Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are anti-guns basically just control freaks without guns?
Basically, yes. I don't see a gun owner as a control freak. But here we have two different sets of people, two different thought processes:
1.) Those that own guns legally, are not insisting that others own guns, could care less if others owned guns or not, and just wish to be left alone.
2.) Those others here that do not own guns and wish to impose there will on others - which means, amazingly, condeming them for something which is protected under the US constitution.
When it comes to being 'nuts,' the anti-gun-nuts holds the patent, copyright, and trademark. No critter on god's green earth would be crazy enough to think that the world would suddenly be a safer place if only it would give up its teeth & claws.
Nor would any normal human be dumb enough to try to ban something when she had not the slightest clue of what that thing was:
Sure there are always irrational thought processes on both sides of the aisle, but there is one side that seems to make a career of being irrational.
You have something against McCarthy then, or its your repeted 'talking point', I see.
This is second time you attack a woman whose son (along with MANY) innocent commuters in the early 90's, was gunned down in a shooting spree by a psychopath on the LIRR train , coming home from NYC.
Have you no empathy, sir? or are you just a duplicate acct.
At any rate OP, I dont think all gun obsessed people are narcissists. But, Im still trying to figure out the psychology of the Libertarians and staunch pro-gun officionados on this site.
For the record I don't care whether a person has guns or not, but if they are diagnosed as paranoid/delusional by an M.D., then they should not be allowed to have an arsenal of assault weapons.
No critter on god's green earth would be crazy enough to think that the world would suddenly be a safer place if only it would give up its teeth & claws.
Why wouldn't it? The US isn't "the world", and it's quite an assumption (an erroneous one, some would say) that putting a gun in most people's hands would create safety. Many European countries are very safe, in spite of restricting gun ownership to hunters (if they even allow that). Most Europeans feel it's the US that's unsafe, and is becoming even less safe as time goes by.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,451,396 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Basically, yes. I don't see a gun owner as a control freak. But here we have two different sets of people, two different thought processes:
1.) Those that own guns legally, are not insisting that others own guns, could care less if others owned guns or not, and just wish to be left alone.
2.) Those others here that do not own guns and wish to impose there will on others - which means, amazingly, condeming them for something which is protected under the US constitution.
Which group has the emotional problems?
Will overlook the usual obtuseness, and suggest an obvious third group (which BTW includes the majority of Americans and even gun owners),
3.) Those who own guns legally or otherwise have no desire to "grab everyone's guns", but who also can't ignore the growing carnage, and see no problem with adding some commonsense restrictions.
Of course the folks ''in question'' here are the empathy-challenged ones who remain willfully blind and deaf to that carnage, instead always insisting ''it's all about ME and MY rights''! So they're also mentally & emotionally incapable of reading # 3.) without seeing, ''gun grabbers leading to Hitler''!
First, to be clear, I personally have no problem with guns per se, and I own one myself (mainly for dealing with predators on my rural property). So what we're talking about here are the hyper-fanatical gun ''nuts'', whose whole life and even sense of identity seems to revolve around owning this one particular ''tool''.
We've certainly seen plenty of 'em here on these forums, demonstrating how threatened they feel about having any limits put on their ''rights'', regardless the circumstances (like the growing number of massacres around the country). But IMO most notable is how many of them quickly go into a rage whenever someone disagrees with them... often becoming verbally abusive, sometimes even accompanied by physical threats.
Even myself being one of the more ardent opponents of tightened gun control you'll encounter around here, I'm sometimes rather embarrassed by the (often inarticulate and inchoherent) rantings of gun owners who foolishly, if not maybe inadvertently, intertwine their firearm ownership with personal strength and/or masculinity rather than Constitutional principles that recognize and protect the rights of individuals.
And yes, gun owners, it's perfectly acceptable to embrace your individual right to own firearms (I frankly don't even care how big your "arsenal" is) and defend the status-quo in the faces of people who effectively expect you to bear the consequences for the heinous actions of mass-murderers.
I've seen the anti-gun neurotics accuse us (the "gun culture") of being indirectly and/or directly responsible for the slayings committed in past and present mass-shootings; I've seen them ridicule us as "insane" or "paranoid," and now "narcissistic" for believing that their various gun control objectives (an AWB renewal, UBCs, national registration, etc.) are effectively invasions of law-abiding gun owners' privacy (and not to mention provably ineffictive in crime prevention), which, according to many of the anti-gun zealots, should render any such gun owner unqualified to own a firearm; I've witnessed, albeit to a much lesser extent, their bald-faced admissions that, ideally, every firearm should be outlawed/confiscated, even by government force if necessary; and the list of accusations, epithets and authoritarian gesutres goes on.
The objective of disarming gun owners is undeniably the historical legacy of the gun control movement in this country as recently as the late 90s/early 00s--American gun owners have every reason to question the intentions of Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, Carolyn McCarthy, Jerrold Nadler, Sarah Brady, President Obama, etc. when they babble about "reasonable gun control" and "reasonable debate" in the context of legislative action.
