ocholsteroc
Regular Member
+1SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
+1SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Sorry Peter Nap I wasn't meaning to quote your post in my previous reply. On all the other forums I'm on, the reply without quote button is on the right side below each post, rather than on the left side at the bottom of the page, and I clicked it out of habit.
Those are admirable goals!
Those are admirable goals!
Laws only stop those who are willing to abide by them. Otherwise their only purpose is to define actions, which if performed and successfully prosecuted have an associated punishment with them.
Laws don't prevent crime.
Laws provide a framework by which to punish those who choose to ignore them.
The law-abiding have (generally) chosen they are not willing to accept the risk of having the punishment applied to them, so indirectly the law has deterred the crime. It has not prevented a crime.
Libel!?! I would call those admirable goals.
In that laws only restrict those who will abide by them, criminals are gonna get guns. There is no point in restricting the people who respect laws. I think Thomas Jefferson had something to say about this.
Lori Haas is just using the age old ad hominen attack. She wants to discredit VCDL rather than debate the merits of letting responsible adults have the means to stop the next Cho. Her ad hominen attack wouldn't fly two inches on a forum. Hey! I wonder if plenty of young adults with forum experience don't already recognize her tactic?
She sounds mis-informed.
Has anyone offered to call her up and say, "Hey Lori, I'd like you to come with me to a VCDL meeting and see what we're about. We'll be doing a holiday pot-luck and we'd really like to have you over."
Maybe you can turn an antagonist into an ally?
Yes we have and no, there's not a chance.
I sometimes wonder whether some of those people have so much emotionally invested that it is impossible for them to consider alternatives.
For example, I met an MMMer on Lobby Day a few years ago. She griped out one of our "delegation", then marched off holding up a small 3 x 4 photo. Really "in your face" with the photo. As though to say "See! This child is dead because of you!"
That got me to wondering. Was it her kid? Ahhhhhh. Now, that opens the door to something. Meaning, a mother would potentially have a tremendous amount of potention guilty feelings, a tremendous resistance to having any responsibility for the death. Think about it for a second. Why was the child killed? Where was the mother? Why did she leave the kid unprotected? Etc, etc, etc. Those would be very, very hard questions for a mother to face if any of the answers pointed back to her as having some responsibility for any failure. Such a mother could fight very hard to blame us if she cannot bear the thought of having even a slight degree responsibility.
Similar possibility for Colin Goddard. For example, certain questions might be too much to bear because they would ultimately make him partially responsible for what happened to him: what was he doing there unarmed? why did he accept that the school would keep him safe? why didn't he rush forward and grab the gun? did someone else rush for the gun and he held back in fear rather than help them? etc, etc, etc. Possibly adding up to him being completely unwilling to accept any degree of responsibility whatsoever, translating into blaming others.
You understand, I am not attacking the MMMer or Goddard. I am merely posing questions to illustrate what types of failures might contribute to their anti-self defense attitudes.
So, sometimes I wonder. It is too irrational to render people defenseless, making them prey to criminals and government. Therefore, there must be something irrational going on. Something powerful emotionally. Sometimes I just want to get in their face and demand answers until they break down crying or fly into a rage and cough up their real reason.
Of course, I don't advocate doing this. It wouldn't be pretty. You could get away with it with a family member or good friend; but, not with a stranger, not in public, not at a protest or something.
I must be a good therapist Citizen. Goddard's gone off several times at me and Lori huffs off when I start.
Mr. Rosacea gets even redder. I hope it helps them face their demons :lol:
This is very good insight into the anti's minds and it gives me ideas on how to turn the tables and perhaps play off of their fears and guilt during a debate/verbal throw-down! This could get satisfyingly nasty!
I agree with the contention but disagree with the logic.
Most of them pick a side and stay with it - partisan politics - and are generally unswayed from their support of one of the big two candidates, not because of the candidate's platform or record, but whether they have a (D) or (R) after their names.
"My daddy voted democrat, so I vote democrat."
If the things you thought when you were young are false, how does thinking them when you're old change that?
Very true. I've always said that the "anti's" in society are the people who really should not be allowed to own guns!Make sure you study up on projection as well.
All those antis crowing about lax gun laws shooting people in bars and in traffic? THAT IS PROJECTION my friends!! They see it happening because they consider it possible and project their thoughts on everyone.
We are confused as to why they could be so crazy because we don't see that as a possibility and therefore project our rational on them.
Truly an oversimplification of projection, but I am not that far off base.