What type of gun nut are you?

[FatSlob]

Poll question: What type of gun nut are you?

My first poll. How sweet.

[FatSlob]

1. What do you think I put?

Polls are fun.

[Fovea]

2. I am a knife, sword, bow and axe nut...

Does that count?

Most of my guns are black powder.

[patdem]

3. That means you want to 'look em in the eye' before killin em

Now that is a REAL MAN!!! However, we (USA) thinks that the more you can kill while remaining out of danger is the test of a 'real soldier'...barbarism is using a sword, modern warfare is killing from afar and not being threatened by death or destruction by the enemy??

GO FIGURE???

[Fovea]

25. I dislike weapons that limit your control of the damage you

inflict. The situations where I didn't care wether my assailant survived or not have been quite few. Most people can learn from experience. Truth is, killing is too easy and almost never the actual solution to the problem.

Hell, I even let a burglar walk (sort of) out my back door with only a warning that I should never see his face in the neighborhood again. All it cost him was a painful looking knee injury, perhaps a broken finger or two, and his shoes, which I hung in the alley.

Funny thing is, it worked. Burglary stopped in this part of the hood, and has not resumed in the intervening 3 years, even though the shoes are now gone. The moral of that experience is that if you have a gun and a stick, the victim will learn a lot more from the stick, and so will all his friends.

[Xipe Totec]

4. An Armed Society

Is a polite society.

- Robert Heinlein

:evilgrin:

[candy]

5. Go Pats!!!!!

[Xipe Totec]

14. And Don't Forget, Go Sox! n/t

[iverglas]

10. gee

I've never heard that one before.

Since I've always lived my life according to the dicta of Robert Heinlein, I guess I'll stop being a ... what was it? rabid authoritarian anti-gun nut? now.

The question that I do have, though ... is a polite society really the best goal we can set for ourselves?

[Xipe Totec]

12. Is a polite society really the best goal we can set for ourselves?

Gee, I don't know, but it sound like I good start. :eyes:

Here's another quote for you on being an armed prophet:

"It is necessary, therefore, if we desire to discuss this matter thoroughly, to inquire whether these innovators can rely on themselves or have to depend on others: that is to say, whether, to consummate their enterprise, have they to use prayers or can they use force? In the first instance they always succeed badly, and never compass anything; but when they can rely on themselves and use force, then they are rarely endangered. Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed. Besides the reasons mentioned, the nature of the people is variable, and whilst it is easy to persuade them, it is difficult to fix them in that persuasion. And thus it is necessary to take such measures that, when they believe no longer, it may be possible to make them believe by force."

- Niccolo Machiavelli

Good luck being being an unarmed... what was it? rabid authoritarian anti-gun nut?

:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

15. whew, Heinlein *and* Machiavelli

I think my day is complete. And surely there is little left to be said. Leastwise, not in a liberal / progressive place like this.

Damn the oppressed and exploited. They can be so rude sometimes.

Is a polite society really the best goal we can set for ourselves?
Gee, I don't know, but it sound like I good start. :eyes:

You could try rolling those eyes outward, for something new, and considering what kinds of societies tend to promote order (that's what "polite" really is, right?) over, oh, rights and freedoms, and equality, and democracy, and you know, things like that.

I could say that "a polite society" isn't what I'm aiming for, so your aphorism just doesn't matter to me. Kinda like "a society with lots of fashion designers is a well-dressed society". Who cares?

But what I'd actually say is that we all know perfectly well that Heinlein's/your little assertion of fact is, in fact, a falsehood, as the universal sort of truth you seem to want it to be. I mean, there may be an armed society that is a polite society. That same society may be trilingual and fond of skiing. Is a trilingual society a polite society? (Actually, there might be a point in that one.) Is a skiing society a polite society?

Anybody called the US a polite society lately? And yet it's one damned heavily armed society, doncha think?

And here are me and my neighbours, all of us the iconically polite Canadians, with not so much as a BB gun to fend off litterers and sidewalk-spitters and armed robbers and baby-snatchers and boogeymen and governments run amok, and no desire for one ...

[Xipe Totec]

16. Ok, Time out....

This is getting too emotional. Look around you. you're in a nice safe place just typing away at a keyboard and so am I. This is not a battle for the hearts and minds of civilized society (at least I hope not).

Lemme try to address your points, trying not to ruffle your feathers unnecessarily.

