National Why Take Guns?

[Ownerus]

technically you cant get shot if nobody has guns. Maybe their thought process just stops there.

Yeah. *IF*
Instead, as shown by thousands of years before the invention of guns, they'd be stabbed, bludgeoned, stoned, etc. In enormous numbers. Some improvement eh?
"If only there were no guns" really means a desire for rule by the biggest, strongest and most violent.

 

[Medic!]

If.

They can pass all the necessary laws to take the guns away. Then get all the criminals to play nice and turn in there guns?
License and control any mold, lathe, CNC, 3-D printer or other device that could make a gun sometime in the future?

Basically put the smoke back in the cigar. And get rid of any way to light that cigar again.










Sounds Insane doesn't it?

 

[Diamondback]

The Scottish Highland part of my family tree has the motto "Touche not a catte bott a targe." "Targe" meant a piece of leather, leather-covered shield, or glove, so there are a number of possible translations. I like "Don't touch the cat without a glove." (Without protection of some sort.)The cat of Clan Chatten was just a wild cat. A relatively small predator, but untameable. It suits me. As a human female, I'm a long way from the biggest or most powerful predator in the woods. And I can be attacked and maybe killed. But I cannot be attacked without risk.

Similarly, hence my taking the common name of Crotalus atrox as my nom de plume. You can easily kill a Western Diamondback Rattlesnake, but in return Mr. No-Shoulders WILL f*** you up a zillion different ways from Sunday before you do unless you're both real lucky and real good.

 

[DuneHopper]

I struggle with this question as well because it doesn't make sense. The best I can come up with is fear of things they are not familiar with and hatred of a culture they do not understand. For all the talk of diversity and acceptance their actions say it all.

I wonder, when they achieve a ban do they feel like it was worth the cost? It lost them the Presidency and the Supreme Court, not to mention the staggering amount of money spent.

Imagine what the current political climate would be like if the Democrats had just left guns alone.

Glad I am not alone in the confusion.
I know I can look at history and see what mirrored pasts have done, having studied history allot maybe that's why I am asking, as maybe in my head I think this awesome nation can't really want to implode could it ? We have so much to lose it all just because the paranoid want disarmament?

Maybe its rose colored glasses I wish I could wear but can not, but I know it can get bad, perhaps I think our country is better then this, maybe its not. Maybe its just the way the cycle on the planet is, some are free, some are not and the power and perceived power seems to rule that direction. Humans have completed this cycle many times and huge shifts in power came when those with power were subdued.

 

[DuneHopper]

BTW really enjoying reading all these, all great perspectives and thoughts.

 

[Vendor Hidden]

I call for a ban on full-auto correct.

For the last time, Auto-Correct, I'm searching for "Hot Asian TEA!"

 

[CountryGent]

Didn't Hitler say exactly that?

Something to that effect:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." — Adolf Hitler, September 1942

The Bohemian corporal aside, in my travels, I have found, broadly speaking, the anti-gun crew general falls into two categories:

1. Well-meaning, but misguided, misinformed, and usually not particularly bright individuals that honestly think they are doing something positive, and/or they simply don't like firearms. The rank and file of the groups likely Ceasefire fall into this category. Much like the rest of the other flavors of Nanny State dullards, all they are succeeding to do is make a fool of themselves whilst violating the rights of their fellow citizens.
2. Those that often pretend to be in the first category, but really want the state to wield absolute power for the furtherance of whatever warped vision they have for society. They know strong, informed, and armed citizenry is a roadblock to their aims, so reducing citizens to serfs is their first step. Such odious individuals are one of the reasons why the Founders, in their wisdom, created the Bill of Rights.

 

[stick655]

That is what I get for posting from my phone.

I call for a ban on full-auto correct.

So full semi-auto correct is good? Sounds dangerous and flamboyant.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

So full semi-auto correct is good? Sounds dangerous and flamboyant.

No, just hilarious.

 

[The Heretic]

The same reason Gen. Gage wanted to take them away: Control.

and power - goes hand in hand

 

[OldBroad44]

Your not gona like my answer.


Many Men today are threatened by guns. And all things masculine.
They don't want to admit aggressive behavior still has a place in this world.

Guns. And the need to sometimes use force. Are a threat to there masculinity.
Which is strange? Since they have almost none. [Or any desire to develop more].

