• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Another anti gun "journalist" shows their ignorance (stupidity)

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
Another anti shows their ignorance (stupidity?).

In a world with the WWW at our fingertips, can she claim ignorance, or is she working hard to remain so (hence, stupidity)?


http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...of_moms_got_guns_banned_from_whole_foods.html

Article said:
Shopping at Whole Foods in an Open-Carry State
It’s a little less stressful than it used to be, thanks to a few moms in Charlottesville, Virginia
By Dahlia Lithwick

Being a no-guns establishment in an open-carry state must be maddening. You, as a store owner, can legally say no guns—you can even post signs to this effect—but the militant performance artists who cannot envision a world in which buying their vanilla-mint creamer can be achieved without brandishing an AR-47 will fight back. They will organize boycotts and protests and other intimidating displays of manliness. They will show up in droves and armed to the teeth. Resistance may begin to feel pointless.

And she lost me in the next paragraph of rhetoric (though I was able to read further along after changing the battery on my BS-o-meter.

She should have read this article before posting her rhetoric:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/24/14-things-everyone-should-understand-about-guns/

At least then she would seem to be informed about what she is "reporting" on.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Another anti shows their ignorance (stupidity?).

In a world with the WWW at our fingertips, can she claim ignorance, or is she working hard to remain so (hence, stupidity)?


http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...of_moms_got_guns_banned_from_whole_foods.html



And she lost me in the next paragraph of rhetoric (though I was able to read further along after changing the battery on my BS-o-meter.

She should have read this article before posting her rhetoric:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/24/14-things-everyone-should-understand-about-guns/

At least then she would seem to be informed about what she is "reporting" on.:rolleyes:

Jeez! Talk about virulent, arrogant, anti-human rights attitude.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
Next thing, they'll want minorities and cripples to be able to shop with normal people, too, regardless if anyone is uncomfortable with it.
 

DeSchaine

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
537
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Even with the quote marks, using the word journalist to describe this women is blasphemy. It is a slap in the face of people like Cronkite, Murrow, Stossel, and Winchell. She is nothing more than another opinionated blowhard, this time one with an organic pineapple up her backside.

About the only thing she got right is that protests do work both ways. So does the desire to NOT be intimidated. We need to take up a new mission. We need to make it a POINT to show up at any and all anti-gun protests with our firearms and cameras. Proof needs to be spread far and wide that law abiding people with firearms are NOT the problem, no matter how loud and long the anti's scream it to the contrary.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by MAC702
Next thing, they'll want minorities and cripples to be able to shop with normal people, too, regardless if anyone is uncomfortable with it.

Not familiar with tongue-in-cheek sarcasm?
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
Article said:
SNIP...
This is how change will happen. A whole bunch of advocates will ask for far too much and a whole bunch of good people—at least in this instance, all women—will push back. No violence, no threats. Just reason and smart economics.

When someone is carrying a lethal weapon at a grocery store in order to prove to me that carrying a lethal weapon at a grocery store is acceptable in a civil society or will someday become acceptable in a civil society, my rational response is to feel that he is threatening me. Because open-carry activists who are denied the right to carry wherever they choose are prone to boycotts and intimidation, it is in fact absolutely rational for me to assume that the purpose of those guns is to threaten objectors with violence. The display of open weapons is a perfectly self-fulfilling threat to dissenters.

But here’s the good thing about boycotts: They can work both ways. Boycotts have a long and storied tradition of achieving civil rights victories in this country. Whole Foods clarified and enforced its national policy in an open-carry state because it makes no sense for a tiny fraction of the population to dominate the gun debate. Nobody’s definition of a polite or civil society can include the right to terrify small children. It’s not so much about standing up to an immutable gun lobby as it is about standing up for immutable and blessed civility.

Jeez! Talk about virulent, arrogant, anti-human rights attitude.

Next thing, they'll want minorities and cripples to be able to shop with normal people, too, regardless if anyone is uncomfortable with it.

Yep, it doesn't matter that the Lawfully-Armed Citizen is not actually threatening her or breaking the law. It is the mere PRESENCE which scares her. That's also the funny part. 50 years ago, and perhaps to a certain extent today, people felt "uncomfortable" or "threatened" by the mere presence of African Americans. Before that, it would have been the Irish, Gypsies, Native Americans, and so on and so forth. Can you imagine the OUTRAGE if she had said the following instead?:

"When someone [of colour is present] at a grocery store in order to prove to me that [being a person of colour] at a grocery store is acceptable in a civil society or will someday become acceptable in a civil society, my rational response is to feel that he is threatening me." -Someone Else

And let's not even begin to discuss about her obvious misunderstanding of the word "rational". :rolleyes:

Even with the quote marks, using the word journalist to describe this women is blasphemy. It is a slap in the face of people like Cronkite, Murrow, Stossel, and Winchell. She is nothing more than another opinionated blowhard, this time one with an organic pineapple up her backside.

About the only thing she got right is that protests do work both ways. So does the desire to NOT be intimidated. We need to take up a new mission. We need to make it a POINT to show up at any and all anti-gun protests with our firearms and cameras. Proof needs to be spread far and wide that law abiding people with firearms are NOT the problem, no matter how loud and long the anti's scream it to the contrary.

Trust me, I only used the term - and in quotation marks, nonetheless - because I will not stoop to her level of ignorance and use of "hate". :p
 
Last edited:
Top