Heinlein's point, and Machiavelli's, and Teddy Roosevelt's for that mater (Speak softly but carry a big stick), is that nobody is going to try to take advantage of you, or abuse you, if they think you have the ability to defend yourself. Aggression occurs when there is a clear and visible imbalance of strength between opponents and the weaker opponent does not back off. That is true in relationships between individuals, groups, or nations. This may be offensive to our sensibilities as rational human beings, but it is the way of the world. There are two ways to resolve the imbalance: take everybody's guns away, or let everybody have guns. You may convince everybody to drop their weapons and play nice, but if somebody changes his mind and decides to get a gun, how are you going to force the individual to comply? He now has a gun, and you don't. You are now in the weaker negotiating position. You either back off, or he shoots. Not a way to win an argument.

By 'polite society' Heinlein meant a society where people take due notice and consideration for other people's rights and opinions, and try not to offend each other unnecessarily during social intercourse. I like this quote because I am always reminded of it while driving in the streets of Boston with people honking impatiently and flipping each other off, or running each other off the freeways in a fit of road rage. I lived in Houston for many years and I hardly ever heard drivers honking at each other on the freeway. That's because in Houston honking at someone is considered an act of overt aggression. Pull that honking stunt on the wrong guy and you will end up with a bullet through your radiator. "An armed society is a polite society". In Houston they say, half jokingly, that honking your horn is considered a warning shot. Texas has a lot more guns than other places in the US, and people can obtain permits for concealed weapons.

Interesting that you held up Canada as an example. I thought Canadians had the right to own weapons and in fact owned more weapons per capita than Americans. I got that impression from Michael Moore's film "Bowling For Columbine". That floored me when he said Canadians had more guns than Americans. I honestly didn't know.

As for America being a polite society, all I can say is this is a HUGE country. Because of geography you're probably exposed more to the Northern parts of the US than the South. I've lived in both and let me tell you, there is a big difference. I invite you to visit the South and see for yourself, if you are a French speaker then Louisiana would be a wonderful experience.

The :eyes: were meant to indicate a tongue-in-cheek reply, not a groan. Sort of a "Who, me? No, I'm just standing here. It was a drive-by quipper" Sorry if it came across as a groan.

Friends?

:pals:

[iverglas]

22. goodness gracious, don't get yourself in such a lather!

All those words, you must be just about fit to be tied, and beside yourself, and, as my long deceased great-aunt would have said, all in a boiling fwet!

"This is getting too emotional. Look around you. you're in a nice safe place just typing away at a keyboard and so am I."

In case you haven't got the point, kindly leave out the personal commentary. You have no knowledge of my emotional state, and my emotional state is both none of your concern and of the most supreme irrelevance to anything going on here. And that aside, I have no idea how you even imagine that you have any notion of my emotional state.

"It was a drive-by quipper"

No shit. And they keep wondering why I'm campaigning (and that's a tongue you see in my cheek) to have J/PS threads not show up in the new-thread listings on the main page. Those drive-bys ... appropriate as they may seem for this forum ...

And your quip was quipped here on ... let's see now ...

- August 17th (as a "saying" obviously approved by the poster)

- August 13th (quoting a source which had referred to a bumper sticker on sale at a gun show, along with "Wife and Dog Missing, Reward for Dog", "I just got a gun for my wife. It's the best trade I ever made" and "My Wife Yes. My Dog Maybe. My Gun Never" ... a singular absence of politeness among all those armed-society fans),

- May 2nd (as the header of a post with no further content -- and utterly bizarrely, in response to a post from a member of the US military in Iraq saying "Pretty much every one here is armed all the time and there is zero crime")

- May 10th (sarcastically, commenting on a story about soccer players shooting at one another)

- March 29th (again sarcastically, commenting on a story about an unexplained highway shooting)

It was boring, and annoying.

"By 'polite society' Heinlein meant a society where people take due notice and consideration for other people's rights and opinions, and try not to offend each other unnecessarily during social intercourse."

I suspect that I had read most of Heinlein's books before you were born. Grandmothers, eggs.

Let's assume that I knew what Heinlein meant, hm? And let's try moving on an inch or two. Let's maybe imagine that what I was getting at -- apart from the fact that what was offered as a little truism is simply bullshit -- is that I have no interest in living in a society in which "politeness" is achieved through force and threat of force.

"Pull that honking stunt on the wrong guy and you will end up with a bullet through your radiator. ... . In Houston they say, half jokingly, that honking your horn is considered a warning shot."

