Stop Signs With Guns

[CO Liberal]

(The caption on this picture reads: "The bullet holes in the sign are a great reminder that Mother Nature isn't the only threat to life and limb.")


:-)

[Wonk]

1. If an infinite number of rednecks fired an infinite number of shotguns

at an infinite number of roadsigns, they would eventually create all the world's great works of literature in braille :-)

[cprise]

2. No

Like monkeys, they would all just poo all over the keyboard instead.

[CO Liberal]

3. "Poo On the Keyboard" - Sounds Like Freepers To Me

:-)

[Narf]

16. They know how to use a keyboard?

Must be hard to type while giving the Heil Hitler salute.

[iverglas]

4. well

how else would all the visually impaired people exercising their right to keep and shoot guns know what to shoot at??

.

[demsrule4life]

5. So now you are cutting down people

that have disabilities? So progressive.

[iverglas]

6. why don't you just grow up?

... and stop playing make-believe ... or take the advice often given to those who truly aren't capable of making reasoned contributions to conversations. That bit about being seen and not heard.

If there seemed to be any point in requesting an explanation of how you interpreted my words as "cutting down people that have disabilities", I'd do it.

The problem is that anybody actually thick enough to have sincerely interpreted what I said as meaning that, would not be capable of explaining the thought process by which s/he reached that conclusion, in a million years. So my question would be pointless.

I never know for sure whether someone who says such things is genuinely so thick as to believe that my words meant what they are portrayed as meaning, or doesn't believe it at all and is just saying it for reasons of his/her own. Either way, there just wouldn't be much point in pursuing the matter, eh?

Can I now expect a rousing chorus of "I know you are but what am I"? How about "so's your old man", or "your mother wears army boots"?

.

[demsrule4life]

7. Why dont you grow up

you used the word "all" so all people with visual handicaps go around shooting signs.

[iverglas]

8. is English your eighteenth language?

you used the word "all" so all people with visual handicaps go around shooting signs.

I take this to be your attempt at saying:

"you used the word 'all' so you are saying that all people with visual handicaps go around shooting signs".

Now, here's the wording I actually employed:

all the visually impaired people exercising their right to keep and shoot guns.

Are you familiar with the concept of "modifiers"? In this case, our modifier was "exercising their right to keep and shoot guns". What modifiers do is specify which thing or things one is talking about, y'see.

This means that I was referring to those particular visually impaired people, you see. The ones engaged in "exercising their right to keep and shoot guns". There might be 3 such visually impaired people, there might be 3,000 of them ... of course, there might be none at all, since my creating a sentence about them doesn't by any means mean that they exist. And of course, it's possible, although very very unlikely, that all visually impaired people "exercise their right to keep and shoot guns".

The thing is, what I wrote just didn't say anything at all about how many of them actually do that, or even about whether any of them at all ever do it.

If I were to write:

all the red balloons

... could I expect you to accuse me of claiming that all balloons are red?

How 'bout:

all the scarlet women?

Would I have laid myself open to an accusation of calling all women slags?

Maybe I'll try

all the racist gun nuts.

I'm pretty confident that I can expect you to disregard everything that many of us know about grammar, and the rules of civil discourse, and accuse me of calling all gun nuts racists, so consider that your cue.

.

[demsrule4life]

9. No

you dont accuse all gun owners of being racists, that job belongs to someone else.

[RoeBear]

11. Hmmm....

"all the red balloons"

Nope can't slur a balloon, they're inanimate objects.

"all the scarlet women?"

Not sure what a slag is but even a woman can slur other women.

"all the racist gun nuts."

Well, there are gun nuts who are also racists, so you can go to town on this one.

"how else would all the visually impaired people exercising their right to keep and shoot guns know what to shoot at??"

We got us a big time slur here. And what's most interesting is I doubt you're big enough to admit it or apolgize for it.

[CO Liberal]

18. Not Even Close, RoeBear

Just as "racist" modifies "gun nuts" and defines a smaller subset of all gun nuts, "exercising their right to keep and shoot guns" modifies "visually impaired people", and defines a subset.

Bottom line?? No slur.

[RoeBear]

26. Nice of you to come to the young ladies defense...

...except you're wrong.

She said "all the visually impaired people". The subset implied was all gun owning visually impaired people. You don't have to admit it, I know the young lady won't admit it but it was a SLUR.

[slackmaster]

27. I _felt_ slurred by Iverglas' post

Ergo it was a slur.

[iverglas]

29. laughs of the day

I liked demsrule4life's one about cctv keeping all the employees honest, by the way.

Watching RoeBear try to parse a sentence and construct an argument, however, is even more fun.

Perhaps you can tell us what the function of the "the" was in the phrase you quote, RoeBear.

All red balloons explode.
All the red balloons floating skyward exploded.

I can tell the difference.

