NRA issues threatening video to intimidate opponents

[kaz]

You're a bizarre little thing.

So you ignoring my questions isn't you conceding, oh no, not at all.

When I say I'm not going to answer your questions until you answer mine, that's me conceding.

But you not answering my questions wasn't.

Damn you're dumb. In your case, vote how your husband tells you to. You're not smart enough to make up your own mind. Someone needs to do it for you

You still on about your baby locked in the crib? What was that all about anyways, or ask me anything else, go ahead.

You argued that children have the same Constitutional rights as adults. That was YOUR argument, hoe, not mine. Man up to your crap.

Taz - Children have full Constitutional rights, so if you don't believe children should be able to take a gun to school, then you don't believe in the right to bear arms

Taz - what do you mean I'm saying children don't have to take a nap. I was being serious, what is this silly argument?

Yeah, that children can take guns to schools, that was your serious argument. You're a dumb bimbo beyond what I could make up

The 2nd makes no age restriction on purpose. Or are you saying that the FFs didn't know what they were doing?

Children can buy guns, but you can't force them to take a nap. You mentioned that. You're an awful debater. I'm glad you're on the left's side

I never mentioned naps, you did. Strawman fail.

You said the Constitution applies equally to children. Now you're saying it doesn't. There's a word for that, hypocrite.

Ask your husband what to think. You simply aren't smart enough to do it yourself. It's painful to watch

 

[Taz]

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

Wow, you showed that we're the extremists because we don't want Muslims to have nuclear weapons and we don't want children armed in schools.

And you think that shows we are the whack jobs. You seriously believe that.

I'm just laughing at you now

So the 2nd Amendment is applied along religious lines? Didn't know that. And the 2nd Amendment has an age restriction? Where?

You brought up Muslims with nukes, you whack job hoe.

You're not an Archie Bunker, you're more an Edith dingbat, aren't you?

My favorite is still how you argued children can buy guns, but then you didn't get why children can't be forced to take a nap if they can buy guns. You're not the most colorful tulip in the garden, are you?

I said Arab-Americans, not Muslims. You lose. Better luck next time.

As for children with guns, the 2nd doesn't disallow it.

So race is OK with you to discriminate but not religion. Thanks for clarifying.

You didn't answer my question ... again. If children cannot be denied the right to buy a gun, how can you force a children to take a nap? How are you so dim you can't grasp that contradiction?

I don't get the analogy with the nap, do you have a right to a nap in the Constitution?

I'm not saying Arabs shouldn't be able to buy guns (although not a terrible idea ). Geez, lucky for you that you didn't have to pass an IQ test to get a weapon.

 

[K9Buck]

Provide a link that shows how the NRA drove the asshole to the school, or how the NRA prevented the FBI, the Sheriff, and the school admin from doing their jobs. I'll wait.

I wouldn't want your job and have to try and use reason and logic with libtards like Jim. God bless you!

 

[Taz]

Also, while I oppose most of what we are doing for the war on terror, Republicans should demand a declaration of war for anywhere we're going rather than evading the real debate by funding it and not having any accountability for congress of where we're fighting and why

Because they couldn't find a good reason to be fighting in the Middle East. And haven't won a war since WWII, so didn't want to declare one.

Please, this is both parties. Clinton attacked more countries than W. So did Obama. It's both of you, hypocrite

Both the Dems and GOP are in the wrong on these issues.

 

[Taz]

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

It doesn't. The 2nd Amendment covers "Arms", which are personally held weapons. Bombs, missiles, cannons, etc. are "Ordnance" or "Artillery". Conflating the two is a tactic the anti-guns types use.

That is an interesting point, "arms" may have meant that in the 18th century.

It still does mean that. Boe is correct in distinguishing between "arms" and "ordnance".

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

It doesn't have to. You're laboring under the delusion that the Constitution grants and withholds rights, and it doesn't. It recognizes certain rights as important enough to need specific protection. If something is not mentioned specifically as inviolable, then it can be regulated. Artillery isn't mentioned. Doesn't mean you can't necessarily own it; just means its ownership is not a specifically-recognized right.

"A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living creatures, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary or enemy target."
Weapon - Wikipedia

 

[kaz]

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

She is arguing that if you admit don't have the right to weapons grade plutonium then you have no right to any gun other than what government decides to allow you to have. Yes, it is that stupid.

