Pro-Gun Children's Book Explodes In Popularity After Media Ridicule

If you need this book to teach your children about firearms, rethink owning a gun. If this is your teaching tool, I feel bad for the children.

originally posted by: HauntWok
If you need this book to teach your children about firearms, rethink owning a gun. If this is your teaching tool, I feel bad for the children.

Those children probably exude a higher level of logical/open-minded understanding than you do.

I can take online classes without books but It doesn't make the use of books in a classroom any less practical.

This is simply a tool. A visual representation of what your trying to teach.

You need to "rethink" hitting that reply button sometimes....but ya don't.

a reply to: HauntWok

Who said anything about "needing" it?

The backlash is towards YOUR mindset.
You know, the one where you and other like minded Progressives think you get to tell others what to do and how to live.

MSM puts it up as some terrible thing.

Now, the backlash shows that people are tired of being told this crap and support the 2nd.

a reply to: TiedDestructor

Wow, um exactly my point. Damn.

Oh yea, ok, do you know what is happening? What is coming? Corporate complete rule.

Need your guns against the government? Ok, sure, na, backwater doesn't exist.

Who do soldiers fire on? The guy shooting at them, or the guy not shooting at them?

You think that your limited arsenal stands up to corporate money? Money rents things, like people that are a better shot. Kinda why you ain't going to win.

Money also buys missiles, and drones, and tanks, and bombers, and fighters, and need, I go on?

Yes, your semi auto is going to do what?

Ok, Al Qaeda are better armed than you, and what happens to them?

The government isn't going to anything but sit back, legalize the privatization of life, and pump your money back into ruling every facet of your life.

Yeah, have all the guns you want, thanks for owning your own death warrant. I'm going to refresh myself at building a bow and arrows.

a reply to: HauntWok

Zeitgeist called. It wants the crazy back.



What you offer is basically accepting being ruled. And false security and safeties.

It is okay that what you believe is not only wrong, but directly the opposite of what instinct tells you. But, just as no one can force you to own a gun, no one can force you to be right.

originally posted by: HauntWok
If you need this book to teach your children about firearms, rethink owning a gun. If this is your teaching tool, I feel bad for the children.

LOLZ

Yeah, books are horrible tools for teaching.

It's a fad that'll never catch on.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

a reply to: macman

Hmm, so, a bunch of armed thugs cowing the population and demanding everyone accept their brand if ultra conservatism isn't telling people what to do and how to live?

Ok, so when are y'all gonna pick up the rest of ISIS's playbook? You've all already chastised the NRA into apologizing for their displeasure at the open carry movement. What's extreme enough?

a reply to: HauntWok

Bows and arrows? Sorry bud, I think your hatred for people that don't think like you should disqualify you from owning such weapons of death.

A 100 grain feild tip on an arrow is armor peircing and to top it off, bows and arrows sole purpose is to kill. Why do you need armor peircing instruments of death? You sound like you're up to no good and want a silent way to kill folks that don't think like you.(ie. Gun owners).

I think a childs book needs to be wrote teaching kids safe bow and arrow handling so kids understand those scary instruments of death.

And before you say I don't know what I'm talking about, I have three compound bows, three recurve bows, two crossbows and am very accurate with all of them. My groups are one inch at 40 yards. Waaaaaay more accurate than any pistol I own! Waaaaay more deadly at that distance too.

So, what are you planing to do with your armor peircing instruments of death?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: NavyDoc

Not necessarily insane, untrustworthy or paranoid. However all gun owners are dangerous as having a gun is an inherently dangerous thing. Gun ownership shouldn't just began individual decision as it has implications for others.

The problem is that you're applying a general principle to a specific thing, while ignoring exactly how wide and general the principle is.

More people will be killed drunk drivers in the UK this decade (if not year) alone, than have been killed by guns in the last 100 years (not counting in wartime, as we're talking about civilians rather than soldiers).

Why should drinking be an individual choice, as it has implications for others? People have destroyed the lives of others while under the influence of drink, whether through driving or fighting or domestic violence or just acting the fool and going too far, both deliberately and without intention.

Why should driving be an individual choice, as it has implications for others? People have destroyed the lives of others while behind the wheel of a car, even when sober. Not just "accidental", but through their own negligence or ego, and sometimes without being at fault themselves - just the wrong person in the wrong place when a child decides to dash out across the road from between parked cars.

We expect people to reach an age of maturity before they can drink on their own. Once they reach it, they are free to drink as they please. Who are you to say what they can and cannot do if they are doing it without impacting on anyone else?

We expect people to demonstrate that they have the skills to safely drive a car before we issue them with a driving licence. Once they have it, they are free to drive whatever car they please, to whatever destination they please, whenever they please. As long as they are conforming to the same rules of the road as everyone else, who are you to say where and when they can drive, as long as they are doing it without impacting on anyone else?

We expect people who own firearms to pass a background test and demonstrate the ability to keep the firearms stored safely. Once they have their certificate, they should be free to purchase and use whatever firearm they want, as long as they do so without affecting anyone else.

If the potential for causing death and destruction is enough to warrant interfering (a madman with a gun can kill so many more people!) then why isn't drinking illegal? Why isn't driving illegal? We know for a fact that these are all responsible for many more deaths, because it happens every single day, all across the country. Not once a decade, but every single day.

