@hightor,
hightor wrote:
Quote:The cops were there because of the fear mongering of the pussy liberals that are as scared of their own shadows as they are of guns.
"Pussy liberals" — see, this is why gun apologists are so often suspected of harboring some weird need to prove their manhood*.
Is that why there were so many women at the protest? To prove their manhood? The left wing media hyped up the event leading with the arrest of 3 racists and comparing them with everyone else that might attend the protest.
hightor wrote:Do you really think that the only reason that anyone might want to tighten gun laws is out of fear?
Yes. They are afraid of guns because they don't understand them.
hightor wrote: Gun control people aren't "scared" — they're outraged at the unnecessary loss of life in gun violence and disgusted by the political power of the gun lobby. They're not even asking for anything that drastic —
Gun control people need to understand that that people that own guns and do not want their rights trampled are just like them. What is your understanding of what they are doing in Va?
hightor wrote:I think if anyone's afraid of their own shadows and susceptible to fear mongering it's the people like the ones openly carrying weapons in yesterday's demonstration. "Safest spot in the nation" — haha! — yeah, so safe all ten thousand of the scaredy-cats felt the need to carry a firearm!
No one participating in the protest felt the need to declare a state of emergency, no one went on talk shows to explain that all gun owners were obviously racists (AOC), no one at the protest tweeted about all the white supremacists carrying their guns and how they wouldn't think the black panthers should be armed (Hogg) despite the fact that the black panthers WERE their to protect their 2nd amendment rights. No scardy cats were carrying guns, they were all safe behind the fence inside the Capital Bldg shuddering in fright.
hightor wrote:*And I'm not accusing McGentrix personally here — the fact is, this argument is so commonly trotted out by the pro-gun side that it's become a cliche, a handy phrase to throw into an argument like a little grenade. But think about it...why the sexual connotation? And why so blatant?
Because it is a literary device intended to provoke a response to continue the conversation. By questioning an opponents manhood by referring to them, or their argument or their stance or their whatever in terms of womanly parts it exaggerates the idea. Plus, it feels good
sometimes to use crude language to make a point.