoner's dilemma. It's game theory. Eventually, someone always chooses themselves. And the government is just like any other organism that way.
...and so it goes, 'round & 'round. There won't be a solution to this in my lifetime, if ever. People will continue to stockpile guns and tens of thousands of rounds of ammo and live in constant fear of their weapons being taken and the rest of the country will live in constant fear of sending their kids to school during the week and the movies on the weekend and I'll continue to feel sorry for those who lose a loved one to gun violence because another warped individual has gotten their hands on a gun.
I don't consider myself a bleeding heart Liberal but if I did, I would own it. I'm not going to point a finger or call out anyone, there are too many to mention but there is a mentally to some gun owners that is frightening, not all of them are logical thinking people and the fact they live in constant fear of their guns being taken is unnerving at best. I have guns in my home and I don't think I know anyone irl who doesn't own a gun so I'm not opposed to guns. I'm at the point now where I simply don't care and the only thing that matters to me is that myself and those I care about don't encounter a psycho with a weapon. Y'all are on your own. Good luck!
You're not a bleeding heart liberal, Duchess. Which, to me, is a pretty worthless label at any rate -- like "PC", "gun grabber", "gun nut"... I find it more reflective of the mindset of the person doing to the labeling than the one being labeled in most cases. Rather meaningless, but harmless.
And there's not a damned thing wrong with pushing for a better balance between the desire to decrease what some see as a threat to public (or "mass") safety and the desire of some gun enthusiasts and extremists to own and carry whatever firearms/ammo they choose, wherever they choose.
If you're sitting in the middle (like me, and I perceive you), with the view that any gun in the wrong hands is a threat to public safety and most guns in truly responsible hands can increase personal safety, you're bound to be labeled as 'too liberal' by one extreme and 'too conservative' or callous by the other. But, I see it as just being rational. There are some rational changes going into effect now that I believe will help to keep guns out of some of the wrong hands; changes that don't impact qualified and responsible citizens' ability to legally acquire or retain guns in any way.
Don't give up on us baby.
(01-17-2016, 02:59 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]I don't believe any firearms should be restricted. We should be allowed to own anything we want and as many of them as we want. Its not the weapon that does the damage, its the person behind it. SO if someone is bad, slap their hand, but don't spank me because someone else MIGHT be bad.
This is a naive statement given that a person who intends to Do bad things can do them much more efficiently and with greater destruction using the types of weapons currently banned. Like rocket launchers. Or howitzer. Or tanks. Or mortar rockets. Or grenades. All banned for individual sale or heavily regulated. None curently affecting our individual ability to defend our selves. Some weapons need to be controlled and we'll regulated. Because in this country there is no shortage of guns and no shortage of stupidity.
(01-18-2016, 04:49 AM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ] (01-18-2016, 12:09 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Cutz' pid='420355' dateline='1453077595']
Do you think they call them "bleeding heart liberals" because "bleeding vagina submissives" isn't PC?
I don't think PC has anything to do with it, personally.
I think "bleeding vagina submissives" isn't a thing because it comes across as limp and smacks of borderline retardation.
Submissive is the wrong word. Idealist. Conformist. Naive. I'm just looking for a new term because I like Liberals. I'm all for the government. But I want my checks and balances.
(01-17-2016, 10:01 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, it is starting to stink here like a place where some pigs hang out. Wait, I just caught a wiff.....OMG, it is indeed, a pig pen. Pigs eating their slop and squealing their heads off cuz all the other piggies keep disappearing.....pass the bacon, please.
Why don't you go back to your "for the good of the masses" speech. At least you can claim your moral high ground.
I mean, the blatant level of willful ignorance is shocking. Never in the history of the world has everyone chosen the good of the masses. It's the prisoner's dilemma. It's game theory. Eventually, someone always chooses themselves. And the government is just like any other organism that way.
[/quote You all make statements which offend just about everyone. You and some others on here seem to think the World revolves around you......it doesn't.......you are self absorbed, self righteous fools who feels threatened by anyone who challenges you or your beliefs. Get down off your high horse and start exercising your brain. You and your buddies are so intent on disagreeing with the majority of Americans who only want a safer, less violent country, and you are so much, part of the problem. Wanting a safer, less violent nation, is not taking the moral high ground, but you will continue with your blinders on dismissing anyone who has opposing views.....
I know you object to phrases such as "common sense," will of the people, for the good of the masses, etc.....but I like them....
