This silly thread started because someone said OH NOES THEY CAN CARRY GUNS NOW WHAT WILL I TELL THE CHIRRENS??!!1111!!!!! Then folks said THOSE GUN PEOPLE ARE BULLIES!!!!!!!1111 THEY HAVE TINY PENISES!!!! THEY HAVE THEM TO SCARE PEOPLE CALL THE PO PO!!!!
No one saw any issues with any of those responses to what was an asinine question to begin with?
I did and noted it in my first post. Itching ass.
But flgirl is here thinking she often posts moderate shit and is trying to get martyr robes, and @majorwife called Christ a product of rape-- Leda and the swan would be a more fitting comparison (although props for the picture of Christ with guns, apropos), so I am peacing the fuck out of this hot mess. Fuck this thread. If Emmy were here, she'd be dropping cuntwitches and Massengil everywhere.
Martyr robes? Really? Although you proved my point. I am trying to tell you why I write responses and then delete them all the time. If you want conservatives to converse with you stop the name calling. Martyr robes...dear lord.
Anyone who took my completely TIC post as serious definitely needs a break.
I say it about people who drive Hummers and sports cars, too. I'm an equal opportunity manhood shamer.
I think the collective shrillness around gun posts sets the tone before people even read the first response. I expected the kinds of responses that showed up here. I am not even a gun person and I'm fucking tired of hearing how all gun people are crazy lunatics. Get some new material.
I have never - not once in my history on this board - stated that all gun people are crazy lunatics.
I have family that own guns. They are, by and large, sane. I know plenty of sane gun owners.
31 states allow open carry. 31. Texas is just the most recent. But please, let's just continue the handwringing.
Yeah, I've always lived in open carry states, so it wasn't new to me. But let's not pretend that a new gun law in Texas isn't going to get some discussion on the board either. Are we not supposed to discuss laws as they move across the nation? Nobody said they were surprised it passed, it was more of a concern that the OP, who isn't a regular, was worried about seeing more guns in public.
I think the collective shrillness around gun posts sets the tone before people even read the first response. I expected the kinds of responses that showed up here. I am not even a gun person and I'm fucking tired of hearing how all gun people are crazy lunatics. Get some new material.
I have never - not once in my history on this board - stated that all gun people are crazy lunatics.
I have family that own guns. They are, by and large, sane. I know plenty of sane gun owners.
But KOKO with the generalizations.
That's great that you haven't. Many have. And this board's commentary is fraught with generalizations. Sou said "collective" and as you can see from this thread, that's accurate. Please keep being a voice that allows for the possibility of sane gun owners, because that's not the generalization that was painted in this thread, and many others, as well as with many other topics.
I'm still LOLz at the posters who are asking "what has been offensive?"
I think the collective shrillness around gun posts sets the tone before people even read the first response. I expected the kinds of responses that showed up here. I am not even a gun person and I'm fucking tired of hearing how all gun people are crazy lunatics. Get some new material.
I have never - not once in my history on this board - stated that all gun people are crazy lunatics.
I have family that own guns. They are, by and large, sane. I know plenty of sane gun owners.
But KOKO with the generalizations.
Yeah I've never seen that on here. Our ire seems to be mostly at the laws and the NRA.
It might not be that this is a bad guy, I don't even think that he's a bad guy. He may think he's a VERY good guy, he may even be a good guy... but come the bad guy, am I going to get caught in the crossfire? How much training does this guy have? Does he know when NOT to shoot? Might the bad guy step it up a notch or two seeing that there's somebody here with a gun?
I don't assume that everybody with a gun is a bad guy. I don't FEAR everybody with a gun. But I KNOW that when there are guns around everybody is less safe. This isn't based on fear, but on the facts.
See also the armed citizen at the Gabby Giffords shooting who nearly shot the wrong man:
Good intentions, responsible gun owner, EXACTLY the kind of situation that people carry concealed for. But 1. he still couldn't stop the mass shooting and 2. he nearly shot more innocent people.
