Guns and Ammo readers are really that crazy

Forums: Politics, Gun Nuts, Us Politics, Guns, Gun Control
Email this Topic • Print this Page

An editor published a fairly innocuous opinion piece suggesting that, although the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, maybe a little regulation like a waiting period before buying a gun, would be ok.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lets-Talk-Limits-by-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf

The editor (not the writer) was just fired for daring to publish an article suggesting any moderation after an strong reaction from the angry mob of their readers. Rather than calling for a respectful discussion, they called for his head.

So much for reasoned debate from the Guns and Ammo crowd.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 5,728 • Replies: 80
Topic Closed

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

So much for reasoned debate from the Guns and Ammo crowd.

Too funny Max! Laughing

If the article was 100% progun/antigun-reformation and said editor was fired by any published institution then the gun nuts would be crying out 1st Amendment foul as a violation of their free speech. Only when it's a fair and reasoned critique against guns and the 2nd Amendment when they fail to invoke the 1st Amendment rights of said mentioned editor.

There is never an understanding let alone attempt at reasoned compromise with these guys. 16 hours of training?! You must be the worstest Nazi-Commie to think that's a reasonable provision to allow a person to get his CCW license. Wink

3 Replies

@tsarstepan,

maxdancona wrote:

So much for reasoned debate from the Guns and Ammo crowd.

tsarstepan wrote:

Too funny Max!

If the article was 100% progun/antigun-reformation and said editor was fired by any published institution then the gun nuts would be crying out 1st Amendment foul as a violation of their free speech. Only when it's a fair and reasoned critique against guns and the 2nd Amendment when they fail to invoke the 1st Amendment rights of said mentioned editor.

There is never an understanding let alone attempt at reasoned compromise with these guys. 16 hours of training?! You must be the worstest Nazi-Commie to think that's a reasonable provision to allow a person to get his CCW license.

Its a question of principle.
( I 'm surprized that u found out about our controversy. )
Lemme explain it to u this way:
if u have a yard sale, u can negotiate prices of used furniture
with the customers, but if one of them offers u money to **** your little girl
or to sodomize your little boy, that is beyond the realm of bargaining; not for sale.
It is "out of the question" as we used to say, and the offeror might be invited
to leave the premises (as distinct from being asked for a better offer).

U see, gentlemen, the point is that the same as government was not
invested with jurisdiction to choose your favorite color for u,
nor to select your religion for u, so also authority over a citizen 's possession
of defensive guns was and is beyond the reach of its jurisdiction.

We don 't like and we do not condone USURPATIONS of power by government.

That editor can still talk about it all he wants.
We won 't stop him. We have not stopped the other advocates
of victim disarmament. Thay can all talk and write.

David

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

with those examples you use, you've made Max's point quite nicely. I am still laughing as to how you are like an old big mouth bass that rises to everything that starts with "Gun".

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Sorry David, I don't get it.

Guns and Ammo has to do with raping children at yard sales, how ?

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

So David? You truly believe that serial killers suffering from schizophrenia should be allowed to walk into a gun show (not needing a background check) and buy as many guns as he can carry out? Presently, according to many state laws, that scenario is far more realistic then the hyperbolic nonsense you presented in your post.

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

If the article was 100% progun/antigun-reformation and said editor was fired by any published institution then the gun nuts would be crying out 1st Amendment foul as a violation of their free speech.

And you would be rationally explaining the difference between first amendment issues and editorial policy.

1 Reply

@roger,

I don't think this is a First Amendment issue at all. I doubt Tsartepan does either. Any publication has the right to choose what to publish and who to employ.

I think he is just speculating on the mindset of gun nuts (who do often whine about censorship).

Guns And Ammo can do whatever they want to placate their rather crazy readership. That is their business.

I just find it amusing.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I think he is just speculating on the mindset of gun nuts (who do often whine about censorship).

Thank you Max. Right on the money.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

with those examples you use,
you've made Max's point quite nicely.

OK, farmer; no problem with that.
Is that issue in controversy??

Do u allege that ANY and EVERY issue must be negotiated,
including sodomy? Is that what u r now saying?? Please advise.

farmerman wrote:

I am still laughing as to how you are like an old big mouth bass
that rises to everything that starts with "Gun".

I think it was NatGeo Wild on TV,
that I saw a big mouth bass swallow an alligator in one bite.
I believe that he was a young one.
Is there a reason that I shud have avoided the Tsar 's thread??
Shud I have BOYCOTTED it?? I don t think so. The Tsar deserves better treatment than that.

If u can think of a good reason for me to have done otherwise,
then I hope that u will let me know what it IS.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Factually, this is Max's thread.

But you should still not boycott it (I don't deserve better treatment than that).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Sorry David, I don't get it.

Lemme get back to u on that, Max.
I ll try to offer a better explanation of my point of vu.
In the meantime, if u will explain how my earlier description
was inadequate, then I will stand in your debt.

maxdancona wrote:

Guns and Ammo has to do with raping children at yard sales, how ?

Ow! Good counter-punch, Max.
I admire your mind! I 'll get back to u.

David

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

I love Your Majesty 's new avatar!
It reminds me of a Walt Disney movie I saw in the early 1950s.

I can 't see it clearly; is that Lasanya in that platter, there ??

If I had not moven to Florida, I 'd suggest that we go back
to that restaurant for dinner again.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

It should be a plate of spaghetti. And your instinct is correct. It's a play on the Disney movie, The Lady and the Tramp. I do remember that restaurant. Very good lasagna was had that day. Smile

1 Reply

So, I guess we're all in agreement. It's a matter of editorial policy. Much like Modern Abortion Magazine terminating an editor that seems quite pro-choice, but in the interest of being reasonable suggests there would be nothing wrong with requiring the patient to view a sonograph of her living fetus, so long as her rights to the procedure not be compromised.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Factually, this is Max's thread.

But you should still not boycott it
(I don't deserve better treatment than that).

Thank u for that correction, Max.
SO STIPULATED, except that I believe that u shud get the finest treatment!

David

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

Much like Modern Abortion Magazine terminating an editor that seems quite pro-choice...

DAMN! I let my subscription of Modern Abortion Magazine run out before that particular article was published. Can you give us a link to it Roger? Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

It should be a plate of spaghetti. And your instinct is correct.
It's a play on the Disney movie, The Lady and the Tramp.
I do remember that restaurant. Very good lasagna was had that day.

Yes! I remember that title.
It was an all Lasanya restaurant, if I remember accurately;
many different varieties thereof on its menu. U still have access to it.
Your Majesty 's going to make me jealous!

David

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

So, I guess we're all in agreement. It's a matter of editorial policy.
Much like Modern Abortion Magazine terminating an editor that seems
quite pro-choice, but in the interest of being reasonable suggests there
would be nothing wrong with requiring the patient to view a sonograph
of her living fetus, so long as her rights to the procedure not be compromised.

Let 's take cognizance of an additional factor: human emotion.
I 'm pretty sure that some of the fellows were taken aback by his attitude
insofar as LOYALTY to the pro-defensive freedom issue was concerned.

Thay probably DISLIKED him, resented him, thinking:
"hay, we already have enuf enemies who r antagonistic to our success
(and who bear ill will toward freedom of personal defense).
We don 't need u on top of them. With friends like u, we don 't need enemies."

If he had remained in the employ of the magazine, that likely
cud have and wud have generated a negative effect on sales & advertizing.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

how could it be all lasagna if they were sucking face with a string of vermicelli?

1 Reply

Guns and Ammo readers are really that crazy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know