Expanding on the analogy of "gun control=rape"?

Oleg,
I don't know what to think of your efforts over at the MS board. You are clearly in a battle with a group of persons that clearly appear to have reduced brain capacity. I hate to offer that critisizm that may be taken as an insult, but I truthfully hold that conclusion.

Is all the effort going to turn any of the lurkers away from the "dark side"? If it turns just one, I applaud you. Certainly seems an awefull lot of effort though.

They twist and spin simple sentences and meanings into a huge tangled mess of ideas and concepts. It sounds very well thought out, till closer inspection reveals their argument resembles swiss cheese instead of cheddar.

I was going to post a rebuttle to a couple of posts until I saw how some of those rebuttles were then attacked. You may be winning over a lone lurker, but I doubt you will win any of the posters. And, somehow to me, that makes it seem not worth my time.

Good luck,
I fear you may need it.
I will offer one small post from your request, yet I don't plan to stay long.

Sprig
 
Hey! I went and did it. I went back to that message board and I spit blood on my keyboard from the furry of replying to such drivel.
I think I did fairly well inspite of myself, though I did not pull any punches, well actualy I did, it saved a bit of typing on my part, and maybe allowed me to salvage my keyboard!

-----Here it is-----


Hello,
I am new to this board. I was inspired to contribute because of what godiva wrote. Let me quote and line by line rebuke the arguments.
-----Quote ----
First of all, guns are dangerous. Unlike, for example, chemicals or buckets, guns are supposed to be dangerous. The point of having a gun is to be able to hurt someone.
----------

+++First of all, chainsaws are dangerous, Unlike for example, chemicals or buckets, chainsaws are supposed to be dangerous. The whole point of chainsaws is decapitate and kill defensless living organisms.
+++

-----Quote-----
Those who claim that guns ensure safety seem to be missing the point. Arming everyone does not seem like a rational solution to social problems. If I am afraid of someone robbing my house or assaulting me, I would be better off trying to eliminate whatever it is that causes people to rob my house or assault me.
----------
+++If I am afraid of someone rapping me, I would be better of trying to eliminate whatever it is that causes people to want to rape me. I would have any cavity that a rapist may wish to vilolate surgically altered to prevent such attacks from being phsyically possible.
+++

-----Quote-----
For example, if two children are fighting, we don't arm the smaller child with a bat. We teach them not to fight. ...
----------
+++I was going to ... but no, its to obvious, and to easy, so ... lets continue.
+++


-----Quote----
In order to minimize the danger that guns pose, we might keep better track of who has them and of where they are.
----------

+++Huh? In order to minimze the danger of automoblies, we might keep better track of who has them and where they are. Lets install GPS systems in every vehicle and into everyones skull so that the government can track them so we might better monitor.... Oh God, did I really give the people on this board an idea to take seriously that I only meant to be taken as sarcasim???
+++


-----Quote-----
We might require potential gun owners to demonstrate that they know the rules surrounding gun ownership.
----------
+++RULES to gun ownership??? I have to know rules to own property? Yes, thats clearly what godiva wrote. It wasn't rules to operate property as in the way laws currently affect persons and automobiles. Hey, lets make this rule apply to computers! You have to know the rules of your computer prior to even purchasing one! BTW, whose "rules" are they? Are we playing some kind of game by the rules? (I think you really meant to use the word "laws" inplace of "rules", but I don't want to put words into your mouth.)
+++

-----Quote-----
We might require people to demonstrate that they know how to shoot and store guns in the safest way possible.
----------
+++Ahh, wow. Shooting isn't rocket science. My 8 year old can shoot safely. And I trust his gun handling 100%; not something I feel I would likely say if I was ever around you with a firearm.
Guns don't go off by themselves. I think instead of saying "store guns in the safest way possible" you meant to say "keep firearms away from unsupervised children". But, again, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
+++

-----Snippy Snippy Snip-----
That part was funny though. I might have to come back tomorrow and post a reply on just that part.
---------

-----Quote-----
The only real argument I've heard against such measures is that they will lead to confiscation. I can't convince you that the government isn't out to get you.
----------
+++ You just might want to go back to school and take a few history classes. Perhaps even read the newspapers a little more. I doubt that my post in this forum can convince you that many persons said "the government isn't out to get you." before being slaughtered by the very government they were so proud of.+++

-----Quote-----
The other argument that keeps appearing is about the constitution. I say for I think the fifth time that this argument is a red herring. I do not think the second amendment guarantees my right to own a gun. However, I also don't care.
----------

+++A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.+++

You can not read. How can, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" mean anything other then it says it does? You know those founding fathers could read, and they were pretty damned smart. The knew tyrants would try to say that the right to keep and bear arms might only apply to hunting or sport. So, the first subordinate clause was instilled to make the purpose and intent clear. The Constitution provides for the protection from our governement restricting the finest military assault firearms available. A protection that was first abriged in 1968 I think it was.

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from enemies both forgien and domestic. I did not swear to defend someones new-age polictally correct BS interpretation of it. It means what it says it means, and I meant the oath I took.

You, godiva, are an enemy of Contstitution of the United States of America, and you freely admit it. It is you I am trying to keep from becoming the goverment you want me to trust. I will never trust you. I will never willing let you, or your freedom grabbing aliances, take my God given rights from me or my children.

Sprig
----------

Well, if thats not what you expected, please tell me to back off and I will gladly spend my internet time on something more ejoyable.

Sprig
 
Oleg, you are the man. I say, if you have the patience, go for it. You're doing a great job, and undoubtedly planting the seeds for changed minds. There's just know way in hell I could stay as patient as you do, even if I had all the facts you do at my disposal. KUTGW.
 
I have long since given up on Ms. regulars. However, I have learned a few new ways of dealing with their real-life counterparts and consider the time well-spent. It was a research expedition rather than a missionary one.

I agree on the reduced mental abilities...I lost what little consideration when someone posted the story of ChrisMkIV's spouse defending herself...and the retards there sided with the rapist! They felt her resistance was excessive :rolleyes:

I do think we'd do better dealing with neutrals than with antis. However, I now have new techniques of dealing with neutral and closet anti folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top