Like the LEO who shot innocents running down a street trying to get a bad guy?
I think the collective shrillness around gun posts sets the tone before people even read the first response. I expected the kinds of responses that showed up here. I am not even a gun person and I'm fucking tired of hearing how all gun people are crazy lunatics. Get some new material.
I have never - not once in my history on this board - stated that all gun people are crazy lunatics.
I have family that own guns. They are, by and large, sane. I know plenty of sane gun owners.
But KOKO with the generalizations.
I think you must not read most threads if you don't see shrillness or "omg, they will kill all" in most gun threads. And, honestly, your tone with the tiny penises + the tone in most gun threads = what happened
You are arguing that guns are not weapons?? I am so confused.
No. I'm saying that it will not do anything until someone makes it. You are not going to get shot by looking at it, putting a finger on the barrel, or having it near you.
I don't want to get into specifics, but yes, yes it can. It can go off without anyone touching it. It has happened. Just because it doesn't happen very often doesn't mean it never does.
eta: Just now catching up... I see that we've moved well beyond the "existentialism" of arms... lol
I wish that people would call out specific posts that they find offensive rather than saving it for one big "this board sucks and I'm leaving" complaint. It would make it a lot easier to pinpoint what specifically is the problem apart from the fact that our board composition is 80% liberal.
I don't want to speak for HBC, but pretty sure she was specific in her callout on page 4.
However, I will also respond that if the general board's offense meter isn't detecting what an alternate viewpoint might take as offensive, and then just assumes that Cons need to thicken their skin and post more instead of disengaging altogether, maybe that speaks to a broader problem of singularity in perspective that leaves little to no room for civil discourse.
Here's her post:
Between this, the shrill OMG THIS IS WHAT REPUBLICANS WANT in the Duggar thread, to all republican candidates are whackjobs who want women to carry rape babies to all the other threads that make it completely impossible to have a rational conversation on anything of substance around here, I need another break.
A huge long ass break from the echo chamber that is this fucking board.
I see here that 1. the board is an echo chamber 2. something in the Duggar thread that was "shrill" and 3. all Republican candidates are against abortion even in cases of rape.
None of that addresses this particular gun discussion thread except that it is evidently offensive that so many of us share the same or similar opinions on gun control.
1.That this board is an echo chamber, I don't know what we're supposed to do about that besides stop being liberal? Kick out some people so we have fewer liberals?
2. I can't address the second one because I haven't read past page 2 in that thread and don't know what it refers to, so perhaps that is a valid point.
3. Is it factually incorrect to say that all or most Republican candidates are against abortion in the case of rape? If it is, and the majority of Republican candidates are in favor of abortion being legal in rape cases, then I stand corrected and concede this point. If it is not, then I'm not sure what the argument here is besides "don't say this because I don't like it."
As far as the board not detecting what might be offensive or upsetting to conservative posters, I don't really know what to do about that. What do you suggest?
All I can say is that constantly complaining about how too many people are expressing viewpoints you don't like and threatening to leave if people don't change isn't particularly helpful either.
Good intentions, responsible gun owner, EXACTLY the kind of situation that people carry concealed for. But 1. he still couldn't stop the mass shooting and 2. he nearly shot more innocent people.
Like the LEO who shot innocents running down a street trying to get a bad guy?
CA has (or used to have) Open Carry Laws and for the most part you didn't notice they were carrying bc it would blend into their clothing and only if you REALLY looked you could see the piece.
thank you ... Good to know that it's limited to the FAR NORTHERN counties aka State of Jefferson
Eta - it wasn't long ago that you had open carry statewide - literally anywhere in the state bc I saw some OC folks at Starbucks in the well populated suburbs. Even in the suburban wilds of SF, the OC were responsible gun owners who followed the letter of the law when it came to OC until they restricted it.
