DAJT, I'm going to try and answer your questions, although I doubt anything I say will be satisfactory to you.
In what way did I ever "demonize" legitimate gun ownership? Had I done that, my post would have read something like "Anyone who owns a gun is a threat.. or a bad person". That is not what I said.. Of course I'm aware that people own guns for legitimate reasons. Protection, hunting, gun collection, etc.
I'm by no means saying that everyone who owns 47 guns is a threat, because, people might own that many guns for the previous purposes I stated. I',m saying that in THIS CASE, and in consideration of the man's threats against the school, the fact that he owned 47 guns is a great concern.
Does that clarify my position?
No, I'm afraid it doesn't. I asked you three questions that you basically ignored altogether. For example, you said there was an association between owning 47 guns and the threats against his wife and the school. I asked you to explain what that association was. You ignored the question.
I also asked you if his threats would be any less reprehensible if the guy only owned ten guns, or even one gun. You ignored the question.
And finally, I asked you how the 47 guns play into the problem of the threats? You ignored that question as well.
But lest I be guilty of the same discourtesy, allow me to answer your question. Specifically, you asked me in what way did you ever "demonize" legitimate gun ownership?"
You did it by insisting it was part of "the problem" and suggesting an association between owning 47 guns and making threats to women and children. We've all agreed that the perp should go down hard for beating his wife and threatening her and the school children.
What you haven't explained is why owning 47 guns makes it any more of a problem, or how it contributes to the problem. You said that the fact he owns 47 guns is of "great concern," but you still haven't explained why. The demonization of which I speak comes from you in the form of guilt by association. The guy made death threats. The guy owns 47 guns (legally, to the best of our knowledge). You are linking these two disparate facts in a way that seems unreasonable, unfair, or at best, unclear.
Your position was clear from the start, Mitch.
Well sure, it's clear to you. You demonized gun ownership worse than he did.
Don't let DAJT try and demonize you.
Buzz off. If I ask Mitchell for clarification, just how is that any of your business?
A man who owns 47 guns and makes constant death threats is a danger. He is a threat, and should be treated as a national security risk.
I think that's bordering on melodrama. His threats were all local, not national. But I agree that he is a threat, with or without the guns.
He has the means to commit mass murder, whereas a man armed with a chicken wing would be considerably less threatening.
Sure he does, but so do a lot of law-abiding citizens. You could say that anybody who has $700 to his name has the means to commit mass murder by simply purchasing an AK 47 and a few clips.
He is not a threat solely because of his guns, or solely because he made a death threat. It was the combination of the two.
To say that owning the guns makes somebody a threat, even partially, is to demonize gun owners across the country, which is unreasonable, unfair, and just downright shitty.
Some people just don't have the intellectual capacity to understand something that isn't laid out in front of them.
And he ends his post with pseudo-intellectual snobbery. How nice.
And fyi, the article you posted has changed. it's headline now reads:
Chief: Ind. man wasn't serious about school threat
Yeah, how about that? The police chief doesn't believe Meyer was serious about the death threats. He also said the guns were mostly antique collector guns.
That sure puts a wet blanket on all your self-righteous anti-gun propoganda there, Mr. Intellectual Capacity.
