We call you “commie”, because one of the first things Communists do when they gain power is disarm the citizenry, as does any other tyrannical regime. It may not be original, but you fit the stereotype!

John Lott was a committed gun-grabber before his study came out. If he was going to do a “doctored” study, it would have been in your favor. Instead, he did his best to keep it honest, and his results convinced him to switch sides. Many of his colleagues didn’t like his conclusions, but they couldn’t fault his methodology.

There are many soldiers who would desert and join rebellion forces if we finally reach that stage of tyranny. They would teach us militia members how to kill the military’s bigger weapons, so there would still be a chance to win.

We have seen what happens when the gov’t has a monopoly of force: genocide. Not every gov’t that has that monopoly commits genocide, but every genocide has been perpetrated against a disarmed populace.

So, go ahead and repeal the 2A. We won’t give up our guns anyway.

When a dog barks at a man, does the man bark back?

Fair enough. When you started this irrelevant discussion by barking about gun control, I should have left bad enough alone rather than barking back. But it takes chutzpah for the original dog to be the one to make that point.

Speaking of posturing, boys… cripes. Get back on topic, as otherwise I’ll just close this thread.

Topic?! This thread had a topic?! Sorry.

Remember the 22-year-old in Kansas who impregnated and then married his 12-year-old girlfriend?

There was an awful lot of public support for him in that area.

I’ll take your word on that, but rest assured, the only reason he wasn’t resoundingly condemned nationally is because the story wasn’t a national story.

A man doesn’t waste arguments on those incapable of understanding them, Chief. I have met XLRwhatsisfrickingname five million times before on the net, and experience tells me it is a waste of my time to try to reason with him, as he knows only two or three phrases (falsehoods, actually, provided him by the NRA) with which he responds to every careful argument with which he is presented. I am rather uninterested in trying to have a conversation with anyone who begins his interaction with me by saying “screw you,” which is precisely how our illiterate friend began. The use of the term “Commie” is another indication that one is dealing with something too primitive for intelligent interaction.

And FYI, repeal of the 2nd Amendment is EXACTLY my position. The 2nd Amendment is a relic of history, which in any event has never meant what the NRA thinks it does (at least according to the Supreme Court–but what do they know, when we’re talking about the opinion of Moses and Wayne LaPierre, eh?). No smokescreens from me. Firearms produce very, very little that can be objectively considered social good, and MUCH that is obviously socially destructive.

The fact that a lot of people believe ridiculous fantasies about the murderous black cannibals (funny, that they’re almost always black–or these days, Mexican and undocumented–in the minds of the gunnutters, huh? that says something interesting about the mindset, I think) who are outside their doors waiting to attack their families, and equally ridiculous stories about how their guns will enable them to play Marshal Dillon and get the guys with the black hats, does not legitimate the thousands of innocent lives lost every year at the business end of firearms.

Politics, as I’m sure you know, is not always about the ability to get exactly what you want. Compromise and all that. So, it’s rather strange that you think the fact that activists who would like to see X do not begin by lobbying for X, but for some other objective that is more objectively attainable in the present political climate first. Maybe you just don’t know much about how social change happens. Reasonable folks recognize that it is almost always slow and incremental. To expect something else is, well, unreasonable and silly on your part.

When a man is out of arguments does he resort to non-sequitors?

Ya know, Culturologist, what I’d really love to see is some of you antis really lay it on the line and try to repeal the second amendment. Go ahead, charge forward with what you really want. Say it out loud and up front, “we want to take away the average citizen’s right to carry guns and entrust it all to the police and the military.” Start that petition, start trying to get those states on board, the process for amending the constitution is pretty cut and dried. Stop this nibbling away at the right with activist judges and smokescreen issues and just get down to it. Such forthright honesty I could at least respect, if not agree with.

Not gonna do it, are you? Oh, some of the more radical among you might advocated the idea on some blogs that don’t mean anything, but actually propose the idea in legislation? Not happening. For one thing, you know you’d get blown out of the water. For another, self righteous politicians have made entirely too much hay out of the issue of firearms–they DON’T WANT it to go away. They want guns around to blame for all of their own failed policies in dealing with crime.

“I refuse to bark back. Here, let me post numerous paragraphs explaining why I refuse to bark back.”

If the sexes were reversed, no one - I repeat, NO ONE - would give her a pass on the theory that pubescent girls are fair game.

Remember the 22-year-old in Kansas who impregnated and then married his 12-year-old girlfriend? There was an awful lot of public support for him in that area. Why, my great-grandma was married young, let him take responsibility by supporting the girl, obviously she’s mature enough if she can choose this, etc. etc.

Guilt and willful blindness. And fetishizing their own role as protectors.

Having experienced and heard far too many instances of middle, high school and college teachers that skirted the line (and even crossed it in private) but were never fired due to lack of public outrage, I have serious doubts as to whether most of those who fantasize about vigilante justice could even muster up the energy to support the school districts’ effort to investigate such claims.

Because I don’t think the issue is just about (their perception of) whether the or not the victims are children, I think the issue is also about who is in charge. The emphasis on “don’t they dare touch my women/children” is downright creepy. Do they not care if the women/children aren’t “theirs?”

The combination of their posturing and lack of action unless there is an obvious threat gives the impression that they want to be in control as much or more than they want to protect children. Girls and women who make accusations themselves aren’t putting them in charge - in fact, they are often challenging the structure that protects their own power - so these girls and women don’t warrant the same kind of protection as when “their” children/women are hypothetically threatened - and therefore not doing the accusing themselves. (Doesn’t she know it’s “not her job”? e_e Whatever the reasoning or intent behind that line, the message it sends to girls and women is not a helpful one.)

I’d also add, as many people brought up in response to the recent fracas over middle school boys harassing their female peers, often times such over the top posturing has the opposite effect even when the intentions are sincere. Girls are not always confident about speaking out when such things happen to them and they tend to have complex feelings towards their abusers (that’s how the abusers manage to abuse). The idea that their fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, etc. will go directly after their abusers and attack them physically on their own - instead of calling the police or whatever other steps may be appropriate - discourages many girls from speaking up. Either because they understand their relatives limitations better than they do, or because they have been convinced that their abusers do not deserve such harsh punishment

When my brother was hurting me, a big part of why I kept my mouth shut for so long was because I was afraid of what my parents would do to him. I loved him very much and while I wanted him to stop, I didn’t want him hurt, either. (The other part that kept me from speaking up? The fact that such behavior was constantly dismissed as “normal” - both in popular culture and by adults making comments similar to Derbyshire’s.)

Even then I didn’t want someone to beat him up. (Well, occasionally I wanted to beat him up, but that’s more because I wanted to smash something than because I wanted to smash him.) What I wanted was to be able to say “no” and have it mean something - and to be confident that the adults in my life would back me up and dole out appropriate punishment without creating any unnecessary drama.

While I can’t speak for all girls and women, I do know that statistically speaking, abusers are more likely to be family or family friends than the crazy guy on TV bragging about how close he’s come to crossing the line. So I’d imagine the reality of what often happens and needs to be done to stop it is closer to what I’m describing than to whatever fantasies are playing out in the minds of talking heads.