Guns just make them feel uncomfortable. And week.

What if with all these guns being around. They finds themselves ''put upon'' to use one?
Perhaps to defend this country, or a loved one?

They know there not up to the task!
And why should they feel inadequate?

No. In there mind it's best if all the guns are just gone. And there relieved of there duty to Protect anybody, or anything.

this is really interesting. Far more women totally reject guns than men. For the women gun haters, I think part of it is that they believe only men are or should be violent enough to use a gun, and if they learned to use a gun it would be a challenge to their self image by threatening their femininity. Maybe even a challenge to their concept of femininity.

Could you elaborate a bit more about the guys you think may hate guns as a rejection of their own masculinity? What are the other masculine things they are threatened by? What do they avoid? What do they take pride in?

 

[Medic!]

You want more ramblings of an old knuckle dragger?

OK. Here it is.

I think less masculine men take pride in, and enjoy a lot of the same things other people do.
Friends, Family, Fixing up the house. The normal list. [Just not getting dirty working on the car].

They're just a bit overly domesticated.
And buy that I mean, there ability to deal with violent behavior has completely atrophied. Or it has not been developed in the first place?

Boys want to prove themselves. [Mostly to there father] They need to ''Slay the dragon''. And show they have what it takes.
Dad, Grandpa, Uncle, or some other man either teaches them these skills. They seek out and teach themselves. Or they live lives devoid of any baseline masculine behavior.

They don't know when, or how to act. They can't be ''Deliberate'' men.

Today, any ritual that approaches teaching a boy to be ''Manly'' is frowned on. Or will get you in some serious hot water! So young men go without. Or worse. There taught it's bad.

Don't misunderstand me. Wile it would be nice to have more men acting like men. I don't see dancing, sewing, or other behavior as bad. Or to feminine for a man to engage in. It's not an either/or.

Ultimately survival is not a matter of sex. Or sexual orientation. It's an individual mandate.

My Nieces are all beautiful young women. And they know the world and the dangers in it. All have been trained.
Threaten there lives, or that of a loved one? And they will stop you in your tracks!

 

[Andy54Hawken]

As far as the notion of fear of aggression goes...
Sometimes aggression is a positive thing...combat comes to mind.
Not that every combat action requires a full on aggressive approach..but no firefight has ever been "won" by the timid....

Aggression if positively channeled into a appropriate outlet is good for everyone...no need to fear it , hide it or teach that it is "bad".
Keeping aggression in and unchecked , seems to cause more problems...at least to me and what I have experienced in life.

We still have much of the prehistoric man locked into our brains and instinct....to go against it seems to me , to be unnatural...
Please note that I am not saying that we need to be all brutal and dog eat dog towards our fellow man.
Nor just run amok with our aggression , it does need a appropriate outlet.
I am just thinking that we really aren't that far removed from a time where we as man lived a precarious existence....some folks in the world still live that way.

Sorry for the digression...
( Maybe it was a aggressive digression.... )
Andy

 

[3MTA3]

How about an Initiative for 2020 to prevent this from happening in Oregon even if the Governor declares Martial Law?

 

[OldBroad44]

You want more ramblings of an old knuckle dragger?

OK. Here it is.

I think less masculine men take pride in, and enjoy a lot of the same things other people do.
Friends, Family, Fixing up the house. The normal list. [Just not getting dirty working on the car].

They're just a bit overly domesticated.
And buy that I mean, there ability to deal with violent behavior has completely atrophied. Or it has not been developed in the first place?

Boys want to prove themselves. [Mostly to there father] They need to ''Slay the dragon''. And show they have what it takes.
Dad, Grandpa, Uncle, or some other man either teaches them these skills. They seek out and teach themselves. Or they live lives devoid of any baseline masculine behavior.

They don't know when, or how to act. They can't be ''Deliberate'' men.

Today, any ritual that approaches teaching a boy to be ''Manly'' is frowned on. Or will get you in some serious hot water! So young men go without. Or worse. There taught it's bad.

Don't misunderstand me. Wile it would be nice to have more men acting like men. I don't see dancing, sewing, or other behavior as bad. Or to feminine for a man to engage in. It's not an either/or.

Ultimately survival is not a matter of sex. Or sexual orientation. It's an individual mandate.