Goodness gracious. That sounds like a very polite society indeed. (Here again, you see my tongue in my cheek: ;^) ) Only half serious, are they?

A society in which people return bullets for bombast. Yes, that's where I'd want to live. Really, though, I just don't want to live in a place where I'm terrorized into conforming to someone else's idea of "politeness" by the fear that I'll be shot at. And much as I despise littering and spitting and honking, I'm just not interested in terrorizing anyone else into submission.

I don't know Houston, but I've spent time in Dallas. Gimme Boston any day of the year.

As for America being a polite society, all I can say is this is a HUGE country. Because of geography you're probably exposed more to the Northern parts of the US than the South. I've lived in both and let me tell you, there is a big difference. I invite you to visit the South and see for yourself, if you are a French speaker then Louisiana would be a wonderful experience.

As you now know: nope. I've been everywhere east of the Mississippi, many places more than once, and a few bits beyond. Far more places than an average USAmerican is ever likely to go. As a fluent French speaker, I was a little disappointed in New Orleans, but admittedly wasn't there long enough to seek out that aspect of the culture in any depth.

And while I saw the superficial "politeness" that many Canadians observe and comment favourably on among our southern neighbours, what I saw underneath was ... well, nothing. No actual interest in or concern for the people they were being "polite" to. I also don't want to live somewhere where people are "polite" because they are basically unengaged with, and don't give a damn about, others.

"I thought Canadians had the right to own weapons and in fact owned more weapons per capita than Americans. I got that impression from Michael Moore's film "Bowling For Columbine".

Of course Canadians have a right to own firearms -- subject to the reasonable restrictions we impose, like the reasonable restrictions that a civilized society imposes on the exercise of all sorts of rights.

Being entitled to own a firearm does not mean that one owns a firearm, or that one's society is "armed". As has been discussed in this forum ad somewhat nauseam, I have had one close friend in my life whom I know to have owned firearms, along with one lover and numerous lawyer acquaintances in a small town I once lived in briefly, who all hunted and had firearms (my then lover's disabled, depressed 13-yr-old son had recently committed suicide with one of the household hunting weapons), I had one client in my law practice who was shot to death by her sister's estranged husband, and I once briefly held a handgun during a little political contretemps in which I was the go-between who surrendered it to the police. I live in a largish city, and I have never heard gunfire here, and know of no one personally who, to my knowledge, owns firearms -- or has ever encountered a firearm in the course of a crime. Somebody did try to hold up the local 7-11 with a penknife a few years back.

I was just tidying the living room and ran across the Bowling for Columbine tape. I may show it to my mum when she visits this week, and I'm going to have to check that claim out, because I hear it cited so often for this business about Canadians owning as many guns per capita as / more guns per capita than USAmericans. That factoid is complete nonsense, and I want to know whether Moore actually said it.

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/other_docs/notes/canus/default.asp

There are more than 30 times more firearms in the United States than in Canada. There are an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which are restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the U.S., there are approximately 222 million firearms; 76 million of the firearms in circulation are handguns.

That's a bit out of date, and I believe the Cdn estimate has been revised upward, possibly to around 9 million. If the 222 million for the US is accurate, there are still almost 3 times as many firearms per capita in the US. I believe there is also a considerably higher proportion of households with firearms.

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/general_public/news_releases/quickfacts-01252001.asp

- 17 percent (two million) of Canadian households own at least one firearm
- There are 1.23 firearm owners per household
- There are 2.46 million firearm owners in Canada
- One-in-three Canadian rural households has a firearm
- Just over one-in-ten Canadian urban households has a firearm
- the number of firearm owners under the age of 35 has declined by about 40 percent since 1991
- There has been a decline of more than one-quarter of the percentage of households that have firearms. The average calculated from 11 surveys between 1989 and 1998 indicates that 24 percent of Canadian households had firearms compared to today's figure of 17 percent

Canadians historically own firearms for hunting and other rural purposes (pest/predator control), with some, though rare, sporting uses. (My city seems to have one gun club in the vicinity.) Hunting is declining here as in the US, and Cdn society is now heavily urbanized (about the same rural/urban split as in the US), and so firearms are increasingly irrelevant and uncommon.

The vaunted Canadian politeness really has precisely zip to do with anyone being armed. Hell, back when you folks were running that Wild West show, our western constabulary didn't even carry firearms.


It seems that you're standing by "an armed society is a polite society", regardless of how what your intent was. And I stand by my assessment of it as ridiculous and utterly illiberal.