But a lot of people do, especially black people, and I'm hardly going to tell them that they're wrong to feel this way. It's a legitimate concern.
I think the racial issue in THIS conversation is a red herring.
The question is: how do you feel about civilians carrying guns into grocery stores? The answers, as far as I can tell, range from "I don't like it" to "It's okay" to "I'm afraid of it for these reasons." to "I'd call the popo."
The question about whether you're ALSO afraid of a LEO, when they exhibit a gun, is different entirely, and does have racial/class connotations.
SOME of us were saying that we personally were LESS afraid of LEO's with guns, because (at least in my case) I assume that a LEO has some modicum of background checking and training that I can't assume exists at all with a civilian with a gun.
Our own personal level of comfort with LEOs and their weapons has, IMHO, very little do do with our comfort level with civilians with firearms in public spaces.
...and (not to double down on the stereotyping, but here goes)... I'd bet that open carry activists are at least AS likely (if not more likely) to be racist douchebags than LEOs. But that's purely my own biases talking... and I'll own that 100%.
But a lot of people do, especially black people, and I'm hardly going to tell them that they're wrong to feel this way. It's a legitimate concern.
I think the racial issue in THIS conversation is a red herring.
The question is: how do you feel about civilians carrying guns into grocery stores? The answers, as far as I can tell, range from "I don't like it" to "It's okay" to "I'm afraid of it for these reasons." to "I'd call the popo."
The question about whether you're ALSO afraid of a LEO, when they exhibit a gun, is different entirely, and does have racial/class connotations.
SOME of us were saying that we personally were LESS afraid of LEO's with guns, because (at least in my case) I assume that a LEO has some modicum of background checking and training that I can't assume exists at all with a civilian with a gun.
Our own personal level of comfort with LEOs and their weapons has, IMHO, very little do do with our comfort level with civilians with firearms in public spaces.
...and (not to double down on the stereotyping, but here goes)... I'd bet that open carry activists are at least AS likely (if not more likely) to be racist douchebags than LEOs. But that's purely my own biases talking... and I'll own that 100%.
I also agree that fear of random civilians carrying guns and fear of the police are two separate issues.
I think people complaining want civil discourse minus the "Fuck you if you don't agree with me" tone. It's been pointed out by many not just the Cons. Just as folks have the power to ignore posts that bug them folks can ignore the posts where people express their frustrations.
Thank you. The "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" is what is often received. It might not be intended, but since there are liberals who say this, not everyone can be wrong.
But a lot of people do, especially black people, and I'm hardly going to tell them that they're wrong to feel this way. It's a legitimate concern.
That is my point. I said it on page 1 and 2 when I called out someone (momi?) for her white privilege in telling me fearing Joe Public is more rational than fearing a LEO.
But a lot of people do, especially black people, and I'm hardly going to tell them that they're wrong to feel this way. It's a legitimate concern.
That is my point. I said it on page 1 and 2 when I called out someone (momi?) for her white privilege in telling me fearing Joe Public is more rational than fearing a LEO.
I'm sorry it came across to you that way; my intention was to say that FOR ME, I'm less afraid of a LEO with a gun than Joe Public with a gun because my guess is the LEO has more training, more background checking. Particularly given that I'm in a state where literally anybody can buy a gun and carry it anywhere.
...also, as I alluded to a few threads back but now will dig my hole all the way: I genuinely believe that the open carry movement is more than a little racist. So there's that.
But a lot of people do, especially black people, and I'm hardly going to tell them that they're wrong to feel this way. It's a legitimate concern.
That is my point. I said it on page 1 and 2 when I called out someone (momi?) for her white privilege in telling me fearing Joe Public is more rational than fearing a LEO.
I don't understand the point here. For a white, middle class person, it likely is more rational to fear Joe Public with his assault rifle than a LEO. What does that have to do with gun control laws or whether open carrying at Kroger is an asshole thing to do?
