Comments about ‘Gun-rights group touts new 'word'’

I do believe that many in the anti gun/civil rights movements may suffer from hoplophilia. But there is also a chance that they suffer from logicphobia.

Come on... this is the most ridiculous one sided article I've ever seen. At least gun owners tried to be articulate, instead of resorting to petty tactics like in this article. The word has been around since the 60s, so your facts aren't even right anyway.

Not very fair and balanced...

I know this is an old thread but goodness, gracious, the article is just plain wrong. The "new word" has been around since 1962. Stick it into wikipedia, and you'll see that it was coined to identify a specific type of gun-hater: the one who has no rational opinion, but rather has one based in the fantasy that guns have motives and lives of their own -- apart from their owners.

I live in a community were many people never grew up around guns and have never felt the compulsion to buy a gun. I grew up in Utah when the Springfield 30-06 was the rifle most used for dear hunting. This was when, if you need twenty rounds in your rifle, it meant you couldn't shoot.

We never had a gun in our home. The happy day of my military career was turning in my M-16 A1. I own a forty-five. I wish I had keep the cash. I hate guns and don't fear them.

To each their own. It's a shame a few nuts packing heat at presidential venues are giving gun owners a bad name. Most the gun owners I know are decent folks.

This is a childish parody of the word "homophobia".

A gun SHOULD be feared. It can put a hole through your head, and that is what it was specifically designed to do.

A gay should NOT be feared. There is nothing about being gay that harms anyone.

Fools mock, but they shall mourn when their rights are infringed the same way the rights of gays are being infringed.

A gun 'SHOULD' be feared, because 'it' can put a hole in your head?

Perhaps the whole animate/inanimate object thing is too complex for you. What you really mean is SOMEONE may put a hole in your head, and he may use a nail and hammer, an icepick or a gun. Whatever the implement, it's always a PERSON doing the action.

Simple, really-


Larry

these guys are right the thing we need now is to hang silly labels on anyone that apposes us so that we can dismiss anything they say whether it is a valid argument or not.

I just don't understand people who hate the Bill of Rights. You really should love all of them. The person who wrote this article clearly hates guns (a hoplophobe?). What a pity that he feels he should impose his will upon others. Perhaps we should tell the liberals that they should no longer have their first amendment. See how far that goes. But it's a typical near-sided view that liberals take when the wage their one-sided arguments. They often fail to realize what goes around.

I'm a liberal, & I carry a pistol. I have ALL my rights, and I want to be around to enjoy exercising them.

This isn't a liberal / conservative problem, this is a conflict between people who understand and want to keep all their rights and people who think taking them away (or giving them up) is OK.

What I don't understand is people who say they want to protect people, then set about taking away their protection. The police can't be everywhere, and don't have a duty to actually protect any person.

And two things common between 9/11 and the recent Xmas attempt are that the government screwed up, and citizens saved the day. That can apply to most self-defense situations - the police can't be there, your gun can.