Basically, rather than protecting our rights as we mistakenly believe, Taz is informing us that the second amendment is actually a power of government to decide what guns we may or may not have

Don't forget to mention where we're all supposed to be as stupid as Taz and believe there's some direct corollary between firearms and radioactive materials.

So our Constitution purposely leaves us outgunned by a tyrannical government?

Only if you assume the government is going to nuke its own territory, and leave itself governing nothing but empty, radioactive wasteland.

But then, you're probably stupid enough to actually think that.

But it's not just nukes that they have more than your guns, they have tanks, mortars, bombs, cruise missiles AA missiles... all kinds of things that you're not allowed to have. Nukes was just an example.

You should be able to have all those things as long as you do it without violating the rights of other citizens.

And the hypocrite who thinks children have 2nd amendment rights but not 14th amendment equal protection rights trying to show this is a conflicting argument is hysterical

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Constitution doesn't mention radioactive materials, because they didn't exist

I'm surprised you don't understand what the Constitution is. The Constitution cedes specific powers to the Federal government and restricts all other powers from them. Again, it restricts all other powers from them, it does not grant all other powers to them.

So think about what you said. "radioactive materials ... didn't exist."

If you understand what the Constitution actually is, that means by default that the Federal government by has NO say over radioactive materials unless the people give them that say. Read the 10th amendment.

The people have the power to amend the Constitution and give the Federal government power of regulating radioactive materials. The process is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. They have not done that. Therefore, the Feds do not have a legitimate Constitutional power over radioactive materials.

The State governments can however say killing your neighbors with radioactive materials is murder.

Also, the idea that the second amendment only applies to muskets is silly. Obviously they means arms as they advance technilogically. Nowhere in the Constitution or their private writings did they say they meant muskets.

In fact they strongly contradict that as they did often write that they wanted the people to be armed as well as the government and obviously they didn't want to limit the government to muskets either

I'm aware of what the Constitution is, thank you so very much for the condescension. I'm always quite aware of what I said, and it's fundamentally correct. The Constitution could not possibly mention radioactive materials, because they didn't exist. Like everything else that has been invented since 1787, it is necessary for us to categorize it properly within the basic framework we are given.

So saying, "It didn't exist" doesn't mean I think the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets. I'm not a leftist, so I don't spout silly, narrow-minded, uninformed bilge, but thank you again for knee-jerking and thinking that I would. The Constitution doesn't specify muskets; it says "keep and bear arms", and it seems obvious to me that intelligent, precise men like the Founding Fathers used such a general term because they expected weapons technology to exceed muskets at some point.

Radioactive materials are not "arms". They're just dangerous materials. They can be used to make weapons, but they can also be used for other purposes. They do not qualify under the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Taz]

You're already letting the government restricts all kinds of weapons, and put an age restriction on the 2nd, thereby infringing on it

Right, you mentioned that. You believe that to put down a 2 year old for a nap and illegally confine him to his crib is unlawful confinement and you're guilty of a crime.

You're a serious whack job. Actually, ding bat, the Constitution says no such thing that children have the rights of adults

Where did I say that? You made that up for lack of a real argument.

Is it Constitutional for you to detain an adult against their will in your house?

No. And?

OMG. OK, fine, I'll really, really dumb this down for you.

The equal protection clause says you cannot treat people differently under the law.

There is no age stated on the equal protection clause, there is no age stated on the second amendment.

You agreed you cannot detain an adult against their will, but you are arguing that you can detain a child against their will.

You are contradicting yourself. You are arguing equal protection does not apply to children, but the second amendment does apply to children.

That's what happens when you argue the stupid crap you argue. You contradict yourself all the time and you're just too dim witted to see it.

You cannot have it both ways. Either it's Unconstitutional to force a child to take a nap, or it's not Unconstitutional for a child to not be able to buy a gun

A child WANTS to take a nap, I'm not forcing anyone to take a nap. I've had children, so I know. And I've NEVER locked a child in a crib, you must be a sicko. So, um... looks like you failed EPICALLY again.

 

[kaz]

Wow, you showed that we're the extremists because we don't want Muslims to have nuclear weapons and we don't want children armed in schools.

And you think that shows we are the whack jobs. You seriously believe that.