But a lot of people do, especially black people, and I'm hardly going to tell them that they're wrong to feel this way. It's a legitimate concern.
I think the racial issue in THIS conversation is a red herring.
The question is: how do you feel about civilians carrying guns into grocery stores? The answers, as far as I can tell, range from "I don't like it" to "It's okay" to "I'm afraid of it for these reasons." to "I'd call the popo."
The question about whether you're ALSO afraid of a LEO, when they exhibit a gun, is different entirely, and does have racial/class connotations.
SOME of us were saying that we personally were LESS afraid of LEO's with guns, because (at least in my case) I assume that a LEO has some modicum of background checking and training that I can't assume exists at all with a civilian with a gun.
Our own personal level of comfort with LEOs and their weapons has, IMHO, very little do do with our comfort level with civilians with firearms in public spaces.
...and (not to double down on the stereotyping, but here goes)... I'd bet that open carry activists are at least AS likely (if not more likely) to be racist douchebags than LEOs. But that's purely my own biases talking... and I'll own that 100%.
I don't want to speak for HBC, but pretty sure she was specific in her callout on page 4.
However, I will also respond that if the general board's offense meter isn't detecting what an alternate viewpoint might take as offensive, and then just assumes that Cons need to thicken their skin and post more instead of disengaging altogether, maybe that speaks to a broader problem of singularity in perspective that leaves little to no room for civil discourse.
Here's her post:
Between this, the shrill OMG THIS IS WHAT REPUBLICANS WANT in the Duggar thread, to all republican candidates are whackjobs who want women to carry rape babies to all the other threads that make it completely impossible to have a rational conversation on anything of substance around here, I need another break.
A huge long ass break from the echo chamber that is this fucking board.
******
2. I can't address the second one because I haven't read past page 2 in that thread and don't know what it refers to, so perhaps that is a valid point.
This was my post.
I feel like they have turned this into an opportunity. The religious right seizes on any opportunity to suggest that rape doesn't happen all that much in the hopes that they can convince the public that rape victims should be forced to carry their rape babies to term, and probably to make it harder to send all these sick sex cult adherents to go to prison. They love terms like "legitimate rape" and acting like all this rampant sexual assault on university campuses and in the world is just a liberal made up thing. Jim Bob's advocacy for the death penalty for rapists fits in with that, because by elevating the punishment, you elevate the crime. It becomes harder for people to accept that a "date rape" is actual "rape" because they know that people will agree that a guy who got fresh after that steak dinner doesn't deserve death. By classifying rape as something that gets the death penalty, public perception of rape moves away from this very broad category and into something the public sees as deserving of the death penalty: a series of violent acts committed by heavily armed black men sneaking up randomly on good Christian women.
By suggesting that their daughters didn't really know this was going on, emphasizing that it was not rape, etc., I feel like this is just all part of their agenda to make sexual assault sound like NBD.
So, Jim Bob and Michelle are actual scum. They are worse than I could have ever imagined. They have turned their daughters' assault into a political opportunity. Family Research Council is probably shitting themselves with glee right now that their molester has delivered unto them something so great.
In a follow up post, I defend Fox viewers and make clear I don't even think most of them agree with this and that it would be better for the Republican Party if the Duggars disappeared, but suggest that the only reason Fox could have had to air this was to further a nutter agenda.
How someone took from that that I think this is something the Republicans want is completely beyond me.
That is my point. I said it on page 1 and 2 when I called out someone (momi?) for her white privilege in telling me fearing Joe Public is more rational than fearing a LEO.
I don't understand the point here. For a white, middle class person, it likely is more rational to fear Joe Public with his assault rifle than a LEO. What does that have to do with gun control laws or whether open carrying at Kroger is an asshole thing to do?
Then you are comfortable with any LEO over Joe Public. That, I do not get, but my life does not allow me to 'get' it anymore so I don't know how else to explain it. It confuses me when people run around panicked with seeing a gun on Joe Public but not Jane Police when out in public.