However, when legislative action is a true possibility as it currently is, it does not, in my estimation, help gun control opponents to simply rattle off about the Second Amendment being a firewall between the citizenry and the potential tyranny of government (even though I wouldn't characterize such an argument as incorrect); rather, a well-versed defense of the Second Amendment as an individual right guaranteed for the purpose of self-defense, minus the war-like rhetoric against the government, is what seems to resonate best with an American public which is often far too timid for the citizen vs government aspect of the 2ndA.
And don't forget, my fellow gun control opponents, that the statistics are also in our favor--mass-shootings arenot an epidemic in the United States, regardless of those committed throughout 2012 and prior; crime (including gun homicide) has decreased simultaneously with the proliferation of firearms amongst civilians, which include semi-automatic pistols and AR-15s; high per-capita gun ownership does not cause (and rarely even correlates with) gun crime prevalence; concealed-carry, the Castle Doctrine and stand-your-ground laws have not turned the U.S. into that social "Wild West" bogeyman we keep hearing about; the results of sacred public opinion polls that supposedly validate gun control objectives are verifiably dependent on wording and are thus highly fallible reflections of public opinion; need I continue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mateo45
But isn't all that behavior basically just narcissistic ''grandiosity'' and ''entitlement'', along with the usual lack of empathy, boundaries or accountability (aka, ''I'm Special, and it's all about ME!'')? And if we're gonna talk about keeping guns away from ''psychos'', then shouldn't clinical Narcissism (the behavioral disorder), be an immediate ''red flag''?
And finally, mateo, the accusations which you level against gun control opponents for their supposed emotional indifference toward the victims of gun-related crime/death is simply repulsive, if not outwardly hypocritical.
From this end, the last two and a half months have wrought nothing but constant displays of moral grandiosity and self-validation by those of you who, I'd wager, have never supported anything other than strict regulation of private gun owners, with or without Columbine, Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook--this ideologically-rooted opportunism of the gun control clique has frankly been the most prominent display of collective narcissism that I've ever seen.
You have something against McCarthy then, or its your repeted 'talking point', I see.
This is second time you attack a woman whose son (along with MANY) innocent commuters in the early 90's, was gunned down in a shooting spree by a psychopath on the LIRR train , coming home from NYC.
Have you no empathy, sir? or are you just a duplicate acct.
At any rate OP, I dont think all gun obsessed people are narcissists. But, Im still trying to figure out the psychology of the Libertarians and staunch pro-gun officionados on this site.
For the record I don't care whether a person has guns or not, but if they are diagnosed as paranoid/delusional by an M.D., then they should not be allowed to have an arsenal of assault weapons.
I am certainly sorry that she lost her child to a deranged, mentally ill man. But is it too much to ask that a legislator who proposes a ban, know what it is that she is about to ban?
Why wouldn't it? The US isn't "the world", and it's quite an assumption (an erroneous one, some would say) that putting a gun in most people's hands would create safety. Many European countries are very safe, in spite of restricting gun ownership to hunters (if they even allow that). Most Europeans feel it's the US that's unsafe, and is becoming even less safe as time goes by.
As are golf nuts, fly fishing nuts, skiing nuts, car nuts. There are extremes to everything.
The equipment collected by golf nuts, fly fishing nuts, and skiing nuts is not likely, however, to kill me, my loved ones, or my neighbors. I know the reply to that is "guns don't kill people, people kill people," so don't anyone waste their typing skills telling me that. But if you do anyway, consider my reply to be, "Gun-obsessed humans are statistically more likely to kill an innocent person than non-gun-obsessed humans are." Mainly because non-gun-obsessed humans don't usually even have guns. Ask Oscar Pistorius (a narcissist with several guns and a fear that made him believe his home was being invaded two other times in addition to the time he — note I said "he" and not "his gun," — shot and killed the vibrant, beautiful Reeva Steenkamp. Or the self-appointed neighborhood "protector" George Zimmerman, who shot and killed the non-criminal high-schooler Trayvon Martin.
Cars can, of course, also kill people. But unlike guns cars are more likely to be registered, the users have been tested and are licensed by the government, and the owners are insured and pay registration fees that somewhat ameliorate their impact on the world. I agree that the Constitution gives Americans the right to own guns. I would, however, be grateful if we regulated that ownership as well as we regulate the ownership of cars.
DEATH BY GOVERNMENT: GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER[/url]
You give up your teeth and claws if you wish--I will keep mine.
I have nothing to give up. I don't know anyone who owns a gun.
CONTENTS (to bolded)
4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Wow. So this is why the "gun nuts" the OP talks about carry arms? Who knew? Thanks for the revelation.
You do realize this is ridiculous, don't you? No. oookayyy, then....
I'm a left leaning Democrat and own over 100 firearms.
Thirty of those are rare colt 1911's along with another 15 older revolver models of various manufactures.
I also own 2 AR-15's, an AK-47 and other "" evil "" black colored boogie man death guns that are blamed for everything from the rising cost of boxer shorts to the shortage of available Asian women in the dating pool.
I'm not a gun nut by by any means but I will tell you this, I will guarantee that if you can actually get through the very expensive cutting edge security system I have on my property to attempt a robbery, it will be my sincere pleasure to see you leave my house in a body bag.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
