Next episode of "30 Days" on FX is about gun control... - Page 9

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Next episode of "30 Days" on FX is about gun control... (Page 9 of 9)

Posted: 7/1/2008 10:09:58 PM EDT

[#1]

OK, after watching the whole thing I'm gonna have to say that the outcome was much better that I feared during the first 15 minutes.

Posted: 7/1/2008 10:11:18 PM EDT

[#2]

It's on again and I caught something I didn't hear the first time. At the intro to the show, the narrator says something to the effect of the Founding Fathers "giving" us the right to own guns. The Bill of Rights doesn't GIVE us anything. It simply recognizes certain individual rights.

I also think it's funny that the lady thinks "gun culture" is/can be dangerous. She teaches hip hop dancing. Hip hop culture is one of the most dangerous things out there for a number of reasons.

Once again:

Posted: 7/1/2008 10:12:16 PM EDT

[#3]

I'm not going to comment on the show itself, but WTF is with the TV14 rating for violence? Did anyone else see any violence?

Posted: 7/1/2008 10:16:59 PM EDT

[#4]

The show did a good job of showing the huge gulf of understanding between pro- and anti-gun people.

Posted: 7/1/2008 10:21:04 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ah, the retards from Ceasefire.

That guy handled himself pretty well in that segment.

I agree, He handled himself respectfully and well. I would have brought up the real reason for the second amendment

That's something they never exactly got to did they...........

Posted: 7/1/2008 10:27:49 PM EDT

[#6]

Kudos to Ken and his son. They represented us well.

Posted: 7/1/2008 10:42:42 PM EDT

[#7]

Tag for link to download. But not bit torrent, I cant figure that stuff out

Posted: 7/1/2008 10:44:41 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
"whenever I hear a sound I think of someone being shot."

Good grief what a drama queen

Ah, I just kinda remembered where I heard similar lunacy.

It was quite awhile ago on one of the very first reality shows (maybe Real World) and they had some full blown nut peta freak vegetarian on the show. At one point they went to a luau. She was upset that their was nothing for her to eat, but she finally found some rice. About half way through the rice she found a small piece of pork and then realized that the rice was flavored with pork broth (and it seems a little bit of meat).

She completely freaked out and started crying. The others tried to calm her down but she was losing it. She actually said "I can hear the pigs soul crying out in pain"

It was fucking great.

Posted: 7/1/2008 10:50:00 PM EDT

[#9]

I watched it tonight and all I can say is Pia may be a libtard but woah what a hottie. Mmmm. I'd hit it HARD.

Posted: 7/1/2008 10:58:46 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
"whenever I hear a sound I think of someone being shot."

Good grief what a drama queen

I don't really blame her for that one. From what I understand, her only experiences with guns were in the context of crime and murder. It's not surprising that these are the things she associates with gunshots. What she needs to realize is that a hell of a lot of us have never killed anyone with a gun and associate them with target shooting, hunting trips, family trips to the shooting range, etc.; things that are very positive and enjoyable experiences for us.

Posted: 7/2/2008 4:59:55 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
"whenever I hear a sound I think of someone being shot."

Good grief what a drama queen

I don't really blame her for that one. From what I understand, her only experiences with guns were in the context of crime and murder. It's not surprising that these are the things she associates with gunshots. What she needs to realize is that a hell of a lot of us have never killed anyone with a gun and associate them with target shooting, hunting trips, family trips to the shooting range, etc.; things that are very positive and enjoyable experiences for us.

Isn't that pretty much her point at the end of the show? She said she really had no idea about the non-violent uses of a gun, that there are many, and she has a lot of understanding for why people would enjoy those activities?

Dang, she was better at the end of the show than the beginning, and someone from our culture was shown to be a smart, responsible gun owner and parent.

So what if they got a couple of terms wrong here and there, or if there were errors that only an Arfcommer could catch. It was a good show.

