Guns and Liberals

The vast majority of the police, the military, Hunters, militia members, etc are ALL right wing.

 

You could say that but it would not be true. When I hear conservative ideology it is quite clear that a central part of the ideology is built upon false characterizations of liberals. Just about everyday I post in the forum, at least one conservative will write a post telling me how I think and behave. They are always wrong. And their "errors" always seem designed to put liberals in a most negative light. Conservatives also tend to characterize Hispanics in ways that don't represent any Hispanics I've ever met. Because of this and other reasons, to me, dishonesty seems to be an overriding characteristic of conservative ideology.

 

Just as when liberals talk, it is quite clear that a central part of the ideology is built upon false characterizations of conservatives..

Just about everyday I post in the forum, at least one liberal will write a post telling me how I think and behave. They are always wrong. And their "errors" always seem designed to put conservatives in a most negative light. Liberals also tend to characterize gun owners in ways that don't represent any gun owner I've ever met. Because of this and other reasons, to me, ignorance and/or dishonesty seems to be an overriding characteristic of liberal ideology]

 

That is because of the authoritarian nature of those occupations and of carrying a gun.

This is a primary difference between conservatives and liberals. In a liberal utopia there are no police. People are brought up respecting others enough to not need them. In a conservative utopia the police are necessary, so everyone knows their place, to keep the nonconformists in line.

 

Huh. What did I just say? Oh yes...
Just as when liberals talk, it is quite clear that a central part of the ideology is built upon false characterizations of conservatives..
Thank you for proving the point.

 

It encourages the purchase of ever more guns. Doesn't a good chunk of their funding come from gun manufacturers? It is kind of a statistical thing, the more guns, the more likely someone is going to get shot.

Didn't recently they arrest a Russian spy. Among her activities, it is alleged that she participated in funneling millions of dollars, from the Russisn government to the NRA. Could this have anything to do with so many conservatives softening on Russia?

 

Even if you can show this is true, how does this cause harm?

Please prove this to be true.

 

they also encourage the safe use and handling of firearms for responsible law-abiding citizens. more guns are not a problem if they are in the right hands.

 

If a firearm is in the wrong hands, it is usually within the confines of a liberal urban mecca.

 

Aren't most gang related shootings done with stolen guns? More guns, more likelihood a gun will be stolen. I've heard that those who live with their guns, such as police officers and those who insist on carrying, are more likely to die from self inflicted gunshots than from a gunshot from another.

In response to mass shootings the response from the NRA has been to advocating arming more people. Yet what would the situation be like if there were a shooter, or just a rumor of one, and multiple people pulled out their weapon. Between citizens with guns and the police, in heat of the moment, as people all around are in a panic, a lot of people could end up collateral damage.

I think it would be a bit humorous, a situation where one guy pulls out a gun and everyone around pulls out a gun. A sudden noise and someone pulls their trigger. In a moment guns are firing from every direction. When the smoke clears all are laying on the ground with life threatening injuries.

One of the central concepts from the Enlightenment is the idea that people are better off through compromise solution rather than through violent confrontation.

 

Dunno. Tell us. Be sure to cite your information.

You've heard, eh?
No citeable evidence to back it up?
Moving on...

In contrast to the usual knee-jerk reactionary liberal "solutions" for mass shootings, the above is ivy-league reasoning.

Dunno. Tell us. Be sure to cite your examples.

You find humor in unnecessary deaths that serve to further your ideological goals?
Wow. How enlightened.

Another central concept of the enlightenment is the recognition of the stark reality that sometimes violence is forced upon you and thus cannot be avoided; in such a situation you are almost always better off having the capacity to deliver more violence than those who forced you into doing so.

 

i agree with your last paragraph. however, how do you propose a compromise with a mass shooter?

 

Some people need to be removed.

Looking through the news it seems that lately the most effective way of taking out a shooter, or a possible shooter, is to bum rush the shooter.

There were a couple of Americans, in France, who bum rushed a shooter in a crowded train car, preventing him from getting a shot off. There is a story where a teacher just grabed the gun, or another where a teacher tackled a student as he took aim.

Seems to me that most, if not all, mass shooters want to commit suicide - and they want as many people as possible to feel their pain. Perhaps part of the problem is that not enough people feel connected to the community around them.

It could also be that many people feel trapped in a society that requires everyone to be a cog in the machine. Not every cog has a place to go, so they get tossed aside. You can see it as technology continually changes our society. People are constantly being left out.

In 1970 there was a book called, Future Shock. Its thesis was that humans weren't made for the high pace of technological developments. The result, for many is a kind of sensory overload making it difficult to cope with change. Violent outbursts are predictable in such a situation.

Incidentally the author predicted the current migration problem they are having in Europe, giving its causes entirely on economic/technologic development arguments.

 

No. The most common way.

Ah. Rather than compromise, you choose violent confrontation.
Of the people who rushed such an armed individual, how many were glad they did not have a firearm?

 

i'm sorry, but it sounds like you're contradicting yourself. bum rushing the shooter is compromise?

 

Lol. This after telling me how conservatives mis-charactorize liberals.

 

Funny, eh?