It is tiring to try to "discuss" these issues with you and this thread just goes in circles accomplishing nothing. However, I still feel the grass roots efforts of citizens who are fed up with our country's gun violence, are starting to make a difference; you can now feel free to attack me....
I'm cleaning my 8 mm mauser as I read this and am pissed I didn't start with the 45. This thing is filthy! I'm not even messing with the mag tonight. But its a 98 BCD 4 so its worth it and shoots straight as all hell.
(01-18-2016, 06:02 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]You and some others on here seem to think the World revolves around you......it doesn't.......you are self absorbed, self righteous fools
Get down off your high horse and start exercising your brain.
you are so much, part of the problem.
you will continue with your blinders on dismissing anyone who has opposing views.....
you can now feel free to attack me....
How do you even post shit like this without having an aneurysm? Do you walk up to men and slap them in the face, then say, "You can't hit me back or it's assault."? You're the most vitriolic, self righteous person in this thread. Stop projecting. I have never relied on the agreement of others to make my points. Case in point, your crusade started when I was disagreeing with Six saying that the elevated risk of guns is noteworthy. Meanwhile, you continue to say how most agree with you and that anyone who doesn't needs medication (ignoring for a moment the audacity of throwing drugs at mental illness.) Because you'd rather ridicule anyone who dissents from YOUR opinion.
(01-18-2016, 08:48 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I get frustrated. 
I appreciate your normally open-minded approach to debate. I got a bit combative and did not mean to. I assure you, you were not the cause.
There will always be violence by warped individuals. Yes, guns give them a dangerous level of power. The question is whether the danger is offset by the benefit that the power provides. The debate will continue round by round in circles. No, there is no solution.
But I can tell you that I'm not a gun enthusiast. I'm not a prepper. I'm not a paranoid, warped individual, or whatever propaganda is normally applied to pro-gun. I absolutely believe that an armed populace is a necessary right of a free country. A government of powerless people is the most dangerous thing in history. Am I about to run off and take over federal buildings in Oregon? No. But there is a benefit to that spectacle. Every politician in America sees what could happen.
(01-19-2016, 12:39 AM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ] (01-18-2016, 06:02 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]You and some others on here seem to think the World revolves around you......it doesn't.......you are self absorbed, self righteous fools
Get down off your high horse and start exercising your brain.
you are so much, part of the problem.
you will continue with your blinders on dismissing anyone who has opposing views.....
you can now feel free to attack me....
How do you even post shit like this without having an aneurysm? Do you walk up to men and slap them in the face, then say, "You can't hit me back or it's assault."? You're the most vitriolic, self righteous person in this thread. Stop projecting. I have never relied on the agreement of others to make my points. Case in point, your crusade started when I was disagreeing with Six saying that the elevated risk of guns is noteworthy. Meanwhile, you continue to say how most agree with you and that anyone who doesn't needs medication (ignoring for a moment the audacity of throwing drugs at mental illness.) Because you'd rather ridicule anyone who dissents from YOUR opinion.
(01-18-2016, 08:48 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I get frustrated.
I appreciate your normally open-minded approach to debate. I got a bit combative and did not mean to. I assure you, you were not the cause.
There will always be violence by warped individuals. Yes, guns give them a dangerous level of power. The question is whether the danger is offset by the benefit that the power provides. The debate will continue round by round in circles. No, there is no solution.
But I can tell you that I'm not a gun enthusiast. I'm not a prepper. I'm not a paranoid, warped individual, or whatever propaganda is normally applied to pro-gun. I absolutely believe that an armed populace is a necessary right of a free country. A government of powerless people is the most dangerous thing in history. Am I about to run off and take over federal buildings in Oregon? No. But there is a benefit to that spectacle. Every politician in America sees what could happen.
You are such a defensive prick!
Why are you always in attack mode?
(01-19-2016, 12:39 AM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]I absolutely believe that an armed populace is a necessary right of a free country. A government of powerless people is the most dangerous thing in history.
I generally agree with this; I believe that responsible people who want to arm themselves for self-defense, against violent criminals or even the threat of governmental (domestic or foreign) tyranny, should be able to do so, and should be required to do so safely so as not to pose a threat to innocent people.
I don't think individuals should be able to own every weapon under the sun, though. Donovan's point was a valid one, in my opinion.
(01-19-2016, 12:39 AM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]Am I about to run off and take over federal buildings in Oregon? No. But there is a benefit to that spectacle. Every politician in America sees what could happen.
