I guess we (Americans) are exceptionally dumb

[BAMCIS]

First off, consider the source. But this is the drivel that's being constantly fed to the low information voter.

<broken link removed>

The good news was the comments below the article.

To me this article is mistitled. It should read, "America's liberals are exceptionally dumb when it come to guns".

Read More

 

[bnsaibum]

That isn't how it is at all. It is us who are in the wrong for wanting to be responsible individuals.
"on-your-own kind of mentality"

 

[RVTECH]

"America's liberals are exceptionally dumb when it come to guns".

Very true but after reading the article something occurred to me - the problem is 'Acceptance' of anything by liberals.

When a liberal refuses to accept something they do not understand.

When they do not understand they will not listen to reason.

When they will not listen to reason they want to eliminate, get rid of or outlaw.

This is standard with anything the liberals do not accept but since we are talking about guns I will use them as the example.

They refuse to accept guns are here, have always been and will always be. They are a part of our history, tradition and survival. But they do NOT accept these facts so the rest of my observation applies.

 

[BAMCIS]

RV, you hit the nail on the head, except for one point. Liberals are almost without exception, emotionally involved with whatever stance they happen to have. I'm convinced because of this they will not make any effort at understanding the issue at hand. Therefore they want to tune out opposition at best or silence it at worse (usually by vilifying the messenger).

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

RV, you hit the nail on the head, except for one point. Liberals are almost without exception, emotionally involved with whatever stance they happen to have. I'm convinced because of this they will not make any effort at understanding the issue at hand. Therefore they want to tune out opposition at best or silence it at worse (usually by vilifying the messenger).

Emotional, that's a good description of their thinking on guns, race, environment etc., It's easy to say "that's bad, let's make a law against it!"
They don't look at the unintended consequences of trying to "fix" things and don't want to consider a lot of societies ills are a result of their short sighted attempts to right past wrongs and to speed up their utopian fantasy. They might just be what's keeping utopia out of reach.

 

[RVTECH]

Liberals are almost without exception, emotionally involved with whatever stance they happen to have.

Give me an example of a liberal's emotional involvement (say with guns) so I can understand your point. I guess I don't really see where they have an emotional involvement with guns. I guess I am missing the point because I am never emotional about something I don't like, care for or ever want. Thanks.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

If you buy into the premise that everyone can be divided up into two distinct groups, (which I don't), anyway, accepting the framework about this issue, I would say generally the "Liberal" emotional involvement with guns outside of those weapons possessed by police is one of fear and loathing.

I had a "liberal" friend actually ban me from her house, because I showed her my S&W 638, which I had carried constantly for years -including numerous visits to her house for bar-b-ques and other social events. The only difference was, this time, she knew about it.

Even though she knew for years that I was a licensed investigator and carried a Washington CPL, that was not good enough. "In my house? In MY house!" was the response. It was pretty emotional, no argument there.

That I had previously assisted her worthless son in extracting his belongings from a shared housing arrangement where the (ex)-roommates had been threatening to burn her house down in phone messages, (at which time my X-26 Taser and G21 seemed to be a welcome sight) that demonstration of generosity and utility went quickly by the wayside when she saw I was armed in her house.

They are glad to have an armed person around when trouble calls, but can't stand the idea any other time, it seems.

 

[BAMCIS]

Give me an example of a liberal's emotional involvement (say with guns) so I can understand your point. I guess I don't really see where they have an emotional involvement with guns. I guess I am missing the point because I am never emotional about something I don't like, care for or ever want. Thanks.

You're kidding right?

 

[RVTECH]

You're kidding right?

No I am not, never mind though sorry I asked.

 

[RVTECH]

It was pretty emotional, no argument there.

I had the exact same thing happen with a lady friend - and she was in the Army as I was! I still do not see where there is an 'emotional' attachement with a liberal - perhaps an uneducated, irrational fear but I do not see 'emotion' as an element.

 

[RVTECH]

I guess part of the problem is I don't particularly see dedicated liberals as 'emotional' My opinion (and observation) of them is many are cold, unassuming and mean. Anything but 'emotional'

 

[rick benjamin]

A liberal's emotional involvement with guns is like
a liberal's emotional involvement with SUVs, global warming, climate change, illegal immigration, war, etc.
A liberal doesn't have to know stuff to pronounce about stuff, feelings trump facts.

My tripwire dictionary (in part)
"I feel"
"You make me feel"
"I feel offended"
"I'm offended"
"You offended"
"I'm uncomfortable with"
"You make me feel uncomfortable"

Trip my tripwire,
I might feel the urge to label you a useless, good for nothing, back stabbing, commie liberal...

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

I guess part of the problem is I don't particularly see dedicated liberals as 'emotional' My opinion (and observation) of them is many are cold, unassuming and mean. Anything but 'emotional'

That would be the liberal/ANY politician side of things IMO. The liberal voter on gun/environment and race issues, they let emotions guide them from my experience.