Ah, but people can drink responsibly and drive responsibly. Because "the only reason for firearms is to shoot someone, they have no other purpose"? You'll need to explain that to the healthy competitive and recreational target shooting community in the UK, because they seem to have come up with plenty of other ways to use firearms that don't involve placing anyone else in danger. Hunters, gamekeepers, and farmers all have plenty of good reasons as well.

In case it's not clear, I disagree rather strongly with you

originally posted by: HauntWok
Ok, Al Qaeda are better armed than you, and what happens to them?

Last time I checked they were still around and a group more extreme than them has taken over huge swaths of the Middle East.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: macman

Hmm, so, a bunch of armed thugs cowing the population and demanding everyone accept their brand if ultra conservatism isn't telling people what to do and how to live?

Ok, so when are y'all gonna pick up the rest of ISIS's playbook? You've all already chastised the NRA into apologizing for their displeasure at the open carry movement. What's extreme enough?

I think you've got that the wrong way around. The "armed" guys aren't asking you to change your lifestyle, they're just saying "leave us alone". It's the people like you who are demanding that people change their lifestyle to something that meets your approval.

Funny how it's always your side who wants to be be the final arbiter of what people are allowed to think or like or want. Maybe that's why you get obsessed with attacking people who dare to show any indication of independent thinking.

a reply to: HauntWok

That is odd.

So, adherence to the Constituion and such is Ultra Conservatism?
And I gotta say. I really didn't see you as the Alinsky type (sarcasm).

And more of your same overly dramatic hyperbole.

And where are these "armed thugs" doing what you speak of???
Oh, you mean armed people exercising a Right.

Hmmm, seems you haven't mastered the reworking of words and terms as well as you think you have.

And this NRA thing you speak of.
Here is a question that I am sure will make a Progressive's head spin.
Are you a member of the NRA?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: HauntWok

Are you a member of the NRA?

More interestingly, why does he/she think it's a bad thing for the NRA to be "chastised" by its membership over the open carry position adopted? It's not a government-run organisation, it's not a liberal think-tank that's supposed to put forward liberal values.

The NRA is a group set up by and for firearms owners to represent their interests. If the members are unhappy that the NRA is not representing their views, they are supposed to complain - and the NRA is supposed to listen.

a reply to: EvillerBob

a reply to: EvillerBob


Because cars are not designed to kill people, hand guns are they have no other purpose or utility. Rifles and shot guns fair enough have other uses. But hand guns have the sole purpose if killing people.

The fact that some people take pleasure firing them does not change this.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So target shooting, handgun hunting or carrying one as a back up weapon while hunting are not legitimate?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: EvillerBob


Because cars are not designed to kill people, hand guns are they have no other purpose or utility. Rifles and shot guns fair enough have other uses. But hand guns have the sole purpose if killing people.

The fact that some people take pleasure firing them does not change this.

It changes everything, actually. Unless you believe that there is some magic power in a handgun that will possess its user the minute they touch it? None of the handguns that I have ever owned or shot have demanded a blood sacrifice before use. They were quite happy making holes in pieces of paper and I was quite happy to let them do it.

In fact, I would bet good money that the vast majority of firearms sold in the US are never bought with the real intention of being used as weapons. Even in areas that allow for concealed carry, how many gun owners actually get it? How many actually keep a gun under the pillow waiting for a break-in? I genuinely believe the statistic is quite small - most of those firearms sold, including the handguns which are "only designed to kill", are probably sitting locked in a drawer or tucked up in a safe, and only brought out when it's time to visit the range.

Regardless, there are many handguns that are not designed with the intent of killing people. Some are target handguns, some are hunting handguns, some are designed to take out in the woods if you live in an area with dangerous wildlife. All of which is completely irrelevant, of course, because a weapon is what you make it. A cricket bat becomes a weapon if you want it to be. A handgun doesn't become a weapon unless you want it to. The fault, always, lies with what you choose to make it.

I have, among other things, a WW2-issued Lee Enfield rifle. A weapon of war, issued to soldiers to shoot other people. Guess what? The worst thing it's shot in the last 70+ years is pieces of paper. The firearm is only a weapon if you make it one. I've made mine a target rifle. No changes, no additions, nothing physical, I've just chosen to use it that way. It also has so far failed to request a blood sacrifice to keep it happy. It doesn't reach out to me in my dreams and make me secretly wish for rampaging hordes of invading Russians or Aliens as an excuse to use it. It just sits there, doing nothing, until I decide to take it to the range.

Strange that, isn't it? It's almost like it's just an inanimate object that doesn't have a will or soul or purpose of its own...

a replyds to: EvillerBob.

Yes there are many ways to kill someone with every day objects. But those objects are not designed with purpose of killing someone. If someone enjoyed blowing things up does That mean that they should be allowed to keep plastic explosive in their apartment?

I have no doubt you are a responsible gun owner but can you guarantee that you guns will never be stolen. Having guns in society creates risk of gun violence.

If you have guns being carried round in every day situations it makes the risk of even minor disagreements or misunderstandings resulting in death Tha much higher.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a replyds to: EvillerBob.

You ok there chap? Seems to be a bit of an issue with replying at the moment.

a reply to: EvillerBob


On not so bloody smart phone that seems to have taken against replying properly. Apologies for any confusion.