Posted: 7/2/2008 5:12:28 AM EDT

[#12]

It was a better than I thought but not perfect by any means. I liked that the showed that guns were more than hunting and focused on self-defense. If they could have met a couple of other self-defense shooters it would have been even better.

My problems included bringing in Ceasefire and not hearing the counter arguments. Second is the brush over that the questions on 4473 are already in the database. The questions are only there to inform people of who are illegal to purchase guns and not "an honor system". I also would have liked to hear more of our sides position and statistics.

But overall it wasn't that bad.

Posted: 7/2/2008 5:14:56 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
"whenever I hear a sound I think of someone being shot."

Good grief what a drama queen

I don't really blame her for that one. From what I understand, her only experiences with guns were in the context of crime and murder. It's not surprising that these are the things she associates with gunshots. What she needs to realize is that a hell of a lot of us have never killed anyone with a gun and associate them with target shooting, hunting trips, family trips to the shooting range, etc.; things that are very positive and enjoyable experiences for us.

Isn't that pretty much her point at the end of the show? She said she really had no idea about the non-violent uses of a gun, that there are many, and she has a lot of understanding for why people would enjoy those activities?

Dang, she was better at the end of the show than the beginning, and someone from our culture was shown to be a smart, responsible gun owner and parent.

So what if they got a couple of terms wrong here and there, or if there were errors that only an Arfcommer could catch. It was a good show.

wow, maybe they should have sent her to remedial common sense school

Posted: 7/2/2008 5:26:19 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
She's hot. I dig the hair.

Pic of her please.... Missed the show.

Posted: 7/2/2008 5:33:19 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She's hot. I dig the hair.

Pic of her please.... Missed the show.

Somebody already posted a picture of her and the father & son on page 13. But in case you skipped to the last page:

Posted: 7/2/2008 5:35:25 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She's hot. I dig the hair.

Pic of her please.... Missed the show.

there is one a page back, she is ok, kinda chunky for a fitness instructor but she was pretty cute in some of the scenes on the show.

I thought they did a pretty good job and i was impressed with the way the marine kept calm while she was spouting off all of her nonsense. In addition, the meeting with the guy that defended his family seemed to really have an impact on her.

all in all, to have her go from crying psychopath to actually grinning and enjoying shooting was pretty good, i would have liked to see what she was like when she got back home.

Posted: 7/2/2008 5:36:49 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She's hot. I dig the hair.

Pic of her please.... Missed the show.

Somebody already posted a picture of her and the father & son on page 13. But in case you skipped to the last page:

multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/87b7d3211a_01lall1.jpg

The dad has a look of "what a crazy loon..."

The son has a look of " Oh yes...you WILL be mine MUUhaahahahah'...."

Posted: 7/2/2008 5:37:07 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She figured it out!!! The solution to gun control is to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys and protect our rights!

Fail.

She said "not take away their gun rights, but restrict them to the extent necessary..."

Never mentioned the 20000 gun laws ALREADY in place. Fools.

Posted: 7/2/2008 5:40:19 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Seriously, why can't we show a suburban gun nut?

There could be some real steriotype busting right there.

Bingo, Come to my house, no missing sheetrock and upholstery on all the furniture. Plus My safe make his look a little limp.

Posted: 7/2/2008 5:56:18 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She figured it out!!! The solution to gun control is to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys and protect our rights!

Fail.

She said "not take away their gun rights, but restrict them to the extent necessary..."

Never mentioned the 20000 gun laws ALREADY in place. Fools.

+1

Posted: 7/2/2008 6:32:51 AM EDT

[#21]

That woman has a psychological phobia about guns in general. She said every gunshot made her think of somebody dying. Props to her for shooting more, and showing some pleasant surprise that she was actually decent at it.

I laughed my ass off when she cried after shooting a shotgun. I always laugh when I see somebody cry on TV though. I think she thought she had just killed a kitten.

It really highlighted the left's view that law-abiding citizens must suffer undue regulation and restriction due to criminal's mis-use of guns. In actuality, it does nothing to solve the problem of criminals using guns.

