reserved

How about defender? Not a great name, but it implies the only use for the gun is to defend yourself, never to commit violent acts against others, or be involved with accidental deaths and suicide. Everyone should have the right to carry a defender to protect themselves!

Guns are also the single greatest mean of violence in our world's history. They have killed families, they have murdered innocents. They have toppled legitimate governments to impose dictatorship.

The British tried to stop India's plea for freedom with guns. So did the KKK against the civil rights movement. There is a reason why criminals are feared: they use guns.

It's a weapon. A weapon can always do harm, both against good and bad people. There is nothing instrinsicly good about it. Gun controls have been practiced also by very democratic societies, and other tyrants have never enforced Gun control on their people. There is no correlation that Tyrant = Gun control, except in the mind of the NRA and it's adherents.

I'm breaking out my liberal violin right now to compliment this sad song.

Then why is it one of the first things that all oppressive regimes do, is take away firearms from their citizens?

A gun is a tool. I don't mind people incompetent in handling one themselves, not having one, just don't throw your morals on me. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, that will always be true. I've had a gun since age eight, never killed anyone, never had a desire to (though I wouldn't hesitate to kill with prejudice if they broke into my home, a choice criminals make everyday in the US). Try enforcing the gun laws currently on the books if you don't like gun violence. Liberals seem to create a problem so they can sell their cure.

Oh and the subjects of the world just need to look to the US, to see that no self-proclaimed tyrants have found a home here.

Sounds like a better name for a condom!

It is also inaccurate as it leaves out hunting, varmint control and target shooting. The peace and love crowd will of course say for crimes and aggression, to which I will point out that those young girls killed recently, were killed without firearms. Evil will always find a way. Remember the movie "Braveheart" (sure liberties were taken in it's filming)? One thing that was accurate, the English wouldn't allow the Scots to own swords. That is the world the bleating hearts would subject one to.

how about "protection"... gives the "did you bring protection" a whole new meaning.

Guns didn't do that, people did. And actually guns reduce all three of those.

1. Killed families. This is very easy for the father to do with his bare hands, its possible for any family member to do with a knife. A weapon allows a mother to protect her children from a violent father. A gun allows a child to protect their mother or father from an assailant, be he family or stranger.

Thats the dumbest thing I have heard from you since the last time you posted something (I believe the last one was antisemetic sentiments); If you use weapons such as sword an bow, its easier to take away freedom. Guns greatly improve the chances of a resistance.

Really? a gun allowed individuals to hold of lynch mobs. Unarmed, there is nothing you can to protect your family against a mob... even armed with a knife, there is practically nothing you can do. But armed with a gun you can stop a mob and save yourself and your family.

Also, YOU DARE call out the KKK after your antisemitic comments in other threads? That is some high grade hypocrisy. (the last of which was https://forums.joeuser.com/376818/page/2/#2562718 specifically:

The claim: the "average conservative" is just a weak minded sheep bleeding their faith in their misguided belief that Israel isn't that evil. (the insinuation is that israel is obviously evil, and anyone who actually thinks realizes that).

Actually, no. They are feared because they commits crimes. The scariest of which are "rape" and "murder", less scary are "theft", "kidnapping", "mugging", and "assault". None of those requires a gun, all of those can be stopped with a gun.

It can also harm both the strong and the weak. Without a weapon, the weak cannot harm the strong, the unskilled (in martial arts) cannot harm the skilled. The weapon takes away that gap. An old woman in her home facing a mugger, a young girl being raped in an alley, a family facing a lynch mob; the gun gives them a chance.

Anyways. all of this is really besides the point, this is a thread for pro guns individual to discuss names. Not to discuss the merits of guns (which there are plenty of other topics exactly for that), so unless you have something related to the topic to add (aka, positive name suggestions), please leave. You know what, I think I will just kick you out instead. And before you cry censorship, its not based on disagreeing with me on gun control, but the antisemetic comments (see middle of this post, near the KKK part) I have been seeing from you, combined with fact you are spoiling a perfectly amicable discussion by like minded individuals with your inappropriate rant. (you don't go to a gay marriage to rant about homosexuality, you don't go to a funeral to rant about god)

I will have you know that as I was taught to value open mindedness above all else, I open mindedly listen to anyone, no matter how bigoted (even bigoted towards me and my "kind") their claims are, but that doesn't mean listening to them indefinitely when they fail to provide even the most basic of logical reasoning or proof for their claims. You had your chance, and your constants baseless antisemitism combined with utterly insane and logicless remarks has been more then enough. I am lessened by even talking to someone so bigoted and closed minded as an equal.

I don't use the blacklist feature lightly (and I have rarely used it at all), but I want to actually come up with results out of this discussion, not spiral into a flamewar about whether guns are good or evil.

If someone think I am being too harsh here and that I should let him back in, please let me know.

EDIT: How about some shorthand? like Prot (short for protection) or freedef (freedom defender). Those cannot be confused, the listener/reader will immediately realize that it is a word s/he is unfamiliar with and might look it up / ask you.

I like Defender - but in conjunction with that - Equalizer.  I am not equal to Stone Cold Steve Austin one on one in a fight, but a gun at 20 paces makes us about equal.

