Liberals condescending word choices are really starting to irk me

Surely the cowards would be the people who are afraid to face the world without a firearm to cling to.

 

Armchair psychology is fun!

 

Taking prudent measures to independently provide safety and security for one's self and family is not cowardly.
It's responsible.

Clinging to central planners to protect you, and provide for you, and supervise you, and steal from taxpayers for you
is cowardly.

 

You mean. . .you prefer the "respectful and fair" assessment of Liberals that is constantly spewed by the Right?

Let's see, here is a good example of a "Right wing" comment about Liberals:

Is THIS "snobby holier than thou talk" more acceptable and more conducive to respectful, constructive debate because this remarks comes from a "conservative?"

 

Go for it.

 

No answer to my question about Conservative's "snotty, holier than thaugh talk" I see!

 

Would it be considered "condescending" to tell you that you're missing a crucial apostrophe in your title?

 

The Dems proposal is just dumb to begin with, so it's not like they're on good footing either. Not only will a new AWB not remove guns/mags currently in circulation, it doesn't actually do anything to address the issue it's supposed to address; mass shootings. All it does is polarize gun owners against future gun regulation. I'm not saying that passing any gun regulation is easy, but telling people they can't own something because a few bad people decided to use them in an aweful way doesn't buy you any friends. Rather it chases people away and destroys trust because they now know that they will be punished for the actions of the few. Then there's the whole bit about how rarely these weapons are used in violent acts, something completely ignored. Really all the dems are doing here is pissing off people, increasing gun sales, and maybe they'll push the law through that means you can only have 2 of 7 scary parts on your rifle, oh and new high capacity mags can't be sold in the US (old ones are just fine).

It's not "smart" or "responsible", it's a stupid feelgood law that doesn't address the issue but makes morons feel that they somehow did something good.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't care. This isn't a legal document, it's a post on a forum and written legibly.

 

I mean, you're complaining about liberals' posts (see, I used the apostrophe!) going over your head when you're leaving out basic conjunctions and punctuation. Maybe the problem isn't liberals; maybe the problem is you. (Pro tip: I didn't use an apostrophe after that "liberals" because it's only plural instead of being plural possessive!)

 

Yeah, never said it didn't go both ways, it's just the liberal condescending talk that's pissing me off at the moment. I agree that the whole "liberalism is a mental disorder" thing is stupid, and so are many conservative arguments (the argument against gay marriage comes to mind). At the same time they're not sitting there telling me I'm unintelligent and irresponsible because I believe banning a certain type of fire arm that is rarely used in crime is just downright pointless and will create more issues than it will solve, especially since it's not actually going to solve anything.

 

So... anything with some substance or are you just going to insult me because I left out some punctuation? Again, the post is legible and the title clear. If you have a real point go for it, but if you want to insult my intelligence because I left out a character then (*)(*)(*)(*) off.

 

OP - Liberals are more intelligent than "conservatives". This is just part of life. I'm sorry. Interview 10000 professors from universities around the country....nay, around the world. I'm sure 85% of them would be "liberal". Liberalism is a progression forward. Conservatism is the status quo...i.e. letting those who have power keep said power.

 

Like I said earlier they may, on average, be more intelligent, but that doesn't mean their positions are "smart" or "reasonable". Also professors do not have a monopoly on intelligence. I'm a programmer, and obviously work with other programmers. I don't know of any liberals that I work with and we're all intelligent people (wouldn't be programming software if we weren't). I've also got my friends, including a teacher, and there are only two liberals in my group of friends that I can think of. We're all above average intelligence as well. Then again we're not really conservatives either. Guess it depends on where you put "classical liberal" since loving individual freedom, small government, and belief in a free market doesn't all under liberal or conservative as those terms stand now.

Oh, and liberalism is not a progression forward. It may be for change, yes, but the term "progression forward" gives you the idea that things are moving for the best, and they're really not. In some aspects yes, but in others no, just like conservative values. Neither side is completely bad, nor completely good, just mostly bad because they focus on control more than anything else.

 

Since you seem to want to be reasonable, could you tell me what purpose semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines have that basic handguns (for self-defense) and basic rifles( for hunting) do not have?

What is so special (except, of course, the ability to kill many in a very short time without reloading) do those weapons have.

And, yes, I know almost nothing about guns. . .and my ONLY interest in them is to try to understand why ANYONE needs "killing machines" rather than "deterrents."

 

Wow, an actual thought out response. I thank you. I agree, things are not moving forward. And I agree that some central ideas of "conservatives" are worthwhile. However, I would imagine that we would disagree on to what degree "liberalism" or "conservatism" is to blame for our very evident downward spiral.

I too advocate a balance...you probably think we have too little "conservatism" I see WAY too little Liberalism.

 

liberals are not very smart at all, But after stating this I think I might have to prove this out with logic, lets see, how can I do this?
well if you told a liberal that more then 10 times the deaths occur from car acidents then with guns. the liberal would still think
that guns are more dangerous. if you think 10 is more then 100, then you just might be a liberal.

After I talk to liberals, I walk away knowing that the idiot teacher did a good job and cloned themself into that liberal.
while the rest of us know it's really called propaganda dumped down collage, then they call them smart to make them even more clueless of
the state of their own mind condition.

....

 

Are you really that devoid of rebuttals that you're stuck critiquing punctuation foibles?



Oh Davey, don't ever change.

 

And surely it's dishonest to pretend that all gun owners are cowards.

 

Well it's simple; it's our right to own them. I could go into the whole resistance of government thing which while valid is stated so often it almost loses its meaning, but at the end of the day the fact remains that these weapons are rarely used in violent acts so there's no point in banning them. Banning pistols would do much more to prevent gun deaths as they are by far the weapon of choice for violent acts. That still wouldn't be a perfect solution as people would simply move to other means and it would unnecessarily punish legitimate owners (as another AWB would). At the end of the day what I use my AK-47 for is shooting targets. That's the same thing my other friends do with their rifles, as well as many, many other rifle owners. I see no reason to ban them other than this weird knee-jerk reaction by people who don't know much about guns and seem to be frightened by them to the point of ridiculousness (not directed at you, I'm saying this in general). Even then the law will almost certainly do nothing about the ones currently out there and does absolutely nothing to prevent mass shootings. It's a pointless punishment for millions of legitimate gun owners, and that's it.

 

We probably would disagree. I personally find the beliefs that conservatives say they believe (small gov, fiscal soundness, personal freedom) to be very important. I believe the roll of government is more to provide a sandbox with the basic infrastructure that allows the individual to succeed or fail on their own merit. Things like roads, police, fire protection, healthcare, defense (not offence) are all important rolls. However things like laws against smoking in bars, soda bans, not recognizing gay marriages (or even more people joining) are just not necessary and create undo chaos and unrest. Both sides have their good and bad side, but fact is the government is broke, we continue to get new laws at record pace, and it's the fault of both parties (and the citizens who keep voting for the same bought and sold ********s) that we can't just have a reasonable nation that respects the individuals right to live their life as they see fit so long as they don't harm others.

 

Only "nutters" would restrict the rights of people who haven't committed a crime.

 

I don't usually carry my gun, but even if I didn't own one at all, I would never take away the rights of other people to have one.

I don't need a gun to "face the world", but at the same time, I also don't need to oppress other people just to have my policy preferences in place.

 

There's a reason that 9-out-of-10 scientists are Democrats. Can you figure out what it is?

 

You are a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing troll yourself.

"Hey pot, this kettle, and I just wanted you to know you're black."

 

Government grants parasites.