Gun owners - Have you apologised for a spree killing recently?

And reply to: neo96

You don't get it.....

a reply to: thesaneone

Fully agree with you saneone!

It is actually our duty to do so...

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: theMediator

I do deeply apologise for offending your delicate sensibilities.

I will now go and flog myself.

Stop trolling, your OP was bad even for a satire.

If this type of post thinks it stimulates thinking maybe only you needs baby toys for mental stimulation.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I think Charlie was right maybe it is a cultural thing that makes us different a little.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Krakatoa

No my understanding was that Gun Owners shouldn't have to scream it from the rooftops, & as such, neither should a Muslim...

Satire - ideally with the intent of shaming individuals

...

Gun owners were not the target of the OP, it was all said tongue-in-cheek.

Tongue-in-cheek, like the cartoons of the Prophet? IT was not targeted at all believers in Islam, now was it? It was an attempt to shame the radical element. Or is that analogy not directly related? Fair is fair is it not?

a reply to: neo96

The OP was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying you do not have to apologise.


Very educational post, but your fury isn't necassary.

Relax Neo, pal.

Make a thread about it I'm sure it would be very popular.

I'm not being sarcastic either, I'd actually like to see a thread like that to learn more.

Nef, another truly compassionate thread.
You stand up for human rights like I wish I could.
Maybe next time, just spell it out

a reply to: Krakatoa

I agree.

I'm not arguing with you Krak, pal, just explaining.

a reply to: theMediator

My you are an angry one aren't you?

Thanks for your positive contribution.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Krakatoa

I agree.

I'm not arguing with you Krak, pal, just explaining.

I'm not arguing either. Just having an adult discussion on the finer points of a satirical post and the many facets of interpretation. Satire, like other humour, is a personal thing. And, if one person (not you specifically) is complaining that others "don't get it", and is labeled an idiot, is akin to saying that they should conform to some homogenous idea of appreciation of humor. Which, no sane person should be advocating as every human is different.

I enjoy good discussion, and abhor personal attacks like I have seen in this thread, even from the OP who (as a mod) should hold themselves to a higher standard.

a reply to: Krakatoa

LOL - okay, if it will make you feel better, I'll say this: there are people (I won't say how many - and I won't list their names) who are major gun rights advocates, who have made unfair comments regarding peaceful Muslims, similar to the comments made by the OP. OP was pointing out that hypocrisy. Most of these people who were on this thread, got it. They didn't like it, but they got it.

To be fair, there are also people who are gun rights advocates (I won't say how many - and I won't list their names), who have even gone so far as to defend the peaceful Muslims on recent threads.

As someone said earlier. The purpose of this thread was not to bash gun rights advocates. The purpose of this thread was to point out hypocrisy and to make people think a little bit.

There. Feel better?

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: theMediator

My you are an angry one aren't you?

Thanks for your positive contribution.

He might be angry, I don't know about that.

But his last post was spot on.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Krakatoa

...

There. Feel better?

Please, don't patronize me. It is beneath you, and an insult to me. If you cant discuss things like an adult, then perhaps I should leave you to yourself. If you are willing to discuss things without patronization and veiled insults, then I welcome the discourse.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I do understand that humour can bypass some people...
That's a given...

My only point is that after being explained that it was tongue-in-cheek reversal and in no way a demand for an apology...

People still took it as some sort of attack on them personally just because they're pro-Gun...



I'm very pro-Gun, so much so I wish we had the same Laws in the UK...

But having understood the initial context & being one of many who knew & explained that it wasn't an affront to Gun owners, to see this spiral downhill was disheartening to be honest.

a reply to: butcherguy

Listen.... If people want to criticise anything I write, that's fine with me.

Responding with humour is just a way of breaking the tension.

If folks don't like that, it's their problem.

a reply to: neo96

Perfect example of what I was talking about in the first paragraph of my previous post - except I don't think he got it. But I bet he does now. Will he like it? Probably not.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Back at ya.

a reply to: Answer

The biggest difference is that there is not a sizable sect of 2nd Amendment supporters who recruit/indoctrinate/encourage people to become mass murderers because of a twisted idealistic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

That, my friend - is a matter of perspective and opinion

Insurrectionism Timeline

How many people committed the Charlie Hebdo murders? Was it 1.6 billion?

The whole point of this thread is about tarring (and wishfully feathering) a large group with the same brush...

We'll just have to agree to disagree, but if you don't think that's possible, I wonder whose point you'll be making?

:-)

a reply to: neformore

Have you or anyone else on this thread thought about calling the NRA and asking them why 'they are not' and 'have not' organized a protest of gun violence? Would it be right for them to give the PR that extremist want that would support their cause?

So the NRA has a march on Washington to denounce their support of gun violence. We all know the NRA denounces gun violence. The problem is, the liberals in Washington would view it as a march for gun control and it wouldn't be about gun control and they would twist it into something it's not.

Here again, call the NRA and ask them why, then post it.

a reply to: neformore

Disclaimer : This post is topical satire. Its aimed at trying to stimulate some deeper thinking on a particular subject. Its not meant as a slight against anyone personally. Its a parallel. I can guarantee that probably 50% of the posters who reply to this OP will not read this disclaimer.

Read the disclaimer. Which means the vast majority of the OP is not worth responding to as it isn't a serious topic.

So I will respond to the premise.

Islam is not like other religions and Islamic people are not like other religious people. In the Middle East, where I have spent some time, Islamic conservatism is the primary ideological basis of belief.

The core of Islamic Extremism is a minority. But they are enabled by the beliefs of the conservative majority of Islamic extremism. The majority of Muslims believe that death for apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, and a whole host of other offenses should be punishable by death.

They do not believe in freedom of speech. They do not believe in freedom of association. They are heavily and extremely paternalistic. Equality of the sexes is a completely foreign concept. All of the things that make up the core values of western civilization are an affront to the majority conservative Islamic world view. This is something people need to learn and accept. Trying to view the Islamic world through a western lens is stupid.

In the ME, what we would term "radicalism" isn't always recognized as such. Many times it is seen as a facet of religiosity ever present in the Mosque. There is no separation of Mosque and state as the laws of the land must be derived, by religious edict, from the Koran.

Tacit approval of terrorism not real. People in the Middle East either outright support terrorism or they don't. But even the ones who do NOT support terrorism still hold to their conservative Islamic values which are NOT in line with Western notions of equality, liberty, and tolerance. This is something people in the West simply cannot seem to comprehend.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gun owners in America are made up of a diverse group of people. With 100 million or so, you're talking about men and women of all colors, religions beliefs, and sexual orientations. The vast majority of those gun owners are not criminals who shoot places up. There is no ideological core that drives the gun owning population to murder in the name of the Gun. There is no ideological center that enables criminal activity with a gun.

Criminality while using a firearm and religious extremism in the ME are not morally equivalent and cannot be logically viewed in the same light. I get the whole notion of "Painting with a broad brush" premise of the thread, but it is simply a bad example to try to create an equivalence between a tool and a centuries old ideological construct that is ingrained in a highly religious society.