How about "multi-purpose security tool" (not one word I know, but read on). This would be good for handguns, but personally I'm not so comfortable with a one size fits all name for an item that has such a wide, diverse range of uses from dire to personal enjoyment.

OT: Tal, your article, your rules, but I would implore you to reconsider banning anyone. The member in question and I hardly ever are in agreement, but at least for now in the US, everyone has the right to an opinion. I think how many times I've gone off on a tangent myself. You correctly put the comments back on topic, I don't believe Cikomyr would have pushed the issue beyond that. There are some blogs with a much wider topic base that do block conservative voices. Just my 2 cents.

Seconded.  Cikomyr has strong and liberal opinions.  But he is not a blind robot following a mantra, and when engaged is quite logical and reasonable.

Certainly we disagree on issues of left vs right. But I would not ban someone simply for that. If you look at the middle of that post (its easy to miss, its a huge wall of text) I had gone in depth into another issue, specifically, his stipulation that guns are "tools of the KKK's opression" which I found pretty ironic considering he has just made an offhanded antisemitic statements in another thread.

When I was going through how his statements in this thread amount to trolling I recalled that he has just made an antisemetic comment in another thread (and I somewhat recall that not being the first time); I looked it up quickly, linked it, and done what I always do when I face bigotry... listen to it with an open mind and fairly judge its merits; as always, I found the bigot to be full of it.

The fact that I think he is being an illogical liberal (although he doesn't just chant their mantras as you said, and isn't perfectly in line with the liberals on every issue), anyways, this would not be a reason for me to blacklist anyone. It is frustrating to debate them, but I wouldn't block them from speaking. I would likewise blacklist a conservative who agrees with me on all issues if he makes antisemitic comments.

Trolling/Flaming (this thread is clearly titled "better name for a gun" not "lets debate whether guns are evil or not") would prompt me to ask someone to zip it or at most temporarily shush them if they persist. Antisemitism is the big issue here and the actual reason for the ban.

To that I will suggest this: Isn't it better to call someone out on it then let it hide in the shadows? I had a feeling that is what plucked your last nerve. You'll have to trust that others here are in tune subtle (and not so subtle) word usage on a broad spectrum of issues. Even the non-Jewish members here are perceptive enough to spot it, and we take note. Now, perhaps he knew what was he implied, maybe not. You called him on it, that's how to do it, but now you need to engage when ever it occurs, if just to find out why. And, if Cikomyr was oblivious to what he implied, he should have the chance to say so. Banning stops the dialog, and really that is why we all come here, maybe not to change minds, but voice opinion. I'd only use banning for spam, but I have a thick skin, besides that's something socialist like to do, not my style. Like I said, it's up to you, I'm not trying to stir anything up.

BTW Chuck called him on a perception in another thread, different issue just as disturbing IMO. I'm not so sure I buy the response, it needs further probing.

alright, you make a very good point; unbanned. Lets see if he actually has a good response to that or not.

He doesn't want to report to you. You are just a bully who likes to hear echos of your own voice.

https://forums.joeuser.com/377720

All things quiet on the political front. Remember that thread? No wonder no one comes here to post divergent point of views. You don't tolerate dissent. You throw insults like they are candy to anyone not thinking the same as you. You come here claiming that "Guns are such a great justice-maker", I tell you "They are just a toll, to be used also for bad things", and you FUCKING BAN ME?

You come to this forum to hear other people like you. You don't tolerate people that might have a different point of view, and you do your best to discredit them by calling them by every single possible name, going from "socialists" all the way to "antisemitist", passing through "liberal".

If what you want is just obediant echos of your own thoughts, telling you how great you are, and how clever your posts are, then ban me again, because I won't compromise nor quiet my opinions to satisfy your ego, nor will I let you insult me again.

Yhea.. about the whole "Tyrants use gun laws to enforce authority"

Yhea.. Kinda works, I think. I mean, Hitler set in place so many gun laws to restrict an..

oh, wait, he didn't. He actually liberalised guns in his country after the Weimer Republic.

Anyway, probably a fluke. We all know that countries like France is such a Tyranny, eh? Or Brasil. Or Finland. or Mexico. Gosh, I did not knew that New-Zealand was a dictatorship. Or Finland. Or the U.K.

Point is, while you are right, many oppressive government have tried to disarm their population to better oppress them, but others don't. I have tried to find any reliable indication that Gadaffi actually done so in his country, and I cannot find anything related to that. Hell, Saddam Hussein didn't restricted gun ownership under his rule, yet he didn't really felt treathened by it.

You claimed that "People kill people". You are right. But you claim that "Gun topples tyrants", and I say you are wrong. "Liberators topple tyrants". Or "People topples tyranny". Not guns.

Why should an argument be used to absolve the gun's bad points but cannot be used the same way around? Ultimately, what determine the fate of people isn't what they use, but what they do. A thief killer with a huge knife will still kill you.

There is nothing inherently good about guns. They are merely a tool, and should not be glorified past the skill you have while using it. They are no symbol (except in Mozambique, where it's on the national flag). Seriously, ask yourself that question, you'd like to have a gun on your country's flag?