I'm glad you won't be running off there; you'd probably freeze your balls off out there chasing around the loons and woodpeckers.
I disagree that there's a benefit to that public spectacle, other than its mock-worthiness. It's backwards and dangerous.
So those ranchers want free land, free grazing rights, total freedom to do what they please with federal (which means the national public's) lands for their own profit. Well, alright then. They can protest, petition, run for office, file suit, get the ultra conservative pundits singing their praises... -- stick it to the man, legally and without jeopardizing other people's lives when theirs aren't being threatened.
The fact that there have been no consequences, thus far, for Cliven Bundy showed these guys and every armed extremist that they can disobey the law, threaten law enforcement with loaded weapons, steal other people's property, infringe upon the lives of others, get special treatment, and just carry on doing more of the same in attempt to get what they want. They're the oppressors, not the government, regardless of how one feels about the merits of their cause. The citizens of Burns taking up arms and driving the Bundy interlopers off by force in order to defend/regain their freedoms would be be a better example of why the Second Amendment matters today than what the self-proclaimed "patriot militia' is doing. In my opinion.
(01-19-2016, 02:43 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]So those ranchers want free land, free grazing rights, total freedom to do what they please with federal (which means the national public's) lands for their own profit.
Of course they do, because people are selfish. Maybe we can just tell them it's for the good of the masses and they'll calm down. Then the fishing industry will stop overfishing public oceans, almond farmers in California will stop drying out aquifers, and people who don't pay their taxes will stop enjoying national defense.
(01-19-2016, 02:43 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]no consequences, thus far, for Cliven Bundy showed these guys and every armed extremist that they can disobey the law, threaten law enforcement with loaded weapons, steal other people's property, infringe upon the lives of others, get special treatment, and just carry on doing more of the same in attempt to get what they want. They're the oppressors, not the government, regardless of how one feels about the merits of their cause. The citizens of Burns taking up arms and driving the Bundy interlopers off by force in order to defend/regain their freedoms would be be a better example of why the Second Amendment matters today than what the self-proclaimed "patriot militia' is doing. In my opinion.
I wasn't supporting their cause, honestly I don't know enough about it. But I love that it's an example of what can happen. I don't recommend lawbreaking, but rights and freedom are a reciprocal relationship. It's not always about following every legal avenue to "stick it to the man."
I've seen enough to think currently it's a couple nut balls who have no backing from the general population. Give them a just cause, mix in some inappropriate gov't behavior, and throw a dash of public opinion behind them, and you have the recipe for the perfect example of freedom defining rights, not rights defining freedom. The gov't would be doing more than not punishing them. So do we own guns because we're allowed, or are we allowed because we choose to live that way? Raising arms against the government is a last resort, outside of law, but having the ability to do so is what keeps law from running unabated.
I don't limit my "power to the people" to firearms. Knowledge and reason are important attributes of a powerful populace. The fact that militia men don't have public opinion backing shows the intelligence of a discerning public. We know what happened and why it happened. That information itself is a powerful freedom that keeps checks on balances. I'd be up in arms (pun intended) if the gov't ever tried to censor the internet.
I can understand the slow reduction in liberty resulting in people snapping. A little here a little there until someone gets pissed. Its not right but I can see it happening more in the next few years. This takeover thing is not really a gun issue its more of a government encroachment issue and the results of increased laws.
(01-20-2016, 06:46 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]I can understand the slow reduction in liberty resulting in people snapping. A little here a little there until someone gets pissed. Its not right but I can see it happening more in the next few years. This takeover thing is not really a gun issue its more of a government encroachment issue and the results of increased laws.
It's not a gun rights issue. That's true. It's only a gun issue in the sense that guns are being used to threaten law enforcement in the commission of the militias' crimes.
Anyway, it's not a case of slow reduction of liberties causing those guys to 'snap' either, in my view.
The Bundys have refused to recognize the federal government (except when they want federal loans, of course) and pay taxes for generations. Adhering to longstanding laws that conflict with their sense of entitlement, control, and Mormon beliefs is something they refuse to do. No snapping -- they've wanted to determine how federal land is used and secure preferential treatment for themselves and those with whom they identify, displacing others in the process, for a long time. They're not fighting against 'tyranny', they're fighting for power and profits.
What I am seeing is a slow reduction in law enforcement pursuit and action against such extremists, along with expanded media sources/coverage, emboldening these types of protesters to continue committing crimes.