Posted: 7/2/2008 6:48:39 AM EDT

[#22]

I dont think she was as far out as we were led to believe in the beginning. I also have a suspicion the show was scripted. The park bench discussion with the lady and the other two that showed up cause "guns kilt their childern" was over the top. It was 3 on 1 and they gave him a chance to talk. I think 3 people that far on one side of the fence would have just yelled the entire time and cried, every peep he made would have been interrupted.

Shennangans..

I did think she wasn't too shabby looking. I like em with a little meat like that too

Posted: 7/2/2008 10:25:47 AM EDT

[#23]

Some of the articles that have been posted stated that she had met with the MI militia. Yet, at no time during the airing did they mention a militia. Overall, the show was pro-gun.

We gotta remember that a lot of editing was done. I would have liked to have seen them start her off on .22's until she was more comfortable.

I thought it was great when the tour guide at OSU mentioned the pistol and rifle teams. They offer scholarships, something like that could entice the kid to go to college and get a degree. Not that everyone should go to school, but, like a lot of kids that play ball in college, it opens up your horizens.

And YES we can carry on the campus of the University of Utah. Also, no restriction on business, restaurants, etc...

Posted: 7/2/2008 10:39:15 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
What's so funny about Liberals is that since they have no self control, that everyone must have no self control as well and must be limited.

Excellent point. For more, read this article. The salient points:

Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
[email protected]

"You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you."

"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."

"I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns."

"I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."

How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect?

How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought?

One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.

Defense Mechanisms

Projection

About a year ago I received an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn't want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a "bad day". (I don't know that this person is a "he", but I'm assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of course, got no response. The truth is that he's statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn't legally carry a firearm1 and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.1

How does my correspondent "know" that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn't. What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection – unconsciously projecting one's own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn't have to own them.3 In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun,4 so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him.

Projection is a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are unconscious psychological mechanisms that protect us from feelings that we cannot consciously accept.5 They operate without our awareness, so that we don't have to deal consciously with "forbidden" feelings and impulses. Thus, if you asked my e-mail correspondent if he really wanted to murder his neighbors, he would vehemently deny it, and insist that other people want to kill him.

Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him.6

All people have violent, and even homicidal, impulses. For example, it's common to hear people say "I'd like to kill my boss", or "If you do that one more time I'm going to kill you." They don't actually mean that they're going to, or even would, kill anyone; they're simply acknowledging anger and frustration. All of us suffer from fear and feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. Most people can acknowledge feelings of rage, fear, frustration, jealousy, etc. without having to act on them in inappropriate and destructive ways.

Some people, however, are unable consciously to admit that they have such "unacceptable" emotions. They may have higher than average levels of rage, frustration, or fear. Perhaps they fear that if they acknowledge the hostile feelings, they will lose control and really will hurt someone. They may believe that "good people" never have such feelings, when in fact all people have them.

This is especially true now that education "experts" commonly prohibit children from expressing negative emotions or aggression. Instead of learning that such emotions are normal, but that destructive behavior needs to be controlled, children now learn that feelings of anger are evil, dangerous and subject to severe punishment.7To protect themselves from "being bad", they are forced to use defense mechanisms to avoid owning their own normal emotions. Unfortunately, using such defense mechanisms inappropriately can endanger their mental health; children need to learn how to deal appropriately with reality, not how to avoid it.8

(This discussion of psychological mechanisms applies to the average person who is uninformed, or misinformed, about firearms and self-defense. It does not apply to the anti- gun ideologue. Fanatics like Charles Schumer know the facts about firearms, and advocate victim disarmament consciously and willfully in order to gain political power. This psychological analysis does not apply to them.)

Denial

Another defense mechanism commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is denial. Denial is simply refusing to accept the reality of a given situation.9 For example, consider a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. She may get extremely angry at a well-meaning friend who suggests that her husband is having an affair. The reality is obvious, but the wronged wife is so threatened by her husband's infidelity that she is unable to accept it, and so denies its existence.

