"I find it disturbing that hoplophobes seem to be fascinated with gunowner genitalia, and are constantly fantasizing about the size and condition of said organs."
-Bob G., commenting over at Bob S.
I've lost count of the number of times some anti-gun person has found a way to bring my dick or the collective dicks of gun owners into a discussion. Hell, I've even had these folks go so far as to challenge me to a dick measuring contest, as bizarre and outright disturbing as that is. (I'd advise against clicking the links, they exist only because I believe in backing up claims with proof)
In my experience it's used by the left in very much the same way "racism" is. Accusations of racism and bringing the genatalia of the other side into the discussion is the functional equivalent of saying "I'm a child who has nothing intelligent to say."
Also, I'm really fed up with the media portrayal of Tea Partiers, but that's another post entirely.
Update -
Weer'd brings the funny
"just imagine, somewhere in the world this morning the anti-gun bigots are getting up and talking about other men's penises."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Well you just bought yourself a .32 revolver with a 2" barrel. If you're compensating, you're doing it RONG!!!!
Mike W,
I started off chuckling at the comments at Huffington, then I started realizing how many of them truly believe the tripe they write.
Thanks for the link
People who bring those kind of topics into any kind of serious discussion don't just have issues, they have a bloody subscription.
Clearly, that's why I compensated for my penile inadequacies by buying a .32 caliber snubnose revolver.
That's obviously the pinnacle of massive, engorged phallic symbols :)
So here is the thing I just do not get - look past the childish idiocy of the "penile compensation" argument, and consider for a second that it is an actual, valid, realistic point (this is a stretch, I know, but bear with me).
So what?
So what if people are using inanimate lumps of metal to compensate for lacking physical attributes?
So what if people are viewing firearms as phalli?
So what?
What the hell difference does it make in any case whatsoever?
Not a whit.
As with so many hoplophobic arguments, it is completely and utterly meaningless in the grand scheme of things, which is why it will always be nothing more than a childish, pathetic, petulant little personal attack. An amusingly irrelevant one, but still pathetic.
Jadegold,
Insecure about what?
The leftists like you keep mentioning that but I don't understand what I'm supposed to be insecure about?
My personal liberties being undermined by decades (and yes I include Rep and Dem branches) of governmental enroachment,
Okay, I'm insecure about that.
My personal property that I've worked from, earned, and have purchased being stolen because someone wasn't raised with decency and respect.
Okay, I'm insecure about that.
My life being threatened because some thug decides that (s)he simply wants to threaten my life.
Okay, I'm insecure about that.
My wife and daughter being raped, sexually assaulted because some thug decides he wants to get his jollies that way.
Okay, I'm insecure about that.
I have evidence to back up my actual insecurities.
Am I insecure about the size of my genitalia?
Nope, not a chance.
Why don't you present the vast amount of evidence you've gathered by measure pro-gun and anti-gun penis and let us see if there is a basis in fact for your claims of compensation, eh?
I never make those jokes. I think they're stupid.
But I do think there's a big percentage of you guys who feel psychologically inadequate and have found the answer in guns. The problem with that is those of you who do that are starting off with mental problems which if they're serious enough cannot be corrected with weapons. That makes you, not all of you, only the ones who fit this profile, unfit to have guns and a danger to yourselves and others.
To those of you who don't fit into this profile, why do you get so defensive and upset at it?
The problem with that is those of you who do that are starting off with mental problems which if they're serious enough cannot be corrected with weapons.
Your statement infers that those with "less serious" mental problems can correct them by acquiring "weapons" (whatever that means)
Funny, I always thought guns were inanimate objects, but if they're capable of the level of mind control necessary to cure mental problems perhaps we should be handing them out to anti-gunners as the One True Cure!!
To those of you who don't fit into this profile, why do you get so defensive and upset at it?
Easy. The answer is in your second sentence:
But I do think there's...
You have no facts (again).
