Friday, March 29, 2013

What do the Penis Jokes Mean?

Jim Carrey's video, Cold Dead Hands, was in large part based on the famous penis joke. In essence, the joke says that gun owners are compensating for their small dicks with guns. It takes many variations, but is it meant literally?

No.

The popular pro-gun put-down is a metaphor. It refers to the psychological inadequacy that leads some men to love guns. The incredibly foolish decision to own and, even worse, carry guns is the result of various mental problems, fear, paranoia, insecurity.

Normal, healthy men deal with their fears in ways that don't make matters worse in their own families and society at large. They use their intelligence and common sense. They understand that, except for rare particular cases, guns do more harm than good.

What's your opinion?  Do you think gun-rights fanatics who continually get overly offended by these jokes don't realize there's an even more insulting metaphorical meaning behind them?

Please leave a comment.

42 comments:

  1. Here you admit that you're being offensive, but you defend this by claiming that we're too stupid to understand the way in which you're being offensive.

    Yup, that'll smooth over any distrust and hatred between our two sides...

    Mikeb, I'd be shocked if you could actually pull off a rational argument without relying on speculation, insult, and special pleading or other fallacies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, nobody who makes penis jokes is trying to "smooth over any distrust and hatred between our two sides."

      Delete
    2. Well, at least you're not stupid enough to claim that you're trying to reduce the hatred. I'll just point out that your side is always talking about raising the level of debate and needing to be more civil since things have become so polarized that violence is an increasing possibility.

      At least you recognize that you're stoking the fires of hatred. If this ever boils over, the blood will be on your head and that of your side. We're the ones trying to engage in rational debate and defuse things so that it never comes to that, but yall just keep taunting and pushing to the extent that it makes me think you're TRYING to push some unstable fuck over the edge so that he commits another mass shooting that you can use to support your goal.

      Delete
    3. The root cause of both such obscene jokes and the assault on our culture and liberty is the modern plague of onanisim and the public expression of the sexual perversions which fester in an unenlightened rabble.

      The root cause of all such perversions (and the horror of the solitary abuse of onanisim), and of (nearly) the entirety of the derangements commonly suffered is a poor diet (and lack of regular enema), specifically the promiscuous consumption of meat, which is the most virulent drug of the modern world.

      It is a Fact, supported by proven Science, medical research, and intensive statistical analysis that the decline of Western Civilization is directly correlated with the average number of sexual partners that homosexuals have over a lifetime.

      I therefore pose a question: What do you believe to be the average number of sexual partners that homosexuals have over a lifetime?

      Delete
    4. "Stoking the fires of hatred?" with silly penis jokes? If your reaction is one of "hatred," don't blame us for "stoking the fires." Take responsibility for your own reactions.

      I tend to think "hatred" is a bit over the top for this kind of thing. But you guys are like that.

      Delete
    5. Mikeb, try not being ridiculous every once in a while. Your side keeps struggling to drum up a furor over our rights and then you whine when we call you on it. Speaking for myself, I hate anyone who tries to take away my rights. That's a reasonable response. Someone who seeks to violate rights is worthy neither of love nor respect.

      Doc, what the hell are you on about?

      Delete
    6. Mike, the Drama Queen deflects again!

      Delete
  2. Of course we see the offensive meaning behind the jokes. As for being offended by the jokes, we're not offended by it. Instead, when we note the penis jokes, we're noting how juvenile you sound.

    If you want to make the psychological put down, go ahead. You just drive more people to our ranks because the gun owners who are not activists see that you detest them and that your real goal is their disarmament, not "common sense" regulation which is only a step toward your final goal. Even non gun owners see the comments and see that insults and libel are the only things that your side can bring to the table. Hence the falling numbers for support for gun control.

    Finally, I love how you and Dog Gone (and various others) plead that you just want common sense and are trying to have a rational discussion, but then admit that you're using derisive, insulting, and emotional language.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "the falling numbers for support for gun control." The what? Of course there's been a waning in interest and enthusiasm since December but the overwhelming numbers favor background checks still. You're deluding yourself to say the numbers are falling.

      Delete
    2. Your side's interest is waning, and we're getting the word out that your Background Check bill is a piece of garbage that makes a minefield that will allow felony convictions of almost every gun owner. People, even ones who like background checks, are starting to see the light. The bell tolls for thy hopes and dreams.

      Delete
    3. "that will allow felony convictions of almost every gun owner."

      Now, please explain how that could possibly be. Regardless of how strict gun laws become, and requiring background checks on private sales is hardly that, you guys will always have the choice to adhere or not. Laws cannot MAKE you anything. Only you can.

      Delete
    4. An unjust law is no law. It's merely force. Schumer's bill would make it a felony for a gay man to leave his firearms in his partner's possession if he goes on a trip that lasts more than a week. It would be a felony to let someone try out a gun at a range. The list goes on and on. Violating a law like that wouldn't be immoral. It would be risking the unjust application of force of the state.

