Beretta8045 wrote:
She acknowledged the publicity had detrimentally affected her life. "I have read all sorts of slander, personal attacks, and even threats toward me, my family, and, yes, some specific to my children," she said in the interview.
Don't know exactly who threatened her, but I think it's safe to assume that the peace loving, hippie, "anti" crowd threatened her and her children?
Does that make anyone else want to... :banghead:
No offense, but whatever you may think about hippies, anyone who would threaten another with violence is not one.
You don't have to pigeonhole your opponents using the language of partisanship to make a point.
Anti-gun types may have threatened her, and some hippies may be anti-gun, but threatening others precludes hippydom.
Finally, true peace-lovers, like myself, abhor violence but recognize it as sometimes necessary to prevent greater violence, and recognize the means for self-defense as the means to peace.
Declaring that someone who dislikes guns and threatens another "peace-loving" is a contradiction in terms.
Peace-lovers like guns, and they don't threaten.
I think you'd find that, in addition to being a peace-lover, I have some "hippy" characteristics as well. What you've just done is associate a fellow gun rights advocate with genuinely aggressive antigunners.
This is why it's harmful to ascribe characteristics to your opponents other than disagreement you share. You just can't prevent insulting people who are on your side by stereotyping and using the demeaning language of partisan rhetoric.
That, and it just makes us look like fools who view the world as black and white. Describe your opponents for what they are, and avoid stereotypes.
Vicious antigunners are not hippies, and they are not peace-lovers. They are shrill, aggressive opponents of liberty. Something which most hippies and peace-lovers are not.