Utah official state firearm

[Seth]

I don't get it... "hoplo-" as an affix cannot designate weapons.
The term designates a shield, therefore the hoplophobe is afraid of armor

weapon haters should be referred to as doriophobes (from the Hoplite pike), or maybe gladiophobe.

"Hoplo" refers to "Hoplite," or citizen-soldier of ancient Greece. The term refers not just to people who fear (not hate) weapons, but mainly to people who fear an armed citizenry.

[Wumbologist]

Uh? we never adopted the weapons of the invaders... we used stens.

The French Resistance commonly used captured German weapons, as would have been sensible to do.

[Seth]

Uh? we never adopted the weapons of the invaders... we used stens.

The French Resistance commonly used captured German weapons, as would have been sensible to do.

Then there's the one-shot Liberty pistol we dropped on France by the tens of thousands. A stamped sheet-metal single shot handgun with five spare rounds of .45 ACP in the grip that was to be used by the French resistance to kill a German and take his weapons. Cost about $1.75 to make.

[Svartalf]

I don't get it... "hoplo-" as an affix cannot designate weapons.
The term designates a shield, therefore the hoplophobe is afraid of armor

weapon haters should be referred to as doriophobes (from the Hoplite pike), or maybe gladiophobe.

"Hoplo" refers to "Hoplite," or citizen-soldier of ancient Greece. The term refers not just to people who fear (not hate) weapons, but mainly to people who fear an armed citizenry.

"hoplite" means "shield bearer", because the hoplon was the main piece of equipment involved in phalanx fighting and about the only one every soldier was counted on to have, other pieces, helmet, breastplate, pike or sidearm were all extremely variable depending on the means and taste of the individual soldier.
so "hoplophobe" means one who is afraid of shields. reasonable extensions of meaning would include all body armor, or maybe soldiers, but not weapon... your take is equivalent to saying food-phobe to mean somebody who fears spoons and forks.

[Wumbologist]

what? you mean the white flag?

Only those who are completely ignorant of France's history would suggest it.

[Seth]

I don't get it... "hoplo-" as an affix cannot designate weapons.
The term designates a shield, therefore the hoplophobe is afraid of armor

weapon haters should be referred to as doriophobes (from the Hoplite pike), or maybe gladiophobe.

"Hoplo" refers to "Hoplite," or citizen-soldier of ancient Greece. The term refers not just to people who fear (not hate) weapons, but mainly to people who fear an armed citizenry.

"hoplite" means "shield bearer", because the hoplon was the main piece of equipment involved in phalanx fighting and about the only one every soldier was counted on to have, other pieces, helmet, breastplate, pike or sidearm were all extremely variable depending on the means and taste of the individual soldier.
so "hoplophobe" means one who is afraid of shields. reasonable extensions of meaning would include all body armor, or maybe soldiers, but not weapon... your take is equivalent to saying food-phobe to mean somebody who fears spoons and forks.

Hoplite refers to the citizen-soldier of ancient Greece. That is the reference intended by the author of the term. One can, I suppose, consider a concealed firearm to be a "shield" against an attacker if one wishes to be pedantic about it. You may quibble if you like, but Col. Cooper knew what he was talking about and coined the term specifically to refer to those who fear an armed citizenry, which is one of the basic principles of the United States, not those who simply dislike guns.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Uh? we never adopted the weapons of the invaders... we used stens.

The French Resistance commonly used captured German weapons, as would have been sensible to do.

Then there's the one-shot Liberty pistol we dropped on France by the tens of thousands. A stamped sheet-metal single shot handgun with five spare rounds of .45 ACP in the grip that was to be used by the French resistance to kill a German and take his weapons. Cost about $1.75 to make.

I didn't know about that.
-That's dearer than the Sten, which I think cost seven shillings and sixpence. - That's 371/2 pence.

[.Morticia.]

Uh? we never adopted the weapons of the invaders... we used stens.

The French Resistance commonly used captured German weapons, as would have been sensible to do.

Then there's the one-shot Liberty pistol we dropped on France by the tens of thousands. A stamped sheet-metal single shot handgun with five spare rounds of .45 ACP in the grip that was to be used by the French resistance to kill a German and take his weapons. Cost about $1.75 to make.

I didn't know about that.
-That's dearer than the Sten, which I think cost seven shillings and sixpence. - That's 371/2 pence.

you silly

Guns in America are a profit deal

read Smedley

[Wumbologist]

I didn't know about that.
-That's dearer than the Sten, which I think cost seven shillings and sixpence. - That's 371/2 pence.

