More Brilliance from the O'Colly

[Shadowrider]

Calvin Warner would do well to study the Patriot armies. Citizens had cannons, artillery, even gunships. So don't sit here and tell me I should only own a musket.

"Banning assault weapons is a common-sense way to curb gun violence in America," -- no. So-called assault weapons make up a very, very tiny portion of overall violence in the US. Most gun violence is with pistols by persons from a specific socio-economic background. Will Mr. Warner suggest we ban those people from the US?

Lots more to be said, but like CTs it deserves little more than mockery.

Exactly! It's down right depressing that 99.8% of the U.S. population has no clue of the true purpose of the 2A. And I'd bet that not 1 single person who graduated ANY U.S. University last year was taught it. That's what's depressing. If they just want to change it, that's one thing and debatable on its merits, but the total ignorance just pains me. They would have us believe that the foundering fathers had no concept of the advancement of weaponry and had not seen any in their lifetime.

 

[flatwins]

As an OSU graduate, I am very offended.

Ditto. This is a newspaper for OKLAHOMA State University, not some libtard learning institution up in the east somewhere. I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey **** he is! Hallelujah! Holy ****! Where's the Tylenol?

 

[mightymouse]

Ditto. This is a newspaper for OKLAHOMA State University, not some libtard learning institution up in the east somewhere. I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey **** he is! Hallelujah! Holy ****! Where's the Tylenol?

Ahh, come on, tell us what you really think about the guy!

 

[Shadowrider]

Ditto. This is a newspaper for OKLAHOMA State University, not some libtard learning institution up in the east somewhere. I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey **** he is! Hallelujah! Holy ****! Where's the Tylenol?

 

[ssgrock3]

This article was to stimulate thought and response, all of which you are doing. I like his bear analogy, I think it relevent. Since he has a different opinion than yours he is a jerk. Howabout instead of bashing a college age person on a gun board, you instead send a Relevant response. By relevent, I mean a counter point, or something that resembles a debate. Not the finger flipping, chest thumping that goes on here. All of the dogpiling that goes on here and no further is amazing. We love guns and love having gun rights, Ok, I get that. But lets come out of the dark ages with this caveman mentallity. As older gun owners, how about we show this gent a more reasonable way of looking at things instead of simply name calling and bashing. However this is a college paper, read by college people, what should happen is a 2a friendly student write a response. They may or may not, thinking that this is simply his opinion, of which it is.

 

[LightningCrash]

This article was to stimulate thought and response, all of which you are doing. I like his bear analogy, I think it relevent. Since he has a different opinion than yours he is a jerk. Howabout instead of bashing a college age person on a gun board, you instead send a Relevant response. By relevent, I mean a counter point, or something that resembles a debate. Not the finger flipping, chest thumping that goes on here. All of the dogpiling that goes on here and no further is amazing. We love guns and love having gun rights, Ok, I get that. But lets come out of the dark ages with this caveman mentallity. As older gun owners, how about we show this gent a more reasonable way of looking at things instead of simply name calling and bashing. However this is a college paper, read by college people, what should happen is a 2a friendly student write a response. They may or may not, thinking that this is simply his opinion, of which it is.

There's an old saying "Don't wrestle a pig in the mud. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

You can't use logic to coax someone out of a position that they summited without the use of logic.

 

[NikatKimber]

This article was to stimulate thought and response, all of which you are doing. I like his bear analogy, I think it relevent. Since he has a different opinion than yours he is a jerk. Howabout instead of bashing a college age person on a gun board, you instead send a Relevant response. By relevent, I mean a counter point, or something that resembles a debate. Not the finger flipping, chest thumping that goes on here. All of the dogpiling that goes on here and no further is amazing. We love guns and love having gun rights, Ok, I get that. But lets come out of the dark ages with this caveman mentallity. As older gun owners, how about we show this gent a more reasonable way of looking at things instead of simply name calling and bashing. However this is a college paper, read by college people, what should happen is a 2a friendly student write a response. They may or may not, thinking that this is simply his opinion, of which it is.

No, he's a jerk because he posted a picture of himself in a shirt that says "I'm a jerk."

Several people did provide well thought out replies.

The bear analogy is retarded and extreme. It's a convenient play on the words "right to bear arms" that is also utterly ridiculous in application; and he's implying that our wanting to legally carry is equally as ridiculous.

It's an emotional argument with a blatantly obvious intended response of emotional and logical agreement with the author because, face it, who would reasonably want a bear in a classroom? The cleverness of it is that the topic is not bears in the classroom, but legally carried firearms; and the author is trying to get the reader to agree with his fear of guns without ever directly breaching the topic.

 

[Vamoose]

When can we expect to see your printed rebuttal 3inSlugger?

 

[3inSlugger]

When can we expect to see your printed rebuttal 3inSlugger?

I've contacted Trenton and hope to send in my response before noon today to be published in tomorrow's paper, at which time I'll either start a new thread or post a link here.

 

[mightymouse]

This article was to stimulate thought and response, all of which you are doing. I like his bear analogy, I think it relevent. Since he has a different opinion than yours he is a jerk. Howabout instead of bashing a college age person on a gun board, you instead send a Relevant response. By relevent, I mean a counter point, or something that resembles a debate. Not the finger flipping, chest thumping that goes on here. All of the dogpiling that goes on here and no further is amazing. We love guns and love having gun rights, Ok, I get that. But lets come out of the dark ages with this caveman mentallity. As older gun owners, how about we show this gent a more reasonable way of looking at things instead of simply name calling and bashing. However this is a college paper, read by college people, what should happen is a 2a friendly student write a response. They may or may not, thinking that this is simply his opinion, of which it is.

Nah, name calling is more fun.