Second Amendment

[metis]

Skwim, you'll probably need a strong magnifying glass and tweezers.

 

[Skwim]

You sure give our penises a lot of thought & attention.

ME!!

Metis started it off with a question: "Let me ask you some questions in return: Why do you feel that civilians here need assault-style guns? Lousy hunters? To look like big boys? To pretend they're Rambo on weekends? (post #163) Which I answered in post 164.

Mister Emu then stuck his beak into the matter (post #165), followed by Apex's comment (post #167), which I replied to (post #199). Then, you immediately got into the conversation #200 and #208, after which the issue was dropped until you raised it again in #220 "It's hard to keep the discussion from heading towards penises . . . " to which I responded in #271. Then it was

You #272

Me #273

You #274

Me #275

You #276

Me #278

You # 280
_____________________

Number of posts you've made up until now= 8

Number of posts I've made up until now = 7

So I wouldn't be calling the kettle black if I was you.

However much you long to see & touch them, you'll find most off limits.
But if pursue your lust you really must......
I recommend buying a special someone dinner first, & then asking nicely.

Ah, a nice firearms poem. How quaint.

 

[Revoltingest]

Skwim, you'll probably need a strong magnifying glass and tweezers.

Is that what you brink when you check out guys' junk?
I swear, one might get the impression from all this that the anti-gun crowd is really about a penis fetish.
Ya'll are the only ones continually bringing it up.

 

[Skwim]

Skwim, you'll probably need a strong magnifying glass and tweezers.

Sorry, but you best go to a doctor for a personal evaluation. I'm not into looking at the firearms of others.

 

[Revoltingest]

ME!!

Metis started it off with a question: "Let me ask you some questions in return: Why do you feel that civilians here need assault-style guns? Lousy hunters? To look like big boys? To pretend they're Rambo on weekends? (post #163) Which I answered in post 164.

Mister Emu then stuck his beak into the matter (post #165), followed by Apex's comment (post #167), which I replied to (post #199). Then, you immediately got into the conversation #200 and #208, after which the issue was dropped until you raised it again in #220 "It's hard to keep the discussion from heading towards penises . . . " to which I responded in #271. Then it was

You #272

Me #273

You #274

Me #275

You #276

Me #278

You # 280
_____________________

Number of posts you've made up until now= 8

Number of posts I've made up until now = 7

So I wouldn't be calling the kettle black if I was you.


Ah, a nice firearms poem. How quaint.

This is a daunting list of posts...to what end I know not.
But with all the effort you expended, I'm beginning to think you're actually serious about your theme.
Oh, dear....I was just having some poesque fun.

 

[4consideration]

You can try to make it about penis size with pop psychology, but such ad hominem arguments betray philosophical weakness.

I know. Whenever I hear someone doing that, I automatically assume they have a small penis -- if they have to bring up the subject of other guys penises -- kind of like the way really homophobic people are likely to be worried about their own repressed gay tendencies.

I find it really weird how much and how often a discussion about guns becomes a discussion about penises.

Who is going around checking out the penises of guys that own guns, in order to make it some sort of assumption (and not something that is considered so highly inappropriate) to be talking about?

 

[Revoltingest]

I know. Whenever I hear someone doing that, I automatically assume they have a small penis -- if they have to bring up the subject of other guys penises -- kind of like the way really homophobic people are likely to be worried about their own repressed gay tendencies.

I find it really weird how much and how often a discussion about guns becomes a discussion about penises.

Who is going around checking out the penises of guys that own guns, in order to make it some sort of assumption (and not something that is considered so highly inappropriate) to be talking about?

I find it really creepy to bring up other people's junk.....except rarely perhaps in a joke thread.
(Don't we all mock @Wirey's?)
Aside from derailing discussion, it makes RF less friendly for polite folk.
It also smacks of sexism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmmmm.....I propose enlarging the scope of liability insurance.
Everyone should have a policy to pay for losses they cause....
- The defendant's cost of a frivolous lawsuit.
- The full cost of auto accidents. (In MI, it's limited by statute.)
- Embezzlement. (In most cases, it's not considered a crime.)
People pose many dangers.
They should insure for this.

The issue of risk affects more than just firearms, but don't you think it's strange to have a system where there are more restrictions on someone wanting to open carry a Pomeranian than someone wanting to open carry an AR-15?

 

[Revoltingest]

The issue of risk affects more than just firearms, but don't you think it's strange to have a system where there are more restrictions on someone wanting to open carry a Pomeranian than someone wanting to open carry an AR-15?

I don't know this to be true, but if you tried both here,
the Pomeranian would likely get you smiles.
But the other would get you shot or badly thumped.

But I was addressing the concept of buying insurance for risks one poses.
No thoughts on that?

 

[4consideration]

I find it really creepy to bring up other people's junk.....except rarely perhaps in a joke thread.
(Don't we all mock @Wirey's?)
Aside from derailing discussion, it makes RF less friendly for polite folk.
It also smacks of sexism.

I do, too. In a joke thread, there is the "of course" you don't mean it. To me, it wouldn't be funny if it was really intended to be hurtful. In a debate thread, or in real life discussion, it's meant to make someone feel small...to disempower them with an accusation...in a way that would be considered very impolite (possibly criminal) for a person to prove otherwise -- kind of like starting a thread in a DIR to gossip and rip apart a group of people that could get dinged for posting there in their own defense. I think it's small, and cowardly to attack a person in a way and place they couldn't possibly defend themselves.