Pretty sure it was close to £3, which would have been in the ballpark of $15 USD at the time.

[Wumbologist]

you silly

Guns in America are a profit deal

read Smedley

It's a free market society, most things are profit deals.

[Gallstones]

I do not think it fair or reasonable or good logic to label a culture you aren't familiar with and don't fully understand as "sick" because one aspect of it contradicts one's idealism on that one aspect.

The US is not England, or Australia or France or Germany or any other western nation. We are what we are, we have our own history and our own cultural nuances and our own kinks to be worked out. One can not legitmately extrapolate what we should do or what we should want or what we should think based on one's culture separate from the US.

We should be just what we are--what else is there?

I have heard those very same words from Muslims defending the situation of women in their countries, or more aberrant practices. If some other societies regard unanimously barbaric a regular situation in your nation, the sane thing to do it's -at least- to reconsider it carefully and defend it with logic or change the practice if you find reasons in the arguments. If you are serious about maintaining the "traditional and cultural value" of a law, then you disallow yourself to comment, criticise or demand the abolition of ablation, stoning to death to adulterers, child marriage or any other medieval barbaric law.

We have had the right to private ownership if firearms since the Constitution was initiated. Your fear of them is not our fear of them and your emotional reaction is not logic or argument. The private ownership of firearms is in no way equivalent to any of the atrocities you list.

I have already invested many hours defending my POV, I'm just not motivated to keep going on and on and on and on with people who have shut their minds to considering it because they are afraid.

[maiforpeace]

I do not think it fair or reasonable or good logic to label a culture you aren't familiar with and don't fully understand as "sick" because one aspect of it contradicts one's idealism on that one aspect.

The US is not England, or Australia or France or Germany or any other western nation. We are what we are, we have our own history and our own cultural nuances and our own kinks to be worked out. One can not legitmately extrapolate what we should do or what we should want or what we should think based on one's culture separate from the US.

We should be just what we are--what else is there?

I have heard those very same words from Muslims defending the situation of women in their countries, or more aberrant practices. If some other societies regard unanimously barbaric a regular situation in your nation, the sane thing to do it's -at least- to reconsider it carefully and defend it with logic or change the practice if you find reasons in the arguments. If you are serious about maintaining the "traditional and cultural value" of a law, then you disallow yourself to comment, criticise or demand the abolition of ablation, stoning to death to adulterers, child marriage or any other medieval barbaric law.

We have had the right to private ownership if firearms since the Constitution was initiated. Your fear of them is not our fear of them and your emotional reaction is not logic or argument. The private ownership of firearms is in no way equivalent to any of the atrocities you list.

I have already invested many hours defending my POV, I'm just not motivated to keep going on and on and on and on with people who have shut their minds to considering it because they are afraid.

Sisifo's comment were very relevant. I'm not seeing where Sisifo had an emotional reaction or how he is he shutting his mind because he is afraid.

If you have invested many hours defending your POV, where did you do it here? I don't remember it, so perhaps you might elaborate with your POV, and open up your mind to his POV?

[Gallstones]

I do not think it fair or reasonable or good logic to label a culture you aren't familiar with and don't fully understand as "sick" because one aspect of it contradicts one's idealism on that one aspect.

The US is not England, or Australia or France or Germany or any other western nation. We are what we are, we have our own history and our own cultural nuances and our own kinks to be worked out. One can not legitmately extrapolate what we should do or what we should want or what we should think based on one's culture separate from the US.

We should be just what we are--what else is there?

I have heard those very same words from Muslims defending the situation of women in their countries, or more aberrant practices. If some other societies regard unanimously barbaric a regular situation in your nation, the sane thing to do it's -at least- to reconsider it carefully and defend it with logic or change the practice if you find reasons in the arguments. If you are serious about maintaining the "traditional and cultural value" of a law, then you disallow yourself to comment, criticise or demand the abolition of ablation, stoning to death to adulterers, child marriage or any other medieval barbaric law.

We have had the right to private ownership if firearms since the Constitution was initiated. Your fear of them is not our fear of them and your emotional reaction is not logic or argument. The private ownership of firearms is in no way equivalent to any of the atrocities you list.

I have already invested many hours defending my POV, I'm just not motivated to keep going on and on and on and on with people who have shut their minds to considering it because they are afraid.

