Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Fewer and Fewer Americans Own Guns [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)40. Is that "obsession with other people's genitalia", an "Uncle Ruckus", or both?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=167493
You've stated you're a gun owner in other posts in this thread, hence the "Uncle Ruckus":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#368402
We figured out posters like you here years ago. Here's a handy list, so you can figure
out what not to do from now on:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#362548
That reminded me of four similarities between gun controllers and religious fundies...
4. A creepy obsession with other people's genitalia...
4. A creepy obsession with other people's genitalia...
You've stated you're a gun owner in other posts in this thread, hence the "Uncle Ruckus":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#368402
That's a good one. A variant is the "Uncle Ruckus"
Claiming to be a gun owner and/or very familiar with guns, and yet continually putting down other gun owners
Claiming to be a gun owner and/or very familiar with guns, and yet continually putting down other gun owners
We figured out posters like you here years ago. Here's a handy list, so you can figure
out what not to do from now on:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#362548
The Lovejoy (by X-digger): No matter what the restriction is, it's justified by a plea to save the children.
Distraction: no one is trying to ban your guns is often used in the same post in which they then talk about their sensible gun laws to ban assault rifles. Obviously they want to ban guns but they feel that they might be able to lighten you up and dumb you up a little so you can allow them pass their sensible gun laws, then when they progress to the next step they will do the same thing again.
Empathy: Im a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law. The goal is for them to appear to be on your side then they will try to soften you up to the next step in their gun ban agenda. But remember that even members of the Brady family own guns, that does not mean they are not willing to ban you from owning them.
Also called "forced teaming" by X-digger: "An advocate for more restrictions pretends to be a 'gun person', and decries the problems that 'we' face- nevermind that to many ears, this sounds like, "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends..""
Shame: If there is a shooting they will try to exploit that tragedy against whatever NRA meeting or gun show or event that will occur in the near future. They will say such things as, "is it appropriate to have the event so soon after the shooting" which would require that the pro-gun event is somehow wrong or bad in the first place. This also requires an implied loose association between the pro gun event and something bad which is listed below as another tactic.
loose association: Trying to associate guns, gun events, gun rights activists or pro gun groups with something they are not associated with in any way that people in general may consider to be evil or bad such as Evil Banks, Evil people, bad events or anything negative even though many people don't view guns in a negative way or gun owners as being evil. An attempt to label guns, gun owners or pro gun groups as evil by loose association with that which is considered evil.
Hate/Fear/Anger: They try to use disparaging names against gun owners just like any bigot would do against a culture or a persons view that is different from their own. Perhaps the gun owner will be affraid to support the second amendment after being exposed to this anger.
Lies, deception, manipulation, sensationalism: I have never seen a gun control debate in which the folks supporting gun control did not use a significant amount of false information, lies, and deception. They will talk about assault weapons ban while showing full auto guns that will not be effected by any AWB. Every part of the ignorance of firearms that they perpetuate is part of the tactic. They cant seem to figure out the difference between a magazine and a clip.
Exploitation of tragedy: They have prepared legislation in advance with the purpose of waiting for a tragedy, so that they can introduce that legislation rapidly after a tragedy. They are like vultures waiting for the kill.
Throwing up smoke: Yet when you try to argue against their plan, they try to shame you into thinking you are wrong for posting your views in light of the tragedy and they accuse you of attempting political gain and being insensitive to the victims even though they initiated the attempt at political gain via the tragedy. They distract you from their own disgusting exploitation of the tragedy by claiming you are exploiting it.
Harass gun owners: The laws they pass are not designed to make society more safe, they are designed to only effect law abiding gun owners by threatening or harassing them via legislation. Their goal is to reduce the number of people who own guns and therefore the number of people who fight for the right to own firearms. They try to make gun laws complicated and they try to use intimidation via legislation to try to get people to sell their firearms. They also try to attack gun ownership from every angle including making it more difficult for people to go target shooting, acquire ammo or go hunting.
Forced justification (beevul): This occurs when a gun control supporter suggests that it is necessary to have a "good reason" to own a gun or accessory, if you don't have a "good reason" to own such objects than they conclude they should be banned. The "good reason" will be defined by the gun control supporter, so any reason you present will be dismissed as incorrect. The best response to this is to simply explain that you don't need to express a reason in order to practice a civil liberty.