Anti-gun people do the same thing. It's obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, victimized. It's equally obvious that law enforcement can't protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you10 and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family.11 There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide.12 Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that "the police will protect you", "this is a safe neighborhood" and "it can't happen here", where "it" is everything from mugging to mass murder.

Anti-gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that "the government will never confiscate my guns" are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable.

Reaction Formation

Reaction formation is yet another defense mechanism common among the anti-gun folks. Reaction formation occurs when a person's mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite.13 For example, a child who is jealous of a sibling may exhibit excessive love and devotion for the hated brother or sister.

Likewise, a person who harbors murderous rage toward his fellow humans may claim to be a devoted pacifist and refuse to eat meat or even kill a cockroach.14 Often such people take refuge in various spiritual disciplines and believe that they are "superior" to "less civilized" folks who engage in "violent behavior" such as hunting, or even target shooting. They may devote themselves to "animal welfare" organizations that proclaim that the rights of animals take precedence over the rights of people.15 This not only allows the angry person to avoid dealing with his rage, it allows him actually to harm the people he hates without having to know he hates them.

This is not meant to disparage the many wonderful people who are pacifists, spiritually inclined, vegetarian, or who support animal welfare. The key issue is not the belief itself, but rather the way in which the person experiences and lives his beliefs. Sincere practitioners seek to improve themselves, or to be helpful in a gentle, respectful fashion. They work to persuade others peacefully by setting an example of what they believe to be correct behavior. Sincere pacifists generally exhibit good will towards others, even towards persons with whom they might disagree on various issues.

Contrast the sincere pacifist or animal lover with the strident, angry person who wants to ban meat and who believes murdering hunters is justified in order to "save the animals" – or the person who wants to outlaw self- defense and believes innocent people have the obligation to be raped and murdered for the good of society. For example, noted feminist Betty Friedan said "that lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence."16 The truly spiritual, pacifist person refrains from forcing others to do what he believes, and is generally driven by positive emotions, while the angry person finds "socially acceptable" ways to harm, abuse, or even kill, his fellow man.

In the case of anti-gun people, reaction formation keeps any knowledge of their hatred for their fellow humans out of consciousness, while allowing them to feel superior to "violent gun owners". At the same time, it also allows them to cause serious harm, and even loss of life, to others by denying them the tools necessary to defend themselves. This makes reaction formation very attractive from a psychological point of view, and therefore very difficult to counteract.

Defense Mechanisms Are Not Mental Illnesses

Defense mechanisms are normal. All of us use them to some extent, and their use does not imply mental illness. Advocates of victim disarmament may be misguided or uninformed, they may be stupid, or they may be consciously intent on evil, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are "mentally ill".

Some defense mechanisms, however, are healthier than others. A safe general rule is that a defense is healthy if it helps you to function better in your personal and professional life, and unhealthy if it interferes with your life, your relationships, or the well-being of others. Young children utilize projection and denial much more commonly than do healthy adults. On the other hand, "if projection is used as a defense mechanism to a very great extent in adult life, the user's perception of external reality will be seriously distorted."17

Defense mechanisms are also frequently combined, so that an anti-gun person may use several defense mechanisms simultaneously. For example, my unfortunate correspondent uses projection to create a world in which all his neighbors want to murder him. As a result, he becomes more angry and fearful, and needs to employ even more defense mechanisms to cope. So he uses projection to attribute his own rage to others, he uses denial that there is any danger to protect himself from a world where he believes he is helpless and everyone wants to murder him, and he uses reaction formation to try to control everyone else's life because his own is so horribly out of control.

Also, it's important to remember that not all anti-gun beliefs are the result of defense mechanisms. Some people suffer from gun phobia18, an excessive and completely irrational fear of firearms, usually caused by the anti-gun conditioning they've been subjected to by the media, politicians, so-called "educators," and others. In some cases, gun phobia is caused by an authentic bad experience associated with a firearm. But with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term "hoplophobia" to describe anti-gun people, most anti-gun people do not have true phobias. Interestingly, a person with a true phobia of guns realizes his fear is excessive or unreasonable,19 something most anti-gun folks will never admit.

