I support the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, enshrining Americans’ right to bear arms. But I never forget that the First Amendment came first. So I’m totally down with the right of people who disagree with the Second Amendment to voice their opinions in whatever way they choose. But that doesn’t mean I have to like the tone or content of their argument. In fact, it Paines me that so many members of my “loyal opposition” are so filled with hate and anger towards the pro gun rights position—and not just because that’s the way they see gun owners (irony isn’t always funny). I believe that any belief that’s worth having should be able to withstand rational debate and critique. That anyone holding a strongly held belief should invite debate and discussion. But this on mikeb30200’s blog? This is beyond the pale . . .
The NJ governor whose name sounds like a fairy elf has opted to commute the sentence of criminal gunloon Brian Aitken–posterboy of the oppressed small penis crowd.
Remember this: as I’ve sagely noted, gunloons like to talk about getting tough on crime–more enforcement, longer sentences. But when a (white) gunloon commits a gun crime….well, laws are for other (black, brown) people.
Mikeb302000 has no time for pro gun rights commentators (like myself) who are personally offended by Jadegold’s personally offensive remarks. When I protested, Mikeb replied “I say again, get over it. Quit derailing the discussion into the mundane complaint about Jadegold’s namecalling. Please.”
More irony: Mikeb302000 holds comments in moderation to make sure they are not flames. And yet he’s OK with a flamer flagrantly flaming on a post. Apparently, that’s because . . .
A small penis is a metaphor for psychological inadequacy. That’s how it started and only you’re insistence on taking it literally and pretending to be upset about it is compromising dialogue.
My belief is that many of you, perhaps most of you are motivated by irrational fear and inadequacy, and that right there makes you unfit.
So it’s a Catch-22: gun owners are unfit to own guns because wanting a gun means you are unfit to own one. No wonder they’ve resorted to playground level name-calling. Which is sad, because I genuinely appreciate vigorous debate on all sides of all firearms-related issues.
So if, perchance, there’s anyone reading this who is in favor of gun control, I implore you to email an editorial to firstname.lastname@example.org. I promise to delete all flames, so that we can have more light than heat.
Meanwhile, I won’t dignify Jadgold’s accusation of racism with a reply. But Wikipedia has something to say about Freud, guns, sexuality and psychology, filed under “Misattributed”. . .
- A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
- This is not a statement that appears in any translation of any of Freud’s works. It is a paraphrase of a statement from the essay “Guns, Murders, and the Constitution” (February 1990)by Don B. Kates, Jr. where Kates summarizes his views of passages in Dreams in Folklore (1958) by Freud and David E. Oppenheim, while disputing statements by Emmanuel Tanay in “Neurotic Attachment to Guns” in a 1976 edition of The Fifty Minute Hour: A Collection of True Psychoanalytic Tales (1955) by Robert Mitchell Lindner:
- Dr. Tanay is perhaps unaware of — in any event, he does not cite — other passages more relevant to his argument. In these other passages Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons. The probative importance that ought to be attached to the views of Freud is, of course, a matter of opinion. The point here is only that those views provide no support for the penis theory of gun ownership.