You have no studies (again).
You have no statistics (again).
You have no supporting documentation (again).
You have nothing more than your own opinion that people's rights should be subject to your own whims and inclinations.
I think lots of people use computers to spread child pornography, and that makes you, not all of you, only the ones who fit this profile, unfit to have computers and a danger to yourselves, others, and children throughout the country and world.
Is that a good enough reason to abridge individual's First-Amendment-protected rights?
If no (as I have ever reason to suspect you will answer), then why is your baseless, specious opinion sufficient to abridge Americans' Second-Amendment-protected rights?
The facts of this situation are simple: psychological shortcomings or not, these people have committed no crimes, and thus you have absolutely no basis to attempt to abridge or infringe upon their naturally-granted, Constitutionally-protected rights to self-defense. Likewise, unlike you and the rest of your anti-rights ilk, I oppose the oppression of rights for all law-abiding, responsible, adult human beings, and thus I have every reason to "get so defensive" when you and your fellow authoritarians attempt to overstep your bounds.
If a person cannot be trusted with a firearm, then they sure as hell cannot be trusted with gasoline, fertilizers, propane, natural gas, welding equipment, bottled oxygen, or even flour. Where are your cries to limit access to those dangerous materials?
Hell Linoge, you can buy virtually all of those products ON THE INTERNET!
We'd better ban the internet! Also, let's blame Al Gore for any violence or destruction that occurs with said products bought online. He invented the internet, so he's also at fault, "shared responsibility" and all. Right MikeB?
MikeB302000,
Talk to me about your resistant to accepting your responsibility for chlid pron (deliberate misspelling), eh?
Why do you refuse to accept your responsibility for that heinous crime?
Why do you get so upset when your logic is used in this manner?
To those of you who don't fit into this profile, why do you get so defensive and upset at it?
"The problem with that is those of you who do that are starting off with mental problems"
Said by a person who is without a doubt mentally ill.
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/648568.html
uhh huhh
"I never make those jokes. I think they're stupid."
yet you foster and encourage their usage on your and other websites.
So you CLAIM to think they're stupid, but as usual you're a liar.
Yes, Linoge, I think. I could do what you guys do and search for polls and stats that support what I already believe, but I find it better to think.
Insecure men with inferiority complexes who discover that they feel better armed, are dangerous in my opinion. The only question is how many of you suffer from that.
Does that make me a liar too, Weer'd?
You don't think MikeB, you "feel." Thinking means coming to logical conclusions based on objective consideration of factual evidence. You do no such thing.
As for insecure inferiority complexes, someone like yourself is FAR more dangerous.
Why? Because your fears and insecurities lead you to advocate disarming EVERYONE rather than simply choosing (for yourself and only yourself) not to be armed.
The person who is so insecure, paranoid & fearful of their fellow citizens that they want to disarm everyone around them worries me far more than the citizens who make an informed, personal choice to carry a tool for self-defense.
Let's consider some of the other great "thinkers" in history.
Let's consider the people used to "think" the Sun revolved around the Earth -- of course, evidence proved them wrong.
Let's consider the people who used to "think" that African Americans were an inferior species -- statistics proved them wrong.
Let's consider the people who used to think that "leeches" were the cure for most medical conditions, time and history and science proved them wrong.
Time and time again the "thinkers" of life turn out to be wrong --
Of course, we can also play that game of just thinking without evidence.
I think that MikeB302000 is hiding something in his past -- besides his illegally owned firearms.
I think there are 10% of the people that shouldn't own computers or cameras.
I think that much of the chlid pron produced in the world comes from Italy.
I think there might be a connection.
Now, would you want me to prove any of those "thoughts" MikeB302000 or should I continue to make unsupported statements?
"Because your fears and insecurities lead you to advocate disarming EVERYONE"
Nope, remember, Sparky is a proud criminal. He'd still have a gun.
