Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Barack Obama, "Greatest Gun Salesman in America" [View all]Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)88. Thank you for proving my point.
Prove it. You're telling me that baseball, hockey, football, and basketball is the same as hunting and soldiering? C'mon.
I don't actually know the origins of those particular games, but I will point out that hockey and football are both inherently violent games as they are, even though no one usually engages in them with the express intent of actual violence.
But you have been provided with many examples of sports that descend from antiquity and are martial in nature. Target shooting with guns. Target shooting with archery. The shot put. Fencing. Jousting. Sword fighting. Any martial art.
For example, lacrosse, but at the same time, I don't think you could find an Iroquois who would pretend that this is the same thing as hobby.
And I don't think you'll find a single person who would pretend that target shooting is the same thing as shooting people, either. Thank you for proving my point.
Guns are designed for violence, period.
I'll ignore the fact that there are in fact firearms designed explicitly for target shooting, such as the Anshutz target rifle the Olympic shooter was holding in my "cartoon".
Even if we assume that all guns are designed for violence, this does not mean that guns cannot be used for non-violent activities. Just as bows and arrows, javelins, and swords can be used for non-violent activities.
There is no other use to any end than the honing of that skill in and of itself.
Complete hogwash. You are basically saying that every Olympic target shooter is really practicing not to win a gold medal for target shooting but to hone their skills of violence. This is absurd.
Your suppose sense of "zen-like experience" in relation to "precision rifle shooting" is culturally ingrained nonsense unrelated to a sense of pure pleasure - rather it is a product of indoctrination.
Again, absolutely complete hogwash and you should go to a shooting range to experience this for yourself. Or simply go to a bar and throw darts. It's the same thing - you have to practice the discipline of holding still and controlling and repeating your body's motions in a highly repeatable way in order to be able to consistently strike a target.
This is an exercise in self-control. It is difficult, and it is satisfying to master. It has nothing to do with violence or any culturally ingrained response to pleasure derived from violence.
Our society has many unflattering names for those who take pleasure in violence and its means and rightly so, because the idolization thereof is what contributes to the cultural norm that bashing someone's head in is radically different than blowing apart skeet. They are not. They are both acts of destruction and that is not the use of a tool as part of hobby. That is a sickness of mind, a love of violence expressed nominally as pleasure when it really is fetishism.
Well, what more can be said? If you really believe that people who shoot skeet have a sickness of mind bent on destruction, what can I say? You are simply, completely, utterly wrong.
So let me put it like this: if there was a race with an "anti-rights Democrat" versus a "pro-rights Republican" how would you vote?
It depends. You can see my ballot in my signature. In the last election all of my Democratic candidates except one had high marks from the NRA. So I voted Democratic for all of them except the one guy with the F rating. In this case I voted for the Republican (Beth Chapman) instead of the Democrat (Scott Gilliland) for Secretary of State of Alabama. I did this directly as a punitive action against the severely anti-firearm Gilliland, who lost his election bid.
But in the last presidential election, I voted for President Obama in spite of his NRA rating because I did not want more war, more corporate pandering, less environmental regulation, less women's rights, more intrusion of religion into government, and a host of other issues why I don't generally support Republicans.
So it is a matter of balancing the issues. But as a general rule, I will actively vote against any politician of any party with an anti-second amendment history.
I don't actually know the origins of those particular games, but I will point out that hockey and football are both inherently violent games as they are, even though no one usually engages in them with the express intent of actual violence.
But you have been provided with many examples of sports that descend from antiquity and are martial in nature. Target shooting with guns. Target shooting with archery. The shot put. Fencing. Jousting. Sword fighting. Any martial art.
For example, lacrosse, but at the same time, I don't think you could find an Iroquois who would pretend that this is the same thing as hobby.
And I don't think you'll find a single person who would pretend that target shooting is the same thing as shooting people, either. Thank you for proving my point.
Guns are designed for violence, period.
I'll ignore the fact that there are in fact firearms designed explicitly for target shooting, such as the Anshutz target rifle the Olympic shooter was holding in my "cartoon".
Even if we assume that all guns are designed for violence, this does not mean that guns cannot be used for non-violent activities. Just as bows and arrows, javelins, and swords can be used for non-violent activities.
There is no other use to any end than the honing of that skill in and of itself.
