Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Was Freud Correct?
http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=14022
Page 1 of 1

Author:  PocketProtector642 [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:40 am ]
Post subject:  Was Freud Correct?

A funny thought from Alan Korwin's Page Nine...
Quote:
WAS FREUD CORRECT?
Does this explain elements of hoplophobia, and the position of many leftists?
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
--Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

Author:  MostlyHarmless [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Was Freud Correct?

Freud was wrong on many things.

It is my experience that many otherwise mature, rational, and sexually secure adults have an irrational fear of weapons.

Author:  Dave Matheny [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Was Freud Correct?

The fear and loathing of guns by people on the left is something of an illusion.

When you examine the idea at all, you see that they don't mind guns in the hands of left-wingers. I'm not just being snarky about this. Che Guevara had a window specially installed in his office at La Cabana prison so he could watch executions of hundreds of Cubans who had been wealthy, opposed to his regime, or openly religious. He, obviously, liked the guns in the hands of the firing squads. I would bet that not even one member in 20,000 of Moveon.org would object to a poster of Che Guevara holding a gun.

Sarah Palin holding a gun, now, that would drive them bughouse batshit. So it's not the guns themselves, it's who's in possession of them.

Author:  Moby Clarke [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Was Freud Correct?

I agree with Dave. Everytime new gun legislation is offered, what is the one caveat; the Police and military are exempt. Why is that, those groups are controled by government. P2C holders are not, hence the GG's fear of us.

Author:  Macx [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Was Freud Correct?

They should. Some of us have become disillusioned and not just a lil pissed off.

Author:  MostlyHarmless [ Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Was Freud Correct?

I think that it's important to understand the reasoning and motives that drive gun-control proponents. Know thine enemy. Characterizing them as a bunch of liberal whackos with penis envy is neither accurate nor insightful.

I divide ggs into three categories:

1) People who out of ignorance and exposure to misinformation (often from TV and movies) don't understand that firearms, properly selected and used, are safe and effective tools for various tasks.

2) People who make a conscious decision to lead a life of nonviolence with a full appreciation for the personal consequences this has. These people are rare and their faith often plays a large role in their lives. Though small in numbers, they are outspoken. Their effect on public policy has been limited post-9/11 because most people don't accept the underlying premise of their message.

3) People whose trust in governments is greater than their trust in individual decision-making. Generally, they underestimate the safety and effectiveness of empowering individuals (e.g. they make the "wild west" argument for safety and the "middle aged white guy" argument for effectiveness), and overestimate the transformative power of government (arguing that substantial reductions in violence can be achieved by concentrating availability of the means in the hands of government actors).

Trivializing and mocking the ggs takes the focus away from the real debate and the real issues, whether amongst ourselves or in wider public discourse. It's not about genitalia or mental illness, it's about differences in deeply held viewpoints about the role of government and individual rights.

Author:  bensdad [ Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Was Freud Correct?

MostlyHarmless wrote:
I think that it's important to understand the reasoning and motives that drive gun-control proponents. Know thine enemy. Characterizing them as a bunch of liberal whackos with penis envy is neither accurate nor insightful.

I divide ggs into three categories:

1) People who out of ignorance and exposure to misinformation (often from TV and movies) don't understand that firearms, properly selected and used, are safe and effective tools for various tasks.

2) People who make a conscious decision to lead a life of nonviolence with a full appreciation for the personal consequences this has. These people are rare and their faith often plays a large role in their lives. Though small in numbers, they are outspoken. Their effect on public policy has been limited post-9/11 because most people don't accept the underlying premise of their message.

3) People whose trust in governments is greater than their trust in individual decision-making. Generally, they underestimate the safety and effectiveness of empowering individuals (e.g. they make the "wild west" argument for safety and the "middle aged white guy" argument for effectiveness), and overestimate the transformative power of government (arguing that substantial reductions in violence can be achieved by concentrating availability of the means in the hands of government actors).

Trivializing and mocking the ggs takes the focus away from the real debate and the real issues, whether amongst ourselves or in wider public discourse. It's not about genitalia or mental illness, it's about differences in deeply held viewpoints about the role of government and individual rights.


+ eleventy-billion. This post should be a poster.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/