(edited to fix minor incoherency: this business about Canadians owning more as many guns per capita as / more guns per capita than USAmericans ... and again to fix the fix)

[Xipe Totec]

23. Ooookay. Glad We Patched Things Up.

Wish I knew how to do that cutsy highlighting of text, but I don't Oh well. Lets see...

Am I in a boiling fret? Nope, but thank you for your concern. It's Saturday, it's raining, I don't have anything particularly important to attend to, so I have time to sit at the keyboard and type at length.

No, I had not gotten your point about leaving personal commentary out. I read back your earlier posts and did not see that you had requested that specifically. Now that you have, I've made note of it and will not attempt to ascertain your emotional state from the tone of your statements. It is difficult to do at best and often wrong, as when you attempted to interpret mine from the :eyes: emoticon.

The 'drive-by quipper' is a reference to Robin Williams in the role of Mrs Doubtfire, when she (he) throws a lemon at the back of somebody's head and claims it was a drive-by fruiter. If it occurred to me, it probably occurred to lots of other people, which is why you may have seen it before. It's the first time I've used it so, if you've seen it before, it was not me.

The laundry list of prior postings I did not understand. I did not recognize any of the posts as mine, and I don't have search capabilities yet, so wadayatawkinabout?

Glad you've seen Dallas, it's better than Houston by far. Glad you like Boston driving better. I don't. Houston terrorizing? I don't see it that way. I see it as people minding their manners for their own good. The ones who terrorize are the bullies in two ton killing machines that use them as weapons because they know they can get away with it, and the people that are deliberately rude and in-your-face and insulting because they think they can get away with it. They often end up escalating arguments into fist fights because they don't realize when the lines are crossed. But that's mater of opinion, and we don't have to agree.

Glad you've been to New Orleans. Yes, some might consider politeness superficial, and it is. Politeness is about interacting with strangers to minimize conflict. It is not about becoming life-long buddies. It is the minimum standard of courtesy extended to a perfect stranger.

If, as you say, Canadians have a right to own firearms -- subject to the reasonable restrictions imposed, and you believe this is acceptable, then I don't see that I have much of a conflict with your view point. If your position is that weapons should be baned completely, then I respectfully disagree.

Please do review "Bowling for Columbine" again. As I said, my recollection is that Michael Moore pointed out that Canadians owned more per-capita guns than Americans. Frankly it does not matter much who has the numerically superior armament. The point he was making is that there must be something seriously funked-up with American society that results in so many firearm fatalities; that the number and availability of weapons, per-se, does not seem to be the critical element. I thought it was a compliment from Moore to Canadians that they can own so many weapons and not end up killing each other en-mass like Americans.

I agree that being entitled to own a firearm does not mean that one owns a firearm. I for one do not. My father did and we hunted together when I was young. I have not owned a firearm in my life, but I do believe in the right of people to own firearms. If somebody is casing my house and thinking about breaking in, I want that somebody to worry long and hard that this may be THE house where the gun nut lives. If he does decide to break in anyway, I guess I'll have to use whatever is available.

Yes, I am standing by the statement "an armed society is a polite society". And you stand by your assessment of it as ridiculous and utterly illiberal.

I don't know why you think my position is 'illiberal', and I don't know why 'illiberal' should be flung as some kind of pejorative anyway. But that's besides the point. There should be no confusion about my intent, as there should be no confusion about your intent which is, simply, to express an opinion and to explore it. I posted a statement, and you responded. Forgive me if I interpreted your response as an attempt to engage in dialog, and not simply a drive-by insult.

[iverglas]

24. in brief

No, I had not gotten your point about leaving personal commentary out.

My point was, I thought plainly, being made in the passage in which I remarked on your emotional state. Your comment:

This is getting too emotional. Look around you. you're in a nice safe place just typing away at a keyboard and so am I.

was out of place in a discussion of public policy and was, dare I say it, and this being the point I was making, rude. Impolite. Heck, if I'd had a pistol in my pocket, you just don't know what it might have led to. Plainly you said such a rude thing because you were at a safe distance, I guess. Unless you had some other reason ...


The 'drive-by quipper' is a reference to Robin Williams in the role of Mrs Doubtfire, when she (he) throws a lemon at the back of somebody's head and claims it was a drive-by fruiter.