Defense mechanisms distort reality

Because defense mechanisms distort reality in order to avoid unpleasant emotions, the person who uses them has an impaired ability to recognize and accept reality. This explains why my e-mail correspondent and many other anti-gun people persist in believing that their neighbors and co- workers will become mass murderers if allowed to own firearms.

People who legally carry concealed firearms are actually less violent and less prone to criminal activity of all kinds than is the general population.20 A person who has a clean record, has passed an FBI background check, undergone firearms training, and spent several hundred dollars to get a permit and a firearm, is highly unlikely to choose to murder a neighbor. Doing so would result in his facing a police manhunt, a trial, prison, possibly capital punishment, and the destruction of his family, job, and reputation. Obviously it would make no sense for such a person to shoot a neighbor - except in self-defense. Equally obviously, the anti-gun person who believes that malicious shootings by ordinary gun owners are likely to occur is not in touch with reality.21

The Common Thread: Rage

In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone. So why do anti-gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti-gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African- Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these "oppressed people" are stridently anti-gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many "professional victims" who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood.

Identity as Victim

If I were to summarize this article in three sentences, they would be:

(1) People who identify themselves as "victims" harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as "not victims."

(2) In order psychologically to deal with this rage, these "victims" utilize defense mechanisms that enable them to harm others in socially acceptable ways, without accepting responsibility or suffering guilt, and without having to give up their status as "victims."

(3) Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization.

Thus the concept of "identity as victim" is essential. How and why do members of some groups choose to identify themselves as victims and teach their children to do the same? While it's true that women, Jews, and African- Americans have historically been victimized, they now participate in American society on an equal basis. And other groups, most notably Asian-Americans, have been equally victimized, and yet have transcended the "eternal victim" mentality.

Why, for example, would a 6'10" NBA player who makes $10 million a year see himself as a "victim"? Why would a successful, respected, wealthy, Jewish physician regard himself as a "victim"? Conversely, why might a wheelchair bound woman who lives on government disability NOT regard herself as a victim?

I would argue it's because the basketball player and the physician believe that their identities are dependent on being victims – not because they have actually been victimized, but because they're members of groups that claim victim status. Conversely, the disabled woman was probably raised to believe that she is responsible for her own success or failure.

In fact, many people who have been victims of actual violent crime, or who have survived war or civil strife, support the right of self-defense. The old saying is often correct: "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged."

Special Treatment and Misleading Leaders

Two reasons for these groups to insist on "victim" status seem likely. First, by claiming victim status, members of these groups can demand (and get) special treatment through quotas, affirmative action, reparations, and other preferential treatment programs.

Second, these people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is no alternative to remaining a victim forever. Their leaders remind them constantly that they are mistreated in every imaginable way (most of them imaginary!), attribute every one of life's misfortunes to "racism" or "sexism" or "hate crimes", and dream up ever more complex schemes for special treatment and favors.22 These leaders are the ones who preach that the entire Black experience is slavery and racism, or that Jewish history before and after the Holocaust is irrelevant,23 or that happily married women are really victims of sexual slavery.24

Likewise, the NAACP is suing firearms manufacturers to put them out of business,25 and is especially opposed to the inexpensive pistols that enable the poor to defend themselves in gang-ridden inner cities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed evicting anyone who dares to keep a tool of self-defense in any of its crime-infested housing projects. Jewish leaders, especially those in the politically correct "Reform" branch, preach that gun control is "a solemn religious obligation",26 contrary to the teachings of their sacred scriptures and their own history.27 Law enforcement agencies falsely teach women that they are safest if they don't resist rapists and robbers,28 while women's organizations advocate gun control, thus rendering women and their children defenseless.