      But thanks for acknowledging that law cannot make anyone do anything. We've been telling you that about gun laws for a long time.

      Delete
    5. "that will allow felony convictions of almost every gun owner."

      It is not a ridiculous statement. I would venture to guess that almost everyone who owns a gun has done an act that would be considered a felony under Schumer/Reid’s bill because they define a transfer as FAR more encompassing than just a sale (which is what they lead you to believe the bill is about). Even completely passive gun owners who haven’t so much as looked at their gun in years could commit a felony by leaving home for too long.

      MikeB: “…and requiring background checks on private sales is hardly that…”

      And the bill hardly does just that. You should read it sometime.

      Delete
    6. TS, the fact that almost everyone has done things in the past that violate a new law does not mean that almost everyone will continue doing them after that law is passed.

      Delete
    7. We've touched on this many times before Mike, the bill would create a minefield. If you're at a conservation society's range (only an Incorporated conservation society) you can let someone shoot your gun, but if you're at a non-incorporated conservation society's range, or a commercial range, you're a felon if you let someone shoot your gun.

      There are many other pitfalls in the bill, but this one alone would catch most people at one time or another.

      Of course, you tried to dismiss this earlier, saying that the bill clearly wouldn't do this--except that that's CLEARLY what it does.

      Delete
    8. We're the only ones talking about what the bill actually does. The authors of the bill, the media, the anti-gun campaigns, and you, have been perpetuating the idea that this bill is ONLY about gun sales, so tens of millions of these crimes will happen each year because most people won't know it's a crime. Even the term "expanding background checks on gun sales" is incredibly misleading. There is no "expansion" happening- all it is doing is creating crimes. The word "expanding" implies a system that private sellers can use, and we know you guys don't want that. You'd rather have things as they are than lose your chance at government control of transfers, and massive criminalization.

      Delete
    9. You're hysterically exaggerating. Private buyers can simply go to the local FFL guy and get the clearance. Is that so difficult?

      The expansion is exactly what it is. Instead of only applying to the FFL guy it applies to everyone. Again, is that so difficult?

      Delete
    10. Is it difficult to take my friends on a 40 mile round trip, pay 10 dollars, wait half an hour (or maybe 2 hours due to increased volume), and have this fee and wait be repeated for Each and Every gun my friend wants to shoot on my property each time he comes over?

      To also repeat this fee and wait for each gun AND for each friend if there's a group?

      Yes. That's a ridiculous requirement to place even on the exercise of a privilege, much less a Constitutional Right.

      Delete
    11. Mikeb,

      1. What do you imagine the fee will be when an FFL who is not making a sale has to run a background check anyway? See, we know your real goal--to make guns so difficult to buy legally that people will either forgo gun ownership or become criminals.

      2. This bill covers much more than a change of ownership. It covers loans, temporary possession even if that's just one person staying in a home while the gun's owner is away, letting a friend try out a gun at a whole variety of practice locations, and on and on.

      Delete
    12. Greg,

      Mike refuses to answer why this law should so strictly regulate the issues you talk about in your second point. He first lied and said that these wouldn't be affected, then he backed up the lie with a link to a news story that did not bear out what he said, but supported what we said. Finally, he charges us with hysterical exaggeration.

      There can only be one conclusion. Mike knows that this is in the law, and he supports it 100% as it will render some of us convicted felons with no gun rights, and will scare others away from owning guns to avoid risking the same fate of prison, and lifelong stigma.

      Also, it can only be concluded, by his actions, that Mike is too much of a damned coward to outright state that he supports these rules and attempt to defend them.


      Shame! Mike! Shame on you and all of your cohorts who support such draconian measures and sell them with 2 parts deceit and one part exploitation of grieving family members. A Pox on all your houses!

      Delete
    13. I can't tell if Mikeb is clever enough to get the real goal or if he's just a dupe of the gun control freaks.

      Delete
    14. Even if he were so foolish, he has had it all explained to him and stands as guilty as those who know what they're doing.

      But I would caution against getting pulled into his and Laci's illusion of idiocy. Both seem well trained in the tactics of political performance--they feign ignorance or stupidity when the tactic suits them. Laci also, more so than Mike, makes laughably poor legal arguments, but he makes them with style, prestigious citations, sesquipedalian words, and all of the sound and fury he can puff them up with to try and sway the third parties that watch our clashes.

      Don't underestimate them, they're smart in their way, even though they are also Fools. Just keep clubbing their arguments with your logic bat, and the third party visitors will see which side holds logic and which flails about with much sound and fury, and no substance.

      Delete
  3. Why would anyone be offended by anything you control freaks with a Napoleon complex have to say. Your inferiority and phony machismo is exposed every time you open your pie hole.

    orlin sellers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait a minute now, who suffers from controlling and the Napoleon complex than the insecure man who fees better with a gun?