BTW, Sparky, are you saying during your criminal days you felt insecure too?
Also what's more dangerous, me with a loaded gun, or a mentally ill criminal raising two children?
At least my actions aren't hurting anybody!
Does that make me a liar too, Weer'd?
Yes, but not for the reasons you thought.
Lie #1:
Yes, Linoge, I think.
No, Sparky, you believe, and until you understand the very distinct difference between those two words, you will eternally fail as badly as you failed on this thread. Now, you may think you think, but until such time as that thinking is based in something even approximating reality, facts, or honest logic, then your thinking is nothing more than blind, self-centered faith wrapped in a shroud of baseless superiority.
Lie #2:
I could do what you guys do and search for polls and stats that support what I already believe...
You put the cart before the horse there, Sparky, and that is yet another reason why you are failing and will continue to fail. I believe human beings have an inherent right to self-defense, and I need no stats or polls to support that belief. However, based on those polls and stats, I know that an armed populace that is willing to defend itself is far better than a disarmed populace turned into defenseless sheep by scumbags like you.
The hitch in your lie is that I arrived at the conclusion (armed populace > disarmed populace) after examining the information and data that is out there, not beforehand as you so speciously claim. I know, by your own admission, no less, that you are completely ignorant of the "Scientific Method", but you really ought to look into it at some point.
Or not - nigh-effortlessly handing you your ass on a silver platter has not quite gotten old yet.
Oh, and before you continue to claim that I reached the conclusion and then searched for the data, I have two words for you: prove it. You cannot (and, no, your opinions do not constitute proof), while I can prove the contrary, and thus the claim is fallacious before you ever even thought of it.
So, Sparky, the last time I bothered counting the number of lies you spew forth in a comment thread, we got up to six before you crawled home with your tail between your legs - care to try and best that record?
And while this is not a lie, it deserves some attention:
Insecure men with inferiority complexes who discover that they feel better armed, are dangerous in my opinion.
You say that like it matters. Wierd. Let me make this as painfully simple as I possibly can for you, Sparky: your opinion does not matter to my rights. Your opinion, without the benefit of facts to support it, is insufficient to abridge, infringe upon, or limit any other person's rights. If you continue to claim that your baseless opinions are sufficient to limit the self-defense rights of people who have been convicted of no crime, then you, but nothing more complicated than logical extension, agree with the following statement: "A person's opinion is all it takes to limit another person's rights to free expression, because people who look at and spread child pornography on their computers are dangerous in my opinion," whether you admit to it or not.
I have got to admit, Sparky - my brain just boggles at the amount of compartmentalization that must go on inside your noggin... or the cognitive dissonance you must suffer from on a daily (hourly?) basis. I am not sure which would be better for you - a class on logic, or a sit-down with a head-shrinker - but either would probably help you out significantly.
Thanks, guys, especially you Linoge, for taking the time to point out these things to me again. I know how tedious it must be dealing with someone like me, so I really appreciate all the time you spend on me, someone as insignificant as myself.
Mikeb302000,
It is always a pleasure to school the immature and hope that some day they will grow up.
Maybe if you didn't repeat the same tired, disproven loads of bull, we wouldn't have to patiently point out the mistakes you've made.
I notice that you don't address those points we raise, you simply try to deflect the issue. AGAIN
Thank you, Sparky, for providing a perfect example of the phenomena I wrote about yesterday - without anti-rights nuts like you, pro-rights activists like me would lose a lot of entertainment material.
More meaningless trolling from MikeB302000. This is why I banned him. Not because I'm limiting his speech, but I realized he doesn't actually SAY ANYTHING at all, EVER.
Well except "look at meeeee!!! Look at Meeeee!!!!"
So I stopped looking.
Thanks, guys, especially you Linoge, for taking the time to point out these things to me again.
Oh, we don't do it for you MikeB. We already know you lack the mental capacity to comprehend 99.9% of what we say.
Post a Comment