The Ivory Tower Man: Why Academia Hates Guns

By pro-gun you mean anti-violence. As opposed to the pro-violence, anti-gun side.

 

Again everything to make one side the bad guys and one side the good guys. I could say you are the pro child gun death side....does that make you like you want to engage in civil and respectful debate?

 

Well that's kind of how it falls out. You have peaceful people on one side, and then you have those who want to initiate violence against peaceful people on the other side. How else can one see it?

Pro child gun death side? Not sure what that means, but I oppose the initiation of violence against peaceful people, including gun owners. Do you disagree and support the initiation of violence against peaceful people?

 

You claimed I was pro violence if i believe in gun control. When have i ever supported violence not in self defense?

 

By supporting government violence against otherwise peaceful people.

 

And how do I support that in terms of gun control?

 

You support the idea of the government initiating force against people based upon the things they own. Not anything they have done.

 

Yep. If you own weaponized anthrax we are going to come and take it....by force

 

We ?
Giggle, now that is funny !

 

We will.

 

So, you Arm up and take it by force ?
Do tell !

 

Follow the thread. Who do you think the we is I am referring to?

 

Ok that's a mouthful for an explanation of a cryptic remark.

We know from archaeology there were Neanderthals and we know from genetics that some interbred with humans.

To speculate further about them is not very academic.

 

So, only weaponized anthrax, which I don't own. So you won't initiate force against me for the firearms I own?

 

So you are ok with using force to take away weaponized anthrax???

You VIOLENT MARXIST STATIST!!!! lol

 

No. But you seem to insist that would be necessary.

But I don't actually own any weaponized anthrax, so I'm more concerned with whether you would advocate the initiation of force to take away my firearms.

 

Jean Auel's not so subtle message in her books is that exploitation of women is derived from prehistoric times.

Naturally we don't know that, but we do observe a kind of subservience in modern aboriginal peoples around the globe.

The progress of the population towards world peace and universal education has opened most jobs to women, and they have even made it to the top of major business corporations and acquired extreme financial wealth.

Co-ed sports at the professional levels seems to be impossible still, and the latest experiments with integrating women into military combat units is still faltering.

I don't see a problem with segregated female military units such as women-only infantry squads. But apparently this is not popular with the women either.

Back to guns though -- God did not make all men or women equal -- but Samuel Colt did.

All women with the constitution to do so should own their own guns and learn how to carry, draw, and shoot them quickly and accurately, just like Annie Oakley.

And since college rape is the biggest threat most females face, they need to have that right from the age of 18 onwards.

 

You are ok with your neighbor owning weaponized anthrax? You can run but you can't hide. LOL

 

For women, a Glock or else a revolver is probably a better choice than a 1911A1.

 

Yes, I am.

And, as I said earlier, I oppose the initiation of force against peaceful people based upon the things they own. Force is only justifiable in response to force.

 

Well thankfully no one in any real power in this country thinks as you do. LOL

 

What are you trying to say ???

 

lots of things both biological and nonbiological are illegal outside of a licensed research lab.

 

Do you believe there is any current politician who believes it is ok for you to keep weaponized anthrax at your house?

 

He's a libertarian. Those guys are wacky