"Ironraven,"
Allow me to preface my remarks by saying...I could have simply responded, "What 'g3OFF' said" and been done with this. Upon reflection, perhaps you should be answered directly.
Really. While you claim to support others' opinions, something about mine must have offended you.
I don't think I could put it better than "g3OFF" stated it, I really can't.
Supporting opinions, even dissent, is something one should strive for. On the other hand, some opinions are so
outlandish, and your opinion(s) about this subject
are, that one finds it nearly impossible to find value in defending something that is so destructive.
Your opinion is offensive because it is absurd. It is outlandish, it is goofy and has a feel-good element to it that many in society applaud - I do not.
We have enough problems in this country without adding more to it. The simple fact of the matter is, if you control the language, you control everything and I don't find myself capable of defending opinions that are so totally destructive as yours is.
Even the most perfect among us have what are commonly referred to as, "pet peeves." The whole neverending stream of radical
propaganda that spews forth out of the media and political suck hole is offensive.
...but you reaction does make me wonder about the quality of your reasoning.
...And there the groundwork, you think, is laid to dismiss or demonize my opinion. It's five-thumbed and amateurish.
I've explained mine, but you seem to only like the knee jerk, sound bite level material. And that really is sad.
No, you "explained" your "reasoning" which is more akin to parroting with the sort of doublespeak psychobabble that one encounters from a guest on "Oprah."
Nothing more.
If you are protesting the stereotypes, the paranoid survivalist with mental issues and a radical ideological bent exists.
Of course it exists! Black people like watermelon and fried chicken as well, and so do I.
Do you see something wrong with your line of thought
yet?
What I despise is the damnation of stereotypes and then the embracing of stereotypes when it is either politically expedient or correct to do so.
While it might not be the intent of the person who first developed the term intended, but that is a term popularized by the mass media and that is the image that they assigned it to. I hate the use of the term "assault rifle" for the same reasons- never mind they are usually carbines and not rifles, and the term was actually first coined by a member of Hitler's staff. Words have meaning, given to them by their popular usage.
The term
"Sturmgewehr" was accurate as they named it. The gun community here, in the 1980s, embraced the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" and this cannot be debated - and the gun community was wrong. They came back, after these terms were used in popular gun magazines and then they cried foul when the politicians and special interest groups used the term against them. They then sought to deny the opposition the term by screaming that the status of "assault rifle" was a select-fire only firearm. Too little, too late. It is what it is, however.
Words do have meaning, this is what I have been saying. But you don't throw away words because people want to
think and
opine that
incredibly small minorities of racists and radicals use a term and so the term should be eradicated.
And if you read the clinical description of GAD, and look at it through the eyes of the sheep, you'll discover that anyone who is prepared could be given that classification.
Why don't you attempt to do something positive like educate those "sheep?"
FURTHERMORE - are you aware that the term "Sheeple" or "Sheople" which is so incredibly popular on gun and knife sites was originally used by white supremacist groups like "The Silent Brotherhood?" Did you know that? SO, you preach about the "sheep" and that is one degree of separation from "Sheeple" and you're using the lexicon of the radical racist yourself!
Also, why on earth would I read the clinical description for yet another screwy mental disorder such as GAD? GAD is the product of bored psychiatry and psychology and overbearing, out of control pharmaceutical companies. We didn't have enough mental illness in the country or enough pills being sold, they always have to invent new stuff, don't they? Always some new ailment that needs a new pill. I guess that's "paranoid" too, eh?
Just like anyone who is sad could be "depressed". But psychiatric industry medicates and labels people as depressed every day, when all the need is a life that doesn't suck for a while.
Sucks, doesn't it? Truly healing people, isn't a whole hell of a lot of call for that nowadays, is there?
And are you the same Don Rearic who produces donrearic.com? If so, I'm now very sorry to have recommended your site in the past. This little tantrum of yours is quite telling.
No, he is someone else.
Oh Yes and I would ask you to please spare me the drivel that would follow such a ham-handed attempt at identifying the baddy in your eyes, but it's a little too late for that, isn't it?
I am sorry that you are sorry you recommended the site. You can inform your friends and associates that I don't get led around by the beak by bedwetter's opinions. If you think this is a "tantrum," you need some psychotropic medication yourself. If you think this was clever, especially how you can search for the information as I just posted a link to the site within my last dozen to a dozen and a half postings in this very forum...you would also be mistaken.
It's just a cheap shot, but, hey, that's why I took you to task in the first place, because that's your specialty - cheap shots and painting with a broad brush. The fact that you ended your post the way you did is also telling.