Victimhood is good business for organizations that foster victim status. As victims, the members depend upon the organization to protect them, and the organization in turn relies on members for funding and political power. In the interest of self-preservation, these organizations work hard at preserving hatred and bigotry and at keeping their members defenseless – and therefore dependent.

Anti-gun groups love victims!

From my observations, pro-victimhood is a feature of all of the anti-gun special interest groups, not just the ones mentioned here. Every organization that supports gun control apparently wants its members to be helpless, terrified and totally dependent on someone else to control every aspect of their lives. It doesn't matter whether it's a religious, racial, ethnic, political, social, or charitable group. From Handgun Control, Inc. to the Anti- Defamation League to the Million Mom March, they all want you to live in fear. In this scheme, soccer moms are "victims" just as much as are inner-city minorities.

If these organizations truly cared about the people for whom they claim to speak, they would encourage safe and responsible firearms ownership. They would help people to learn how to defend themselves and their families so that they wouldn't have to live in fear. They would tell everyone that one of the wonderful things about being an American is that you have the right to keep and bear arms, the right to defend yourself, and how these rights preserve the right to be free.

The psychological price of being a victim

In our current society, victimhood has many perceived benefits, but there are some serious drawbacks. Victims tend to see the world as a scary and threatening place. They believe that others treat them differently, unfairly, and even maliciously – and that they are helpless to do anything about it. This belief, that they are being mistreated and are helpless to resist, generates tremendous rage, and often, serious depression.

But for victims to show rage openly can be dangerous, if not outright suicidal. For example, a battered woman who screams at or hits her attacker may provoke worse beatings or even her own murder. And a person who successfully defends himself loses his status as "victim." For someone whose entire identity is dependent on being a victim, the loss of victim status is just as threatening as loss of life.

So, unable psychologically to cope with such rage, people who view themselves as victims: (1) use defense mechanisms to displace it into irrational beliefs about neighbors killing each other, and the infallibility of police protection, and (2) attempt to regain control by controlling gun owners, whom they wrongly perceive as "the enemy".

...

Posted: 7/2/2008 11:07:08 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What's so funny about Liberals is that since they have no self control, that everyone must have no self control as well and must be limited.

Excellent point. For more, read this article. The salient points:

<SNIP>
...

That was by far the best article I have read about the anti gun mind. Thanks for sharing it.

I also saw that the guy in the show did everything perfectly when he argued with the anti gun people.

Posted: 7/2/2008 1:03:45 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What's so funny about Liberals is that since they have no self control, that everyone must have no self control as well and must be limited.

Excellent point. For more, read this article. The salient points:

<SNIP>
...

That was by far the best article I have read about the anti gun mind. Thanks for sharing it.

I also saw that the guy in the show did everything perfectly when he argued with the anti gun people.

Whenever you hear an anti talking about guns, think "projection". They think that others are as fucked up as they are. They think that since they would kill someone for cutting them off in traffic if they had a gun, that is what every other "reasonable" person would do as well.

Whenever I hear someone say that if we make guns more available blood will run in the streets, I conclude that is a dangerous person full of rage.

Posted: 7/2/2008 1:07:00 PM EDT

[#27]

I saw the show last night, the anti chick would get banged ( i'd hit it ) well the first half of the show was, meh. But she ended up not so much of anti 2nd. Good show better than what I expected.

Posted: 7/2/2008 4:17:34 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
I saw the show last night, the anti chick would get banged ( i'd hit it ) well the first half of the show was, meh. But she ended up not so much of anti 2nd. Good show better than what I expected.

+1. I am just glad the show wasn't overly biased against us.

Posted: 7/2/2008 6:40:13 PM EDT

[#29]

Would you invite an anti-gunner into your home for a day/week/month if you knew it would convert them to be pro 2nd Amendment?

Posted: 7/2/2008 6:50:33 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Would you invite an anti-gunner into your home for a day/week/month if you knew it would convert them to be pro 2nd Amendment?

If I knew it would, yes.

If it didn't, I'd be pissed. I don't know if I could live with one for a month.