Of course, I didn't even say anything ABOUT "all the visually impaired people exercising their right to keep and shoot guns", as I recall. Except that having braille targets would undoubtedly be a help to them. ;)

.

[CO Liberal]

32. That's Pro-Gun "Logic" For You

Just like no logic at all ... because that's exactly what it is - no logic at all.

:-)

[CO Liberal]

36. And as a Professional Technical Writer With Over 20 Years' Experience....

...I say that YOU are wrong.

[iverglas]

37. oh, and speaking of "slurs"

the young ladies defence <sic>

Need I say more?

Or should I just take to calling some folk around here "boy" by way of illustration?



Oops -- the "sic" of course referred to "ladies", and was not intended to suggest that my mistyping of the US spelling of "defense" was attributable to the person whose words I quoted.

.

[CO Liberal]

38. He's Lecturing Us on English Usage....

...and yet he confuses plural tense with possessive.

Here's hoping he never confuses his handgun with a hair dryer.....

:-)

[iverglas]

41. har

Handgun ... hairdryer ... best to colour-code them, maybe. "Now look at these two things, and tell us whether the handgun is loaded." "How am I supposed to know which one's the handgun??" Oh, it's the blue one. Phew.

.

[RoeBear]

42. Which part offended you?

Calling you 'young, calling you a 'lady' or misspelling the word defense.

[Wonk]

12. I know you are, but what am I?

:-) :bounce: :-)

[iverglas]

13. well obviously

... you're about as doubled over by the dunderheadedness on display here as I am. ;)

.

[demsrule4life]

14. Ain't that the truth

[Wonk]

17. So's your old man

:-) :bounce: :-)

[slackmaster]

19. As a visually impaired person I can say

Your remark was in poor taste.

[iverglas]

21. and as a visually impaired person I can say

... that more than your vision might be impaired.

How about ... your memory? Anybody remember the tales of visually impaired people with firearms in this forum?

How about your sense of humour? The thing that allows people to distinguish between making fun of people for their disabilities and making fun of people for their moronic public policy positions?

I was once a victim of apparent political correctness gone awry in this respect. I was taking my driving test, at the age of 27. I wore glasses with a prescription of about -7.50; in other words, I couldn't see my nose in front of my face without them, and if I stepped out my front door without them I'd immediately fall off something or be run over by something. Now that I can't wear contact lenses because I require about 4 different prescriptions for reading, computer monitor, eating, watching TV, driving ..., I shower in my glasses and sleep in my glasses. I've been unable to see more than a foot in front of me since I was about 8.

So there I was, about to do the office part of the test. The tester wanted me to look at something without my glasses. I said this was pointless, that I was never going to drive without my glasses; just mark an "x" on the form. He insisted. Look in that thing, he said, and tell me what colour ball no. 3 is. So I looked in the thing, and saw some green and yellow and red blobs, and said how the hell am I supposed to know which one is "ball no. 3"?? And he said put your glasses on. And I saw that the blobs had big numbers on them. Damn, how embarrassing, eh?

My remark was a humorous reference to the insistence manifested by some here that seriously visually impaired people should be entitled to tote firearms around in public.

I have already plainly agreed that *I* should not be able to tote firearms around in public, because at present I have the "disability" of a post-traumatic stress disorder and it would not be in the public interest for me to have firearms in public. I do not believe it is in the public interest for seriously visually impaired people (i.e. people whose impairments cannot be corrected by visual aids) to have firearms in public. I don't believe that the visually impaired would be any *more* likely than any other member of the public to shoot at road signs, but then I can't think of any reason why I'd think they would be any *less* likely to do so.

Of course, I don't believe that it is in the public for *anyone* to have firearms in public.

So gosh, I guess I'm just an all-round egalitarian.

As we all already knew.


edit: typo fixed

.

[slackmaster]

23. Wrong on two counts

How about ... your memory? Anybody remember the tales of visually impaired people with firearms in this forum?

Please correct me if I am mistaken here: I believe you are referring to a series of discussions regarding the ability of SOME individuals who are LEGALLY BLIND (Hint: That's a definition for tax purposes, not a medical one) to obtain concealed-weapons permits in some states. A few specific examples were discussed. All of the individuals had been able to meet their states' objective criteria, which in at least one case involved a shooting test.

This triggered a rash of hysterical straw man arguments from MrBenchley and one or two others about people advocating "arming the blind".

My remark was a humorous reference to the insistence manifested by some here that seriously visually impaired people should be entitled to tote firearms around in public.

Take out the word "humorous" and you'd have a simple straw man. Additionally take out the word "serious" and you have almost an accurate sentence. Nah, let's just throw the whole nonsensical argument out.

I do not believe it is in the public interest for seriously visually impaired people (i.e. people whose impairments cannot be corrected by visual aids) to have firearms in public.