Distraction: no one is trying to ban your guns is often used in the same post in which they then talk about their sensible gun laws to ban assault rifles. Obviously they want to ban guns but they feel that they might be able to lighten you up and dumb you up a little so you can allow them pass their sensible gun laws, then when they progress to the next step they will do the same thing again.
Empathy: Im a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law. The goal is for them to appear to be on your side then they will try to soften you up to the next step in their gun ban agenda. But remember that even members of the Brady family own guns, that does not mean they are not willing to ban you from owning them.
Also called "forced teaming" by X-digger: "An advocate for more restrictions pretends to be a 'gun person', and decries the problems that 'we' face- nevermind that to many ears, this sounds like, "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends..""
Shame: If there is a shooting they will try to exploit that tragedy against whatever NRA meeting or gun show or event that will occur in the near future. They will say such things as, "is it appropriate to have the event so soon after the shooting" which would require that the pro-gun event is somehow wrong or bad in the first place. This also requires an implied loose association between the pro gun event and something bad which is listed below as another tactic.
loose association: Trying to associate guns, gun events, gun rights activists or pro gun groups with something they are not associated with in any way that people in general may consider to be evil or bad such as Evil Banks, Evil people, bad events or anything negative even though many people don't view guns in a negative way or gun owners as being evil. An attempt to label guns, gun owners or pro gun groups as evil by loose association with that which is considered evil.
Hate/Fear/Anger: They try to use disparaging names against gun owners just like any bigot would do against a culture or a persons view that is different from their own. Perhaps the gun owner will be affraid to support the second amendment after being exposed to this anger.
Lies, deception, manipulation, sensationalism: I have never seen a gun control debate in which the folks supporting gun control did not use a significant amount of false information, lies, and deception. They will talk about assault weapons ban while showing full auto guns that will not be effected by any AWB. Every part of the ignorance of firearms that they perpetuate is part of the tactic. They cant seem to figure out the difference between a magazine and a clip.
Exploitation of tragedy: They have prepared legislation in advance with the purpose of waiting for a tragedy, so that they can introduce that legislation rapidly after a tragedy. They are like vultures waiting for the kill.
Throwing up smoke: Yet when you try to argue against their plan, they try to shame you into thinking you are wrong for posting your views in light of the tragedy and they accuse you of attempting political gain and being insensitive to the victims even though they initiated the attempt at political gain via the tragedy. They distract you from their own disgusting exploitation of the tragedy by claiming you are exploiting it.
Harass gun owners: The laws they pass are not designed to make society more safe, they are designed to only effect law abiding gun owners by threatening or harassing them via legislation. Their goal is to reduce the number of people who own guns and therefore the number of people who fight for the right to own firearms. They try to make gun laws complicated and they try to use intimidation via legislation to try to get people to sell their firearms. They also try to attack gun ownership from every angle including making it more difficult for people to go target shooting, acquire ammo or go hunting.
Forced justification (beevul): This occurs when a gun control supporter suggests that it is necessary to have a "good reason" to own a gun or accessory, if you don't have a "good reason" to own such objects than they conclude they should be banned. The "good reason" will be defined by the gun control supporter, so any reason you present will be dismissed as incorrect. The best response to this is to simply explain that you don't need to express a reason in order to practice a civil liberty.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Fewer and fewer Americans honestly answering questions on the phone from strangers
Lurks Often
May 2015
#2
Good for you, I refuse to tell any annonymous pollsters that I may own firearms.
GGJohn
May 2015
#14
It comes up in conversation about shootings and dumbass things that people do with guns...
Human101948
May 2015
#15
Is that "obsession with other people's genitalia", an "Uncle Ruckus", or both?
friendly_iconoclast
May 2015
#40
Ah! You at least take the Political Theory of Gun-Owner Paranoia seriously....
Eleanors38
May 2015
#30
Sorry but "whoosh" as the expression goes. I don't ask my friends because....
Eleanors38
May 2015
#45
If you were serious about the gun control "issue," you might see Obama's dilemma...
Eleanors38
May 2015
#46
One of the best metrics for measuring new gun owners involves firearm training......
pablo_marmol
May 2015
#37