Posted: 7/2/2008 7:24:28 PM EDT

[#31]

Redhead. Hubba-hubba!

Heck yes I'd "admit" her to my home for a month, any redheaded woman is welcome at my house for as long as she cares to stay. Just as long as my wife agrees.

Posted: 7/2/2008 7:26:03 PM EDT

[#32]

Here's a link for those who havent seen it. Watch this account, the rest will probably be put up shortly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZmU0If_QrU

Posted: 7/2/2008 8:10:49 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I saw the show last night, the anti chick would get banged ( i'd hit it ) well the first half of the show was, meh. But she ended up not so much of anti 2nd. Good show better than what I expected.

+1. I am just glad the show wasn't overly biased against us.

Could have been worse, I guess.
I seriously doubt any anti watching it felt differently afterwards, though.

Posted: 7/2/2008 8:15:31 PM EDT

[#34]

It cracks me up when they allude to the notion of someone owning a gun legally MAY end in tragedy for someone, IE a friend, loved one, girl scout walking down the street, etc, but then call a gun owner "paranoid" because they "fear" being attacked....."Who's going to attack you?"

(edit) With the exception of the Ceasefire meeting, I was fairly impressed with the outcome.
Excellent job the man and his son did with this.

Posted: 7/2/2008 8:38:24 PM EDT

[#35]

The Ceasefire meeting was pure ambush.

Seriously, how do you have a debate with someone so emotional on any subject, let alone when the people are victims of trauma, and you know it's gonna be on TV and you need to not come off looking like an asshole.

If he would have said anything against what they were saying their emotions would have jumped and it would turn into a screaming match and despite what he actually said it would just be looked at as him being an uncaring asshole.

So he opted to say nothing, and any thinking person can see it was an ambush.

Posted: 7/2/2008 8:54:58 PM EDT

[#36]

overall well done and worth watching id say. the anti said things in the beginning that showed her true ignorance, prejudice, and stereotyping that most of the antis i know convey.

overall the host family did a very good job of being patient and answering many questions from the anti in good form. i saw many op[orunities for pro firearm points to be made in some questions asked. however with the editing done who knows how much was said and done yet not aired on both sides.

the anti walked away with some fraction of experience in something she had claimed to be an expert in. i hope she truly had time to think about what her intellect allowed her to understand before its back to the emotion and peer pressure of the environment she resides.

to sprulocks credit i enjoyed this and the other parts of the series ive watched. as unbiased enough to still get ratings id say.

Posted: 7/3/2008 10:22:02 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Here's a link for those who havent seen it. Watch this account, the rest will probably be put up shortly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZmU0If_QrU

Thanks. My dad wants to see it.

Posted: 7/6/2008 6:21:18 PM EDT

[#38]

bump

another replay of the show at 11pm EDT

Posted: 7/6/2008 6:51:31 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
snip all your posts

thanks for the inside view, kinda neat hearing things first or second hand as compared to what we all saw on tv.

Posted: 7/6/2008 6:55:14 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Would you invite an anti-gunner into your home for a day/week/month if you knew it would convert them to be pro 2nd Amendment?

I think its our job is to take an anti 2nd out shooting, hopefully they don't break into tears like the chick in the show. Once someone has fun, which she did look like it towards the end of the show. They will be converted. Maybe not that easy but its a start.

Posted: 7/6/2008 8:02:36 PM EDT

[#41]

I just finished watching the show. I have to say Im happy with the out come.
Some peoples minds just need opening a bit is all

Posted: 7/6/2008 11:54:04 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She figured it out!!! The solution to gun control is to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys and protect our rights!

Fail.

She said "not take away their gun rights, but restrict them to the extent necessary..."

Never mentioned the 20000 gun laws ALREADY in place. Fools.

+1

+2. Never even mentioned them. They kind of glossed over it by stating that gun dealers had to keep extensive records and what-not...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Next episode of "30 Days" on FX is about gun control... (Page 9 of 9)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us