There you go again making up a definition and constructing a straw man. The previous discussion concerned legal blindness as defined under US tax law, not "serious visual impairment" as you have confabulated it here.

[MrBenchley]

24. Praise Jeebus! The spirit of the wilderness has descended!

And I've found at least one thread pushing for arming the blind...but then who needs to aim, eh?

"What a shame he didn't just wound that deer, so that he could have had the thrill of stumbling through the underbrush after it tapping his white cane..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=29022

[slackmaster]

25. MrBenchley, perhaps you are overdue to get your eyes checked

The thread you refer to concerns a visually impaired person being guided by a sighted person in a hunt.

Nothing there about "arming the blind".

I just got my eyes checked last Wednesday. My correctable eye scored 20/20 (with eyeglasses in place).

[RoeBear]

28. My God is there no limit...

...to how you will slur the handicapped?

[iverglas]

30. you mean a slur

... like calling people with disabilities "the handicapped"?

Funny how insensitive the self-proclaimed sensitive flowers can be. ;)

.

[MrBenchley]

31. I find it hilarious

that the RKBA crowd seems to alternate between tough guy bluster and floods of crocodile tears.

[CO Liberal]

34. And Now You're Slurring Crocodiles!!!!!

:-)

[MrBenchley]

35. LOL!!

[RoeBear]

43. Thanks for the refresher...

...on that thread. It reminded me how crazy the anti-rights crowd is.

[CO Liberal]

44. We're Not Anti-Rights

We're anti-insanity. And guns for the blind (other than on a firing range or other tightly-controlled environment) is insane, IMHO.

[TX-RAT]

45. Guns for the blind under any conditions is insane

[CO Liberal]

52. In a Previous Thread...

...someone talked about methods for the visually impaired to shoot on firing ranges, and other tightly controlled conditions. If the safety of others can be assured, I have no problem with that. However, I have a REAL problem with someone who is legally blind getting a CCW permit, for example.

For the record, I am not advocating discrimination - I'm advocating common sense.

[TX-RAT]

57. Never thought you were advocating discrimination

Common sense is such a rarity these days, seems blind rage overrides.

[slackmaster]

63. What about THIS guy? He can't see but he needs a gun for his JOB!

[slackmaster]

62. CO - Where would you REALLY draw the line?

What about someone who is sufficiently visually impaired that he or she can't qualify for a driver's license, yet scores just below (i.e. better vision than) the objective thresholds for taking the blindness exemption on his or her taxes?

How about halfway between that point and normal (20/20 in both eyes)?

[CO Liberal]

66. I Would Hope There Was a Reasonable Vision Requirement ...

...for getting a gun permit. But it stands to reason that someone who can't see well enough to drive should not be allowed to carry a gun.

[MrBenchley]

67. There sure doesn't seem to be

either a sanity requirement or an honesty requirement....

[slackmaster]

69. Ah but there IS a sanity requirement

The Gun Control Act of 1968 banned possession of firearms by people who have been adjudicated insane or incompetent.

I don't know how one would measure "honesty". There are some standard psychological tests that have an honesty scale, but where would you set the bar for gun ownership and why there? It always comes back to someone, say a bureaucrat, a board of local citizens, or a cop, making a subjective evaluation.

Every human who can speak tells numerous lies every day. People who have been convicted of serious crimes of dishonesty like felony fraud are, you guessed it, already barred from owning guns under GCA '68.

But accuracy and truthfulness have never been required for anti-rights zealotry.

One more edit: Just to note that honesty isn't even a requirement to be President of the United States. Why should it be one for owning a gun?

[CO Liberal]

70. Yet Ted Nugent is Allowed to Own Guns......

:shrug:

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

73. Hell, some days it seems like

having several screws loose is a prerequisite...remember last week when the bullets for brains bunch was wailing about being kept from taking their popguns to church?

[slackmaster]

68. It appears you've raised the bar already

And your eyesight requirement hasn't been codified yet or even clearly defined.

Because of amblyopia or lazy-eye blindness I cannot pass the standard vision test given by the California Department of Motor Vehicles. The regulations say you have to pass a certain visual acuity test in both eyes. However there is an exemption for people with monocular vision - You need a letter from an ophthalmologist stating that your good eye sees well enough to allow you to drive safely.

That is, if you can afford to see an ophthalmologist. I hope you would allow a similar procedure for CCW permit applicants, but that would be typical of the kind of detail omitted in the legislative process.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your position on this: IMO driving safely requires substantially better vision than handling a gun safely. The acuity required to read standard road signage is not necessary to identify and hit a human-sized target at close range.

(On edit: Corrected subject line.)

[RoeBear]

50. And that is EXACTLY what was being discussed.

A old time deer hunter using a laser site with the help of a hunting buddy going out deer hunting.