I have never - not once in my history on this board - stated that all gun people are crazy lunatics.
I have family that own guns. They are, by and large, sane. I know plenty of sane gun owners.
But KOKO with the generalizations.
I responded to your post but I wasn't talking about you SPECIFICALLY, but about the responses GENERALLY. Read it again.
Yeah, you know, I have noticed yesterday and today I am in A GODDAMNED MOOD for no discernible reason and spoiling for a fight. So when you cited my post I took it and ran.
I'm going to go exercise my right to bare arms now. Maybe blowing shit off at the gym will help.
I'm not sure what that point is, but I'm clarifying that open carry is legal in nearly every state.
I thought my point was pretty clear. All the histrionics and crazy Texas small pens oh noes how do I tell my kids mumbo jumbo is ridiculous because open carry is not some new concept.
I am, though, trying to figure out, if everyone knows this board isn't a place where there really is open discussion and discourse, why everyone was so terribly offended by "groupthink."
I don't understand the point here. For a white, middle class person, it likely is more rational to fear Joe Public with his assault rifle than a LEO. What does that have to do with gun control laws or whether open carrying at Kroger is an asshole thing to do?
Then you are comfortable with any LEO over Joe Public. That, I do not get, but my life does not allow me to 'get' it anymore so I don't know how else to explain it. It confuses me when people run around panicked with seeing a gun on Joe Public but not Jane Police when out in public.
What? I am trying to follow, but totally lost. Is the LEO "Jane Public"? Who is Jane vs. Joe?
We were all talking about in public in general... the spectrum of gun carries from open carry semi-automatic people, to open carry handgun holster people, to conceal carry anybody.
I don't understand the point here. For a white, middle class person, it likely is more rational to fear Joe Public with his assault rifle than a LEO. What does that have to do with gun control laws or whether open carrying at Kroger is an asshole thing to do?
Then you are comfortable with any LEO over Joe Public. That, I do not get, but my life does not allow me to 'get' it anymore so I don't know how else to explain it. It confuses me when people run around panicked with seeing a gun on Joe Public but not Jane Police when out in public.
In my state...
LEO's have required ongoing firearms training. Joe Public doesn't.
LEO's have background checks before becoming LEO's. Joe Public does not need to go through a background check before acquiring a firearm.
Those two things, alone, matter to me. The fact of the matter is guns are way way way too easy to obtain. If I was in a state where the only people who had guns had to go through trainings on how to use them properly and were background checked, I'd probably feel differently about it.
As it is, I could go buy a gun tomorrow, with no knowledge or training at all. Buy a holster for it and wear it proudly into my local Bed Bath and Beyond. And that's just all kinds of fucked up.
I'm not sure what that point is, but I'm clarifying that open carry is legal in nearly every state.
I thought my point was pretty clear. All the histrionics and crazy Texas small pens oh noes how do I tell my kids mumbo jumbo is ridiculous because open carry is not some new concept.
I am, though, trying to figure out, if everyone knows this board isn't a place where there really is open discussion and discourse, why everyone was so terribly offended by "groupthink."
Ok I understand. It's more upsetting to me that open carry is so common in the first place, particularly without a permit.
For the record, I wasn't offended by "groupthink."
Then you are comfortable with any LEO over Joe Public. That, I do not get, but my life does not allow me to 'get' it anymore so I don't know how else to explain it. It confuses me when people run around panicked with seeing a gun on Joe Public but not Jane Police when out in public.
What? I am trying to follow, but totally lost. Is the LEO "Jane Public"? Who is Jane vs. Joe?
We were all talking about in public in general... the spectrum of gun carries from open carry semi-automatic people, to open carry handgun holster people, to conceal carry anybody.
LEO would be Jane Police.
I have no idea what the second sentence is as I know what the post is about.