My Nieces are all beautiful young women. And they know the world and the dangers in it. All have been trained.
Threaten there lives, or that of a loved one? And they will stop you in your tracks!

Yes, please do "ramble" a bit more, Medic. I'm trying to understand, here. I don't care whether I would consider your list of masculine behaviors as masculine or exclusively masculine or not. Just trying to figure out what behaviors you are talking about so I can think about your basic argument. So repairing cars is one. Shooting? What about hunting, fishing, wrestling, boxing, playing football? Playing tennis? Sports in general? What else?

How about a few examples of how a traditionally masculine boy might prove himself to a traditionally masculine father?

You're saying the feminized boys or men don't know when or how to act, don't know how to be deliberate men. This might be the key. Can you give me a story? Something that illustrates what you mean by someone acting like a deliberate man? Just trying to understand what you are talking about.

 

[Medic!]

I feel you have a differing opinion? Go ahead. Lay it on me.

 

[OldBroad44]

As far as the notion of fear of aggression goes...
Sometimes aggression is a positive thing...combat comes to mind.
Not that every combat action requires a full on aggressive approach..but no firefight has ever been "won" by the timid....

Aggression if positively channeled into a appropriate outlet is good for everyone...no need to fear it , hide it or teach that it is "bad".
Keeping aggression in and unchecked , seems to cause more problems...at least to me and what I have experienced in life.

We still have much of the prehistoric man locked into our brains and instinct....to go against it seems to me , to be unnatural...
Please note that I am not saying that we need to be all brutal and dog eat dog towards our fellow man.
Nor just run amok with our aggression , it does need a appropriate outlet.
I am just thinking that we really aren't that far removed from a time where we as man lived a precarious existence....some folks in the world still live that way.

Sorry for the digression...
( Maybe it was a aggressive digression.... )
Andy

I think you are talking about fear of acting aggressive ourselves, or fear of our own capacity for aggression rather than being a victim of it. I think of aggression in general pretty much the same way I think about guns. A tool that can be deployed appropriately or inappropriately, for good or for evil.

I don't think of the capacity for aggression as some sort of holdover from a primitive past, however. I think of it as one of the behavioral responses that all mammals and most other creatures have. An essential part of the behavioral repertoire.

I think you're implying that some people may be extreme anti gun because they are rejecting the legitimacy of the human capacity for aggression itself. Is that right?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I think you are talking about fear of acting aggressive ourselves, or fear of our own capacity for aggression rather than being a victim of it. I think of aggression in general pretty much the same way I think about guns. A tool that can be deployed appropriately or inappropriately, for good or for evil.

I don't think of the capacity for aggression as some sort of holdover from a primitive past, however. I think of it as one of the behavioral responses that all mammals and most other creatures have. An essential part of the behavioral repertoire.

I think you're implying that some people may be extreme anti gun because they are rejecting the legitimacy of the human capacity for aggression itself. Is that right?

I was thinking:
That the teaching of "Aggression is bad" ...
The fear of being aggressive...
Keeping aggression in , without a appropriate outlet for it...
Is "bad" for us in general.
And that on occasion aggression can be a positive trait to have....
Andy

 

[OldBroad44]

I feel you have a differing opinion? Go ahead. Lay it on me.

I don't know that I have a different opinion. I'm trying to figure out what men I know who might fit into the more feminized category and where they stand on guns so I can evaluate your argument. But I don't know exactly who among the men I know this might be.

 

[turbo_vanner]

have you ever been told you are a coward for hiding behind a gun, by some young guy who says he doesn't need a gun to feel safe in todays world?

These are the guys who rely on safe spaces, bans, and laws to feel safe, and they believe it. And yes, they also believe that aggression is not required to live safely in a modern city like PDX, and believe its an undesirable trait. These are also the same guys who look the other way and don't say anything when a junkie is messing with people at tri-met, bars, parks, wherever.

I do believe there is a point where aggression and masculinity go too far, or are used at inappropriate times, progressives call this 'toxic masculinity', but seem to lump any and all masculinity into that category. Today, enjoying firearms pretty much equates to 'toxic masculinity' in the eyes of a lot of progressives, so if either guns or masculinity are taught as bad, both are. Along with big diesel trucks, hunting, and sometimes sports... except soccer, thats european, and fancy, and ok.