I'm just laughing at you now

So the 2nd Amendment is applied along religious lines? Didn't know that. And the 2nd Amendment has an age restriction? Where?

You brought up Muslims with nukes, you whack job hoe.

You're not an Archie Bunker, you're more an Edith dingbat, aren't you?

My favorite is still how you argued children can buy guns, but then you didn't get why children can't be forced to take a nap if they can buy guns. You're not the most colorful tulip in the garden, are you?

I said Arab-Americans, not Muslims. You lose. Better luck next time.

As for children with guns, the 2nd doesn't disallow it.

So race is OK with you to discriminate but not religion. Thanks for clarifying.

You didn't answer my question ... again. If children cannot be denied the right to buy a gun, how can you force a children to take a nap? How are you so dim you can't grasp that contradiction?

I don't get the analogy with the nap, do you have a right to a nap in the Constitution?

I'm not saying Arabs shouldn't be able to buy guns (although not a terrible idea ). Geez, lucky for you that you didn't have to pass an IQ test to get a weapon.

I keep saying "force" a child to take a nap. I also said you put them in a crib and detain them against their will. You admitted you can't do that to an adult. That is a violation of equal protection if the child has 14th amendment rights. You cannot forcibly detain an adult. If a child has the same rights, you can't forcibly detain them either. How do you not get that?

You're arguing the child has 2nd amendment rights, it does not have 14th amendment rights. You lose.

You really aren't very smart. No wonder your other arguments are so bad.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

She is arguing that if you admit don't have the right to weapons grade plutonium then you have no right to any gun other than what government decides to allow you to have. Yes, it is that stupid.

Basically, rather than protecting our rights as we mistakenly believe, Taz is informing us that the second amendment is actually a power of government to decide what guns we may or may not have

Don't forget to mention where we're all supposed to be as stupid as Taz and believe there's some direct corollary between firearms and radioactive materials.

So our Constitution purposely leaves us outgunned by a tyrannical government?

Wow, and Taz finally gets one on the scoreboard. Now it's

Cecilia - 87, Taz 1

That was the intent of the founders even if you're insincere in the argument

No, he gets no points. The Founders did not "purposely" leave us outgunned. They had no real way of knowing what the future held in the way of technological advances. All they could do is leave us a framework of rules and hope that we remained intelligent enough to figure it out for ourselves. Meanwhile, they themselves DID manage to successfully fight a tyrannical government that had them outgunned.

If we are too weak to defend ourselves against tyrants, we have no one and nothing to blame but ourselves and our willingness to be slaves.

 

[Taz]

Ok, forget nukes for a sec (that seems too difficult for some of you to grasp), what about AA missiles? Can a self-professed patriotic American like Sunni claims to be buy anti-aircraft missiles? What about cluster bombs?

Not a matter of "difficult". It's a matter of "completely ludicrous and not comparable except to 5th-grade minds".

It's obviously up to the others if they want to indulge you in this extremist pretense of analogy, but I'm personally done with the trip through Wonderland. There is no amount of "what about . . ." that is going to invalidate the right to keep and bear arms, or that is going to convince people to surrender that right. Post something related to reality.

You just indulged me, thanks. And you had no valid argument to counter my claim. Better luck next time.

 

[Taz]

You still on about your baby locked in the crib? What was that all about anyways, or ask me anything else, go ahead.

You argued that children have the same Constitutional rights as adults. That was YOUR argument, hoe, not mine. Man up to your crap.

Taz - Children have full Constitutional rights, so if you don't believe children should be able to take a gun to school, then you don't believe in the right to bear arms

Taz - what do you mean I'm saying children don't have to take a nap. I was being serious, what is this silly argument?

Yeah, that children can take guns to schools, that was your serious argument. You're a dumb bimbo beyond what I could make up

The 2nd makes no age restriction on purpose. Or are you saying that the FFs didn't know what they were doing?

Children can buy guns, but you can't force them to take a nap. You mentioned that. You're an awful debater. I'm glad you're on the left's side

I never mentioned naps, you did. Strawman fail.

You said the Constitution applies equally to children. Now you're saying it doesn't. There's a word for that, hypocrite.

Ask your husband what to think. You simply aren't smart enough to do it yourself. It's painful to watch

Children have rights under the Constitution, now you know.

 

[Taz]

She is arguing that if you admit don't have the right to weapons grade plutonium then you have no right to any gun other than what