Complete hogwash. You are basically saying that every Olympic target shooter is really practicing not to win a gold medal for target shooting but to hone their skills of violence. This is absurd.
Your suppose sense of "zen-like experience" in relation to "precision rifle shooting" is culturally ingrained nonsense unrelated to a sense of pure pleasure - rather it is a product of indoctrination.
Again, absolutely complete hogwash and you should go to a shooting range to experience this for yourself. Or simply go to a bar and throw darts. It's the same thing - you have to practice the discipline of holding still and controlling and repeating your body's motions in a highly repeatable way in order to be able to consistently strike a target.
This is an exercise in self-control. It is difficult, and it is satisfying to master. It has nothing to do with violence or any culturally ingrained response to pleasure derived from violence.
Our society has many unflattering names for those who take pleasure in violence and its means and rightly so, because the idolization thereof is what contributes to the cultural norm that bashing someone's head in is radically different than blowing apart skeet. They are not. They are both acts of destruction and that is not the use of a tool as part of hobby. That is a sickness of mind, a love of violence expressed nominally as pleasure when it really is fetishism.
Well, what more can be said? If you really believe that people who shoot skeet have a sickness of mind bent on destruction, what can I say? You are simply, completely, utterly wrong.
So let me put it like this: if there was a race with an "anti-rights Democrat" versus a "pro-rights Republican" how would you vote?
It depends. You can see my ballot in my signature. In the last election all of my Democratic candidates except one had high marks from the NRA. So I voted Democratic for all of them except the one guy with the F rating. In this case I voted for the Republican (Beth Chapman) instead of the Democrat (Scott Gilliland) for Secretary of State of Alabama. I did this directly as a punitive action against the severely anti-firearm Gilliland, who lost his election bid.
But in the last presidential election, I voted for President Obama in spite of his NRA rating because I did not want more war, more corporate pandering, less environmental regulation, less women's rights, more intrusion of religion into government, and a host of other issues why I don't generally support Republicans.
So it is a matter of balancing the issues. But as a general rule, I will actively vote against any politician of any party with an anti-second amendment history.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
125 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Republicans and right wingers have been successful in scaring the crap out of Americans...
rfranklin
Feb 2012
#1
"The SCROTUS is going to overturn the 2nd Amendment? The same SCROTUS that gave us "Citizen's United
rl6214
Feb 2012
#23
I read a friends from time to time and laugh at how then NRA scares GOP voters into donating money.
Logical
Feb 2012
#19
Are now saying that working class voters in your neck of the woods are extremists?
aikoaiko
Feb 2012
#118
Could the economy not the president have more to do with the increase in hunting licenses?
Glassunion
Feb 2012
#4
don't go getting logical with this group....pay no attention to the economy behind the curtain
Tuesday Afternoon
Feb 2012
#9
The "we're gonna take our country back . . . .from the Black guy" bunch flooded gun stores in 11/08.
Hoyt
Feb 2012
#6
SD, plinking, competition, hunting, collecting....so many types, all protected by the 2A
ileus
Feb 2012
#27
I recently brought up the subject of the Kel-Tec KSG Shotgun in another thread.
Johnny Rico
Feb 2012
#43
Rather than argue with you about the deleterious effects of your misinterpretation...
ellisonz
Feb 2012
#45
So why not have a single national militia that could come to the aid of all?
Atypical Liberal
Feb 2012
#123
Translation: Your questions are inconvenient to answer because they would undermine my argument.
Johnny Rico
Feb 2012
#46
"Virtually every athletic contest has its origins in those two occupations."
Atypical Liberal
Feb 2012
#73
"There is no way that a firearm can transubstantiate from being a weapon into being a tool"
Callisto32
Feb 2012
#117
Are you also equally against archery, or fencing? Or javelin throwing?
Atypical Liberal
Feb 2012
#62
Then perhaps you are projecting your own violent tendencies on others.
Atypical Liberal
Feb 2012
#90
Now if you'll just acknowledge that people have used weapons for recreation for all time.
Atypical Liberal
Feb 2012
#80
Gun ownership IS a sacred civil right to be taken with seriousness. It can also be a hobby.
Atypical Liberal
Feb 2012
#39
Exactly. You can use a computer to publish (as someone brought up) dirty limericks.
Johnny Rico
Feb 2012
#42