imported post
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Does anyone know if this site utilizes an "ignore" feature?
One more (last) time.
You are NOT an OC'er.
You are NOT someone truly interested in real freedom.
You ARE someone who, deep down inside, craves for oppression.
Don't feel badly. Most Amerikans are just like you.
You REALLY should consider homesteading bayoushooters.com, you'll find yourself more in your element there.
To REMAIN here only proves you're purpose here is to argue, not share time with others like you.
Here's what he said on his own board: "A few years ago, I was convinced that concealed carry was something that was unnecessary for the "common man". That only those who were in a "need" of it should do so...security, cops, couriers, etc...I'd have never stood in the way of anyone else to exert that right, but, I didn't see the point in it myself."
This guy is a fence-sitter, at best. He's on gun boards looking for interaction. He's really trying hard to prove his loyalty to the board he found in January. He doesn't contribute anything of substance on his own board, either. He talks at the edge of the issues, always an ancillary matter, crowbarring his way into a discussion, always talking about how people
feel about the issue, but he never gets in the middle of the mess to state his case. He'll join your group, but he won't lead it. I don't think there's much depth to him.
He'll chit-chat. If the topic is about anything besides guns, he'll have an empty sort of pleasant discussion, at length, but you'll come away with nothing from it. He's like a human chat-bot.
To meet him personally, you'd probably find him nice enough. When pressed for a position, he hides behind an some form of this empty defence: "everyone should respect everyone else's opinion." The difficulty is that he doesn't have much of an opinion, and since his opinion is that all opinions are to be given equal space, he views with disfavor any opinion that crowd out any other opinion. He's a reflexive banner. If the temperature gets too hot, he wants the challenger gone. "No person, no problem," as Stalin put it.
Is he dangerous? I don't know. He's plenty bitter and angry, but he directs this bitterness and anger into an odd justification of the very system that has caused him such bitterness and anger. It's as if the only weakness of the status quo is that we don't have a stronger version of it. Would he call the cops on an OC'er in Florida? Absolutely. Would he call the cops on a guy whose concealed gun became unconcealed through activity or inattention? Absolutely, and he'd call it "just a learning experience."
He has a public-school, socialistic, view of the world. Certain topics are absolutely off-limits, just because they are, and discussion on the wrong side of such a topic renders the commentator a pariah and the argument forfeit. For example, he doesn't have to prove that cops are good, pure and true and not thugs. He relies on a ground rule that states such, and anyone on the other side of that issue must be banned; ergo, with no arguments to the contrary, it's evident that cops are good, pure and true and not thugs. It's a horrendous intellectual cop-out, but Amerikans have been doing it reflexively for 60 years, now, and they're always looking for the teacher to define the discussion, control the classroom and save them from their scrapes.
You can rest assured, Mark, that on the Great Day, he won't be with us...until we get control, at which point, he'll be with us, demanding that those against us be banned for criticizing us. He's a perfect Hobbesian.