[CO Liberal]

53. I Still Have a Problem With That

Because of the great distances that bullets can travel. Firing on a range is one thing - in the woods is another.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

46. Any time roe.....

Speaking of the anti-rights crowd, let's recall some more....

Here's the RKBA bunch cheering for lynchings, and defending anti-Mexican bigotry....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=35549

And here's roe pushing crap from two of the furthest right wing cesspools around, including the openly racist American Daily.com....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=34513#34532

[RoeBear]

47. Typical stuff there Benchy Boy...

... can't attack the message so attack the messenger.

[MrBenchley]

49. Too TOO funny...

Yeah, it is typical to see that sort of bigoted, idiotic crap posted as "fact" by the RKBA crowd...

[CO Liberal]

54. No....

He's attacking the crappy message being sent by the messenger.

[MrBenchley]

58. A crappy message

from right wing loonies....says it all, doesn't it?

[slackmaster]

48. I nominate MrBenchley's post for a Richard C. Hoagland Award

Yeepers, we all saw that anti-Mexican bigotry in that piece.

:eyes:

Did you hear the one about the crinoid fossils on Mars? The gummint's covering up the story, of course.



http://www.enterprisemission.com/articles/03-08-2004/crinoid_cover-up.htm

How about the one about taggants in European smokeless gunpowder?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=44507&mesg_id=44563&page=

[RoeBear]

51. Sometimes you make me ashamed..

...ashamed to be in the same Democratic party together.

[MrBenchley]

55. Is that when you're reading the crap in American Daily?

Or when you're dredging up turds from National Review?

[RoeBear]

60. Look Benchy...

...you post lots of crap from VPC or the Brady Center. Try to argue the message not the messenger.

[MrBenchley]

64. Yeah? Show us where VPC called for a lynching bee

Or show us where the Brady Center ever published horseshit like this: "If one needs to be convinced that Democrats ought not to hold significant power within our government, one need only look at how they behave when they lose the power they did have. Like a hysterical adolescent mildly punished for already inappropriate behavior, Democrats are screaming irrationalities and inaccuracies because they’ve been asked – by the voters – to step aside and let Republicans handle the war on terrorism and the economy. "

That's from the site YOU were trying to pretend was news--you want to argue that content, go ahead....I say it's horseshit, meant for feeble-minded imbeciles.

[RoeBear]

65. Is that what I posted?

IS IT!?!

[CO Liberal]

56. You're Always Free to Go Elsewhere, RoeBear.....

Sounds like there are lots of pro-gunners under the sign of the elephant. Besides, thet's where most of the NRA's money goes......

I for one am sick & tired of people accusing others of not being Democratic enough.

[MrBenchley]

59. Especially when people who swallow any right wing crap

they can find suddenly decide somebody else is not being "progressive."

[CO Liberal]

33. I Have 20-400 Vision

Haven't been able to see the big "E" on the eye chart without my glasses since I was in fifth grads. Thankfully, my poor vision can be corrected.

The only slurs I've seen are by those pro-gunners accusion Iverglas of committing a slur.

[slackmaster]

39. The best person to judge a slur is the sluree

And I hope your pain is under control today.

[CO Liberal]

40. It's Not

It always gets worse on humid days, and that's what I'm faces with today.

(Guess it's a good thing I don't live in New Jersey any more - at times, it's the Humidity Capital of the World.)

[slackmaster]

10. OK, you win

Funniest thing I've read today.

:toast:

[Narf]

15. Vandalism is wrong regardless of the tool used to vandalize.

I doubt you'll find any gun owners here who condone acts of vadalism with guns any more than you or I would condone acts of vandalism with a spray can or a rock.

[Pert_UK]

20. Wow, this may ACTUALLY be a case of guns CAUSING crime!

Does anybody on here genuinely believe that if the people who shot this sign hadn't had guns, they would have instead stopped their car next to the sign and set about it with sticks/rocks/their bear hands?

I don't believe that they would have done. The only reason that this sign got vandalised is because some guys (I presume male, sorry) with guns wanted to get their guns off and were too f*cking lazy to go find a legitimate target (or they prefer illegitimate targets).

I've been told on here many times that if guns were removed from violent people then those people would still commit the same crimes, only using another weapon (e.g. would stab someone rather than shoot them).

Can we at least agree that Stop and other roadsigns would be far, far safer if the general public weren't allowed guns?

:evilgrin:

P.

P.S.
I am aware that the guns, even in this case, don't "cause" the crime, but they go further than just "enabling" it or making it easier. Defacement and destruction of roadsigns would be massively reduced if guns were removed from society.

P.P.S.
No, I am not suggesting that this is a good reason to remove guns from society, but it does make an interesting talking point.

[RoeBear]

22. Talking point this:

:P

[Pert_UK]

71. Oh COME ON!

I never said that nobody ever vandalised signs except for with guns!

I suspect that you might be taking the piss....

:-)

P.