A comment poster here (first one, at 11:05 AM) says "sexually insecure characters like Dave Codrea and others like him who are obsessed with 'proving' that they are 'men' by waving their fake penises around..."
Man, I hate that.
Being called "Dave."
And an Olofson-bashing "Only One" here (today, 2:35 PM) says "To Codrea...and other nutters, anyone who does wrong with a gun does no wrong, not even the two Columbine killers. They also hate police officers, but I suspect that comes more from penis envy than anything else."
I guess the first stage to recovery is acceptance.
Still, it's kind of flattering. I haven't had this many gentlemen show such unsolicited interest in me since I lived in Long Beach.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
well. i hope they're simply being petty, and they don't believe themselves.
to misunderstand one's opponent is to seal one's fate.
I seriously wonder why these so-called people always try and make the sex firearms thing.
Its a shallow, weak attack that is quite telling about their own "projecting".
If you choose not to defend your life, that is your choice. Not mine.
Well, I know that Freud was a bit of a nut himself... however, I leave you this quote:
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
--SIGMUND FREUD, Austrian psychoanalyst (1856 - 1939)
http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/authors/sigmund_freud_a001.htm
Surely both of those posters were pro-gun and were posting tongue in cheek? I find it hard to believe that anyone is really that much of a clueless doofus.
But I've been wrong before.
w/v: nomorlub. Not for them anyway.
Being this is a bit open of a story to post to. And we are on Olofson anyway. Did the two government doc's make it out to public yet?
Henry Flaccidus doesn't SOUND like he's being ironic.
GREAT riposte, David: "I HATE that. Being called "Dave." Priceless.
A subsequent poster nailed it: Cars ARE the way aggressive males and females prove their machismo. It's like jousting, man. Make the other guy turn pale and give way. People die, but that's part of the thrill. For certain low-functioning types, it's worth it. Yet anyone with acceptable credit can buy a car, from a licensed dealer or a private individual. Licenses, registration? Increasingly, they don't bother. Lots of fatal collisions involving people driving with suspended or revoked licenses, and warrants out on them for previous crashes also without a license. Some people just do not care. That's what the government and anti-gunners refuse to understand. Like the alleged sociopathic "tot mom" in Florida accused of drugging her 2-year-old daughter so she could go party. Chloroform, duct tape, car trunk. Oops. Mommy was in the club too long. Bye, baby. Mom dumps the "trash" and it's back to the nightlife.
My response to "Henry" on the gun/penis analogy would be: If some thug rapes a woman, the 99.999 percent of men who DIDN'T do it aren't castrated as a preventive measure. They don't even emasculate the chronic rapist himself. Why are guns so special?
On the other hand, when the victim can get a gun quickly and easily, attempting rape can get a person a segment on "Famous Last Mistakes."
I always wonder what people like that have to say about female gun owners.
If guns were penis substitutes, no man would be caught dead with a 2" snubby. ;)
Hope you were joshing about "smart guns" being a good idea, since "only ones" were exempted before in the proposals, why should they be foisted on me???
I cannot believe how they keep resurrecting the old shopworn, totally discredited "guns as substitute penises" theory. These POSs keep recycling the same old crappola that they were basing their specious arguments on forty-some years ago. Incredible!
I have a lot of trouble believing how many people express an interest in David's penis.
Must be a 'fascination with the unfamiliar' type of thing. You know, the same kind of wonder one might feel at seeing his first duck-billed platypus. No matter how often you may have heard someone talk of them, if you had never seen one you might evince an interest in such. maybe even to point of passively daring someone to show you one.
Could this be what these fools are trying to do with David. Trick him into satisfying their curiosity about something they haven't yet seen?
The tendency of robust self preservation and the will to defend, to kill rather than be killed in defence of self and brood is instinctual and hard-wired into every higher life-form on this planet, whether clad in fur, feather or skin. Far from being a marker for weakness and inadequacy, it surely denotes strength and ..well, being very adequate.
I find it VERY odd when a male of the species casts aspersions - of the sexual inadequacy kind - on another male who happens to take very seriously his duty to protect himself and his family, and equips himself with the hardware to do so. This can only indicate envy and projection.
I'll go further and say that I don't think think that guns are even part of the equation in this . I think a certain type of male finds it enormously threatening and emasculating to know that there are other men who are willing to vigorously stand up to and repel aggression.
There was some controversy over the Freud quote mentioned above--those who have researched it cannot find the original source, and point out that it is most likely a paraphrasing of Don Kates' own words. (I'm guilty of using the non-quote myself.)
See here.
However, I don't believe anyone is in disagreement about Freud's general observations regarding weapons and their symbolism of dominance and aggression. Yes it's also no secret to anyone who for the first time held and fired a gun, that the experience immediately evaporates the fog of symbolism and myth. Suddenly a gun is an ordinary thing, and the user is no different, other than being slightly less burdened by superstition.
Those without this experience, however, remain fixated on the symbolism. It makes one wonder what such a person has in mind--understanding the weapons as a symbol of dominance and aggression--when this person proposes that only certain others remain armed, and those which are armed remain under control by a political body.
If we're going to revisit phallic symbolism, will we also accuse uppity women of suffering from "penis envy"?
Anon @ 7:30: Tongue-in-cheek. Tune in tomorrow.
TJP: The "penis envy" was couched as "Only One" envy.
Here's my comment on this-
Guns = Penises therfore Anti-guns = Vaginas q.e.d.
"Man, I hate that.
Being called "Dave.""
Yeah, me too.
Personal insults and attacks are a sure sign that an irrational mind has finally discovered that logic and reason do not support their cause and childish name calling is the only tool they have left to fight with.
Hi Dave,
The "penis/gun" thing is so .com!!! Back in the 60's, some woman wrote to "Playboy" about "Gun nuts being lousy lovers" claiming her husband was a gun nut "AND" lousy in bed!! This evoked many responces from like minded women one of whom I remember reading saying,"My husband will spend hours working on and rubbing the stock oh his Mauser but in bed he's the original 'minute man!!'" One can only wonder about their relationship?? Funny thing, on the side bar to the page was an add for a ladys' perfume. The caption said,"Want him to be more of a MAN, try being more of a WOMAN!!!" The perfume was I belive, "MY Sin by Lanvan!!"....Touche!
Post a Comment