      Delete
    2. You just proved it again. Who has the need to control and proclaim their superiority and machisimo because they don't have gun. Has a gun owner ever tried to force you to own or carry a gun? No, because we aren't the ones who instigate force or coercion on others. That would be your vile gang.

      orlin sellers

      Delete
  4. I won't presume to speak for others, but I, personally, am not in the least offended by the "You must be compensating for your freakishly tiny penis" idiocy. I love for the anti-self-defense fanatics to be so bereft of effective arguments that they're pathetically reduced to penis jokes. Perhaps it's not very nice to take such joy in the intellectual incapacity of others . . . but damn, it's fun.

    ReplyDelete
  5. " The incredibly foolish decision to own and, even worse, carry guns is the result of various mental problems, fear, paranoia, insecurity." Considering every law enforcement officer carries guns and most politicians are protected by people with guns, what does this say about who we put our trust in?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mikeb, as long as you continue to believe that we have guns because we feel insecure or deficient, you'll never understand us and you'll continue to fail in your goals.

    ReplyDelete
  7. By the way, Mikeb, what "psychological inadequacy" led to your commission of "gun crimes"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What gun crimes were those, Kurt? You think you know something about me?

      Unlike you, I outgrew my youthful fascination with firearms. Some of us do that.

      Delete
    2. What gun crimes were those, Kurt? You think you know something about me?

      So do you now deny saying, "After the military I owned guns both legally and illegally over a period of about 15 years"?

      Owning guns illegally is a "gun crime," according to the morally handicapped losers who whine about "gun availability." That, sir, makes you a "gun criminal."

      Delete
    3. Some people don't outgrown penis jokes, though.

      Delete
    4. Since Mike's admitted to committing felony gun crimes, can we just yank his rights and not have to hear him yammer anymore? I mean, yeah, there's not been any due process, but he called us "other rights fanatics" for demanding due process and freedom of speech.

      Delete
    5. What, Mike? No answer to Kurt?!?

      Delete
    6. Maybe I answered that on another thread.

      "Gun crimes" conjure up murder and armed robbery.

      "Owning guns illegally" conjures up misdemeanor bullshit like the stuff Kurt will be morally obliged to disobey.

      Delete
    7. So you contend that "owning guns illegally" is a minor "crime," nowhere near the same ballpark as armed robbery?

      I hadn't expected that from you.

      As a minor "crime," of course, it cannot legitimately carry such a harsh, cruel penalty as a lifetime gun ban, as any reasonable mammal would agree.

      Delete
    8. More misdirection! The laws Kurt has said he would be obliged to ignore are set up as felonies.

      Also, I wonder what guns you owned illegally. Most "illegal ownership" would fall under felony categories--possession of NFA firearms, prohibited person in possession, etc. Even most state prohibitions of firearms ownership or ownership of certain types of guns bear felony penalties.

      If the statute of limitations has run, perhaps you can illuminate us on what guns you owned illegally, and we can see if you're a hidden felon, or just a hidden misdemeant.

      Delete
  8. Hey, idiotic, contemptible sack of subhumanity, I guess your fellow idiotic sack of contemptible subhumanity didn't get the memo about "gun owners having small dicks" not really meaning that gun owners have small dicks, and that only simple-minded, small-dicked gun owners would believe that sophisticated (and presumably well-endowed) anti-gun herbivores actually mean what they say about gun owners and their small dicks.

    Granted, Mark Karlin might actually be even more of a bed-wetting herbivorous idiot than you are, which is, when you get down to it, a pretty impressive feat.

    ReplyDelete
  9. By the way, herbivore, apparently one of your co-subhumans, Mark Karlin, didn't get the memo about forcible citizen disarmament advocates' dick jokes not being meant literally (emphasis added):

    You won't find anyone willing to dare say it much in the media, but a good percentage of the white men who oppose gun control of any sort – and who back measures that would even allow alleged terrorists and straw purchases for drug dealers to buy guns – are just afraid that without their guns, their phallic power will be reduced to size.

    You can feel at least temporarily reassured when a long-barreled assault weapon compensates for just another average manhood; it's an irresistable testosterone high to the beleaguered white male.
    . . . A gun, particularly assault weapons and lethal militarized handguns, are at least two things: a prosthetic dick and a sign that even unemployed white guys still rule the Western World and sit at the head of the kitchen table.

    . . .

    This is not an issue about self-defense; this is about psychological need -- born of sexual and curtural [sic]displacement -- assuaged by the possession of a killing machine.


    Even the title refers to "sexual insecurity."

    Maybe you educate the idiot--that would be fun to watch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps. The likelihood is rather smaller than the odds of me becoming a famous bullfighter (tricky in a wheelchair), but we all know how much you like to indulge in idle fantasy.

      Delete
  10. Hey--maybe we've finally found a "gun owner" (of sorts) who actually does kinda validate the "guns as penis substitutes" meme.

    ReplyDelete