 

[PiratePast40]

During the last session of the Oregon legislature, we heard testimony from many liberals about their experiences and their perceived need for gun control. Most were emotional about the need to do something about the carnage caused by guns. I would say that those people were emotional themselves and sought to draw others into their emotional reaction. However, I would agree that the ringleaders and controllers are acting without emotion. I sincerely believe that they are cold and calculating. They are exploiting the emotions of fear and sorrow in others to gain their support and votes.

A prime example is Prozanski bringing in Gabby Giffords with the intent of raising an emotional response when in fact, he was coldly exploiting her experience and using her equally cold and calculating husband.

Edit - I was incorrect, it was Mark Kelly who testified as a guest of Prozanski, not his wife. But the point is that these leaders are emotionless but counting on the blind emotions of their minions.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Give me an example of a liberal's emotional involvement (say with guns) so I can understand your point. I guess I don't really see where they have an emotional involvement with guns. I guess I am missing the point because I am never emotional about something I don't like, care for or ever want. Thanks.

Carolyn McCarthy is a good example of a liberal that is emotionally invested in the issue of guns.
She can't separate the gun from the murder of her hubby. The murder of him evokes a response that drives her to this day, which is why every session of Congress she can be counted on to introduce at least one anti-gun bill, even if logic tells her that there is no way in he11 it will pass.

I don't believe she can think about guns without the specter of her dead husband and injured son haunting her.

As for the rest of the politicians and their emotions, I'm not sure how many are actually emotionally invested, and how many are just manipulating the emotions of their contingencies to get elected/reelected.
The ability to manipulate other peoples emotions for personal and professional gain is what makes a good politician.
And a good con-artist!

It wasn't always this way however.
Think about some of the most successful campaign slogans of the last couple of decades. For instance,
"Country first" didn't stand a chance against "Yes we can" or "It takes a village." The latter are emotion based, the former, less so.
"Change (we can BELIEVE in!)"

GWB's "Kinder, Gentler America/Nation" is/was a prime example of an emotion based slogan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._presidential_campaign_slogans

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Fear is an emotion.

The old saying is (politically speaking) Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.

For what it's worth. I agree with the above posters, they are, more than their opposites, a more emotional bunch IMO.

No single stereotypes fit all people though.

 

[bnsaibum]

Give me an example of a liberal's emotional involvement (say with guns) so I can understand your point. I guess I don't really see where they have an emotional involvement with guns. I guess I am missing the point because I am never emotional about something I don't like, care for or ever want. Thanks.

... but I do not see 'emotion' as an element.

Perhaps a better word for many, especially the leaders, is emoting. Portraying emotion, sometimes in an exaggerated manner.
Who here doubts that many of the rank and file prohibitionists actually want to help reduce violence? Their stated goal is similar to our own. The problem is they take a path to arrive at their insensible solution/s to the problem by rationalizing their fear and/or ignorance itself rather than evaluating the cause of their fear and/or ignorance and then taking steps to address it. An example of the latter; In my younger days my friend and I both owned VW beetles. His was older and in poorer condition and caught fire one day while he was driving. Luckily he was unharmed, but his car was not so lucky. For some time after I would be caught by the irrational fear that my Beetle would do the same. I evaluated the fear, why it was irrational and the steps that I could take on the slim chance that there was any validity to the fear. I kept it well maintained as always and purchased a fire extinguisher to keep in my car. In other words, I did what I could to prepare for a potential, albeit unlikely, problem. The irrational fear was gone, just like that.
What I believe the rank and file do is to feel their fear, feed it, and then erroneously believe that the object, rather than themselves, is responsible for the fear. They do not take responsibility for their own emotions and let their feelings have control over them rather than the other way around. By projecting their fear onto an object they think that getting rid of the object will take care of the problem.
RV, I also have a difficult time understanding their 'emotional' involvement, but then, like me, I suspect that you do not let your emotions rule your life and then use your mind to find rationalizations to validate them.

 

[Bacchus]

Annoying article, until you reflect on it and realize the little whiners are acting out in frustration. They need us, we don't need them.

 

[jbett98]

Every time I hear about gun control from a liberal Democrat,
I just read to them a list of the following facts:

In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.

In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States, who later died from the wound.

In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.

In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.

In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.

In 2013 Adam Lazna, the child of a registered Democrat, shot and killed 26 people in a school.

Recently, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.
No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives are involved.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

Have yet to hear an intelligent response to this.

 

[RVTECH]

RV, I also have a difficult time understanding their 'emotional' involvement, but then, like me, I suspect that you do not let your emotions rule your life and then use your mind to find rationalizations to validate them.

Wow finally some intellect - and understanding - thanks