And it happened to coincide with what I had just been saying myself not too long before: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=78262#78300

Let's take up a petition to get J/PS removed from that latest-thread thing on whatever page that I don't look at it's on. If we could do that, I think the number of pointless drive-bys we've been subjected to recently might be reduced considerably.

Was I not on target?

The "laundry list" was of occasions in the past when I have been subjected to that particular one of Heinlein's deep thoughts, and an indication of how popular it is among the sort of people who go to gun shows and buy bumper stickers proclaiming their preference for their guns and their dogs over their wives.

If Dallas is better than Houston, then someone might want to consider razing Houston. Dallas made my skin crawl. My preference for Boston had nothing to do with driving, it had to do with the calibre of the population.

Houston terrorizing? I don't see it that way. I see it as people minding their manners for their own good.

Yes, and I'm sure that's how supporters of Pinochet and the Shah and Baby Doc saw things too. If people don't want to get hurt, they should be quiet.

The ones who terrorize are the bullies in two ton killing machines that use them as weapons because they know they can get away with it, ...

Funny how I can just imagine a few strategies for reducing the likelihood that they get away with it (and thus that at least some others of them are deterred from doing it) that don't involve instilling a general fear of getting shot. You are familiar with the concept of vigilantism, and its generally disapproved status in mature democracies, I imagine?

people that are deliberately rude and in-your-face and insulting because they think they can get away with it

Cause and effect problem here. People do not do things because they can get away with it (or even, as is sometimes heard hereabouts, "because they have a right to"). People do things for reasons. Being unable to get away with something, conversely, might be a reason for someone not to do something that s/he might otherwise, having some reason, do.

But fear of getting shot is really not the reason why most people don't behave like cretins.

Yes, some might consider politeness superficial, and it is.

I actually didn't say that I consider politeness superficial. I said that I consider much of the "politeness" that I observe in the US to be superficial. These are two different things.

Politeness that arises from genuine concern for others is not superficial. "Politeness" that is practised out of self-interest and lack of interest in others is superficial. The "politeness" of USAmerican retail workers is my case in point. The "politeness" of my partner's step-mother in Plano was another. She was entirely "polite" to me during the 3 hours I was compelled to alone spend in her company after all the bridesmaids at the hen party fell asleep. She also, at the end of that time, could not have told you whether I'd been found on a doorstep as an infant, while I could have recited the names and ages of her entire family, including her great-aunts in, I jest not, Peekaboo, Idaho. She had no interest in me. I had little native interest in her, but I was polite as in "respectful" and expressed and took an interest, and treated her like a human being worthy of interest and not just a "how's it goin'?"

There is a difference between "politeness" and respect, just as there is a difference, in foreign policy, between isolationism and non-intervention.

And "politeness" that arises from either lack of interest or fear is not anything I want or need.

As to Moore's analysis, it is shallow, at the least. Canadian patterns of firearms ownership are entirely different from present-day patterns in the US -- the shift from possession for hunting/sporting uses in the US in the last few decades being a major factor in this difference, and the widespread access to handguns in the US vs. extreme difficulty of access to handguns in Canada being an obviously significant factor. Yes, there are many other signficant factors, the huge (and widening) income disparity in the US as compared to Canada being one; but it is quite wrong to pretend that Canadian and USAmerican patterns of firearms ownership are in any way similar.

I don't know why you think my position is 'illiberal', and I don't know why 'illiberal' should be flung as some kind of pejorative anyway.

Second question first: "illiberal" not pejorative?? Well, I hesitated before writing it, becaus I am not a liberal myself. Liberals, to my mind, kind of embody that "politeness" I dislike: they support things that are good for other people as long as it doesn't cost them anything; their self-proclaimed altruism arises not so much out of concern for others as out of concern for themselves.

But it has its uses in particular situations, and this seemed like one. Organizing a society around people's fear of one another just seems to me like the polar opposite of "liberal". In your ideal Heinleinian world, the people with the guns are enforcing the standards you happen to approve. In the real world, the people with the guns don't always follow your rules. In the real world, force is quite often used to harm, oppress and exploit. Positions that lead to such consequences strike me as illiberal, in the sense that people hereabouts tend to understand "liberal".


Forgive me if I interpreted your response as an attempt to engage in dialog, and not simply a drive-by insult.

It just strikes me that this sort of sarcastic apology isn't the thing that's called for. I'm not the one who showed up quoting loonytarian and proto-fascist notions.