 

[Mister Emu]

The issue of risk affects more than just firearms, but don't you think it's strange to have a system where there are more restrictions on someone wanting to open carry a Pomeranian than someone wanting to open carry an AR-15?

If you think about it, how strange is that really? A Pomeranian can just jump up and bite someone. The AR-15 can't, can't do anything, at all. It is literally infinitely more likely that the dog will hurt someone on its own than the AR-15.

That said, culturally, it is much more difficult, in general around the country, to carry an AR-15 than to walk a pomeranian.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do, too. In a joke thread, there is the "of course" you don't mean it. To me, it wouldn't be funny if it was really intended to be hurtful. In a debate thread, or in real life discussion, it's meant to make someone feel small...to disempower them with an accusation...in a way that would be considered very impolite (possibly criminal) for a person to prove otherwise -- kind of like starting a thread in a DIR to gossip and rip apart a group of people that could get dinged for posting there in their own defense. I think it's small, and cowardly to attack a person in a way and place they couldn't possibly defend themselves.

I'm glad we appear to have resolved that without the thread getting locked up.
Difficult as it is, gun control should be discussed, so all side should be friendly to each other.

 

[Skwim]

This is a daunting list of posts...to what end I know not.
But with all the effort you expended, I'm beginning to think you're actually serious about your theme.
Oh, dear....I was just having some poesque fun.

Just killing time until my SO was ready to go out.

 

[4consideration]

I'm glad we appear to have resolved that without the thread getting locked up.
Difficult as it is, gun control should be discussed, so all side should be friendly to each other.

Yeah. Sorry that I got a little snippy, everyone.

I just don't think that if I was having a political discussion with someone and they started making insinuations about my vagina, that I ought to be expected to just sit there and take it -- so I don't think a man should have to put up with that, either. If there's an argument, just make it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've already rapped me own knuckles with a ruler.

 

[Skwim]

I find it really weird how much and how often a discussion about guns becomes a discussion about penises.

That's probably because you can't face the truth of the relevance. But that's okay, you're in good company. Few can.

Who is going around checking out the penises of guys that own guns, in order to make it some sort of assumption (and not something that is considered so highly inappropriate) to be talking about?

Got me. I never cared about it as much as you do.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's probably because you can't face the truth of the relevance. But that's okay, you're in good company. Few can.
Got me. I never cared about it as much as you do.

Geeze, you really are serious.
Ew.
Perhaps you might start your own thread to defend the claim.

 

[Wirey]

I know. Whenever I hear someone doing that, I automatically assume they have a small penis -- if they have to bring up the subject of other guys penises -- kind of like the way really homophobic people are likely to be worried about their own repressed gay tendencies.

I find it really weird how much and how often a discussion about guns becomes a discussion about penises.

Who is going around checking out the penises of guys that own guns, in order to make it some sort of assumption (and not something that is considered so highly inappropriate) to be talking about?

Pfffttt! Check out the gay girl with the small penis!

 

[Wirey]

insinuations about my vagina.

How you doin'?

 

[4consideration]

That's probably because you can't face the truth of the relevance. But that's okay, you're in good company. Few can.

That's hilarious. I have neither a penis, nor a gun --- but I "can't face the truth of the relevance." OK.

Got me. I never cared about it as much as you do.

You never cared about what...to make references to penises in just about every discussion about the 2nd Amendment you participate in? Really? OK. I don't feel like looking through threads on the subject. Let's just talk about this conversation.

You do seem to care enough to make a sexual, or genitalia, connection to gun ownership/interest here. You sure do.

Not at all. Females with penis envy also covet guns. The rest are only manipulating guys by feigning an interest in them. But we know where their real interest lies . . . . . . . . don't we.

Sorry I didn't notice that you were also making references to women having penis envy, too. Didn't mean to leave that one out.

That one was a follow up to this one:

As for talking about penises when guns come up, it's like the association between boobs and bras. Mention the word "bra" and one's mind intuitively springs to the object of its purpose.

There is not a necessary correlation between guns and penises, like there is with bras to boobs.

One has to make up a correlation. If there is a psychological "association" between the two, I think it resides with the person that forms that association -- rather than the person one fabricates having knowledge about. That's the person who get to "own" it, not the person they fabricated a psychological evaluation about.

If I hear the word "gun" I don't think a penis is the "object of it's purpose" I don't think about penises at all in that context...and if I hear the word penis, I don't think about guns...I think about penises...but that's just me.

But... if the two really go together, it seems like it's backwards here.

If there was no boob, there'd be no need for a bra. No boob. No bra. Big bras indicate BIG BOOBS. Woman with big boobs are note trying to "compensate" for something by buying big bras.

No penis. No gun. Or, no gun, no penis. (What a silly correlation to make up. I can't even keep a straight face trying to type it.) It's just as silly as asserting ad nauseum that men with guns are trying to "compensate" for having a small penis. If there's penis envy, I think it's more likely to be with the people who have the psychological association for themselves, and insist on bringing it up all the time.