Sisifo's comment were very relevant. I'm not seeing where Sisifo had an emotional reaction or how he is he shutting his mind because he is afraid.

If you have invested many hours defending your POV, where did you do it here? I don't remember it, so perhaps you might elaborate with your POV, and open up your mind to his POV?

Terms like unanimously barbaric are extreme misrepresentations and intentionally emotive. Equating private gun ownership with ablation, stoning, child marriage and medieval barbaric law is hyperbolic and emotive. They are all crimes against persons. Firearms are objects, owning them is not a crime against persons. If the objections don't stem from fear, then what is it?

People who describe private gun ownership using that kind of terminology seem to think being passive is somehow more civilized, and they seem fine with being passive. I am not, I am not fine with being passive. I will not ever be a willing victim. I will protect myself, make myself unattractive as a victim and retaliate with all the force I have available should someone try to make me a victim.

I also find it quite rich when a citizen of a nation supporting a monarchy, like Brits, criticizes the US for holding to tradition. Our rights are not quaint tradition.

I'm find this dead end debate tiresome of late. If I change my mind I'll link to the other threads where I have defended my POV, but I'm not motivated to cc them here at this time.

[Pensioner]

Feeling twitchy, Seth? Feeling belittled for your pathetic gun-love? Vein throbbing in your forehead? Better git down to your compound, git your fatigues on and lock and load. Absurd little plastic soldier.

That Seth chap would not be welcomed onto the Brit Cavalry sir as he is nothing but a bounder, does not know his place in genteel society. We also know that blowhards who brag about how big there guns are have the smallest dicks. The chap called Seth’s dick must be only half an inch long for all the bragging he does about his muzzle velocity and all the rest of that crap.

[maiforpeace]

I do not think it fair or reasonable or good logic to label a culture you aren't familiar with and don't fully understand as "sick" because one aspect of it contradicts one's idealism on that one aspect.

The US is not England, or Australia or France or Germany or any other western nation. We are what we are, we have our own history and our own cultural nuances and our own kinks to be worked out. One can not legitmately extrapolate what we should do or what we should want or what we should think based on one's culture separate from the US.

We should be just what we are--what else is there?

I have heard those very same words from Muslims defending the situation of women in their countries, or more aberrant practices. If some other societies regard unanimously barbaric a regular situation in your nation, the sane thing to do it's -at least- to reconsider it carefully and defend it with logic or change the practice if you find reasons in the arguments. If you are serious about maintaining the "traditional and cultural value" of a law, then you disallow yourself to comment, criticise or demand the abolition of ablation, stoning to death to adulterers, child marriage or any other medieval barbaric law.

We have had the right to private ownership if firearms since the Constitution was initiated. Your fear of them is not our fear of them and your emotional reaction is not logic or argument. The private ownership of firearms is in no way equivalent to any of the atrocities you list.

I have already invested many hours defending my POV, I'm just not motivated to keep going on and on and on and on with people who have shut their minds to considering it because they are afraid.

Sisifo's comment were very relevant. I'm not seeing where Sisifo had an emotional reaction or how he is he shutting his mind because he is afraid.

If you have invested many hours defending your POV, where did you do it here? I don't remember it, so perhaps you might elaborate with your POV, and open up your mind to his POV?

Terms like unanimously barbaric are extreme misrepresentations and intentionally emotive. Equating private gun ownership with ablation, stoning, child marriage and medieval barbaric law is hyperbolic and emotive. If the objections don't stem from fear, then what is it?

People who describe private gun ownership using that kind of terminology seem to think being passive is somehow more civilized, and they seem fine with being passive. I am not, I am not fine with being passive. I will not ever be a willing victim. I will protect myself, make myself unattractive as a victim and retaliate with all the force I have available should someone try to make me a victim.

I also find it quite rich when a citizen of a nation supporting a monarchy, like Brits, criticisms the US for holding to tradition. Our rights are not quaint tradition.

I'm find this dead end debate tiresome of late. If I change my mind I'll link to the other threads where I have defended my POV, but I'm not motivated to cc them here at this time.

That's a pity because I would be interested. For the record, this is an ongoing debate at my home...my husband is pro gun, I am not. When he goes away, he insists I have the Glock at my ready to defend myself against intruders. I refuse and hide it after he leaves. The last time this happened I forgot where I hid it, you can imagine what an ordeal that was.