________________

You find text highlighting cutesy; I do it for the convenience of the reader. If you replace the pointy brackets -- "<", ">" -- with square brackets -- which won't reproduce here unless I turn html off, but you know what they look like I imagine -- in the following, you get the effects shown:

<b>boldface</b> boldface (I use to quote what I am replying to)
<u>underline</u> underline (I use for emphasis)
<i>italic</i> italic (I use for emphasis or to set off)
<blockquote>indented text<blockquote>

indented text (I use for quoting third party sources)

[FatSlob]

34. I prefer the free society.

The utmost in personal freedoms as practicable.

[RoeBear]

17. I'd settle for that...

...a polite society, that is.

[Vladimir]

11. "When I hear the word culture,

I reach for the safety catch on my revolver."

- Hermann Goering

See? I can do non-sequiturs too!

[Xipe Totec]

13. non-sequitur?

No, your quote was quite apropos. You made your point well, give yourself credit.

:toast:

[Paladin]

20. Yeah, Right

A little reality check for you: our society is armed to the teeth. And it's not very fucking polite. Of course, I'm used to gun radicals confusing politeness with intimidation.....

[Xipe Totec]

21. An Unarmed Paladin...

Now I've seen everything. :wow:



Lighten up a little. :+

[Township75]

30. Want a reality check?

Go to Paris, where they are unarmed and see how polite they are.

[Vladimir]

44. They are extremely polite in Paris

in my experience. But that may be because I didn't wander into it expecting to find a bunch of rude Frenchmen...

[Gyre]

6. I'm the kind that doesn't carry

despite the fact that I have a concealed carry permit. And I have an empty clip I keep in it w/ a loaded one nearby. Freepers w/ hostile intent generally announce their intentions well in advance. :)

Gyre

[Union Thug]

7. I selected Gun Nut.. but..

That has such negative connotations. I'm really a soviet era military firearms collector. I don't have any "modern" firearms and don't have much of an interest in them.

So call me what you will, I suppose, but I don't feel like a nut (to paraphrase an old candy bar commercial). =)

[comradebillyboy]

8. just put in my order for a custom ar-15

with free floating barrel and two stage match trigger and a few other custom goodies

ammo is about $120 for a thousand rounds so its cheap to shoot

i am still considering what kind of scope i need for longer range target shooting

[FatSlob]

27. What kind of Ammo are you using?

I'd like some $120/1000 deals. Is it Wolf?

[Vladimir]

9. The loose kind n/t

[FeebMaster]

18. I'm the lunatic asswipe kind. (nt)

[enfield collector]

19. I'm a collector so I just selected "gun nut"

[Wonk]

26. Pistachio

:silly:

Seriously, though, your poll doesn't have enough options, imho, and seems designed to be intentionally controversial, inflammatory, and derogatory to those who hold a position different than yours.

my 2¢

[FatSlob]

28. I tried to poke fun at everybody, including myself.

I'm open to suggestions. Give me an example that I could use in the future.

[gatlingforme]

29. Yeah I noticed that too. I am all for polls, but this one has me

very upset. I don't think I am an asswipe, yet I am also not an authoritarian. I am very unneutral too. LOL this was silly that's why it was soo funny. I did not take it seriously. I do not think it was meant to be serious. as FS stated. LOL :silly:

[Township75]

31. A great job for your first poll.

Keep em coming!

[Township75]

39. oh..

and I voted for the first option.

[skippythwndrdog]

32. Lunatic Asswipes of the world, UNITE!

I think your poll is a hoot!

[FatSlob]

33. I'm a proud lunatic asswipe.

[slackmaster]

35. Another lower-case 'l' lunatic libertarian asswipe reporting for dirty

Sir!

[FatSlob]

36. Proud to have you on-board.

I find it amusing as hell that we now self-identify with that hilarious Benchism.

[slackmaster]

37. I think we should start a lunatarian religion

Our Pope shits in the woods!

[Wickerman]

43. ?

I am pleased you used a small l there.

:grr:

[Township75]

38. I find it amusing...

that while the gun nuts can joke around with the names they have been called and will even identify what option they voted for, the anti gunners are almost entirely absent.

This reinforces my experiences with the pro gun and anti gun crowd. The pro gunners tend to have personality and joke-around, while the anti gun crowd tends to be boring.

[skippythwndrdog]

40. It's akin to owning those nasty guns.

We joke because we can!

edited because I can't spell

[gatlingforme]

41. LOL

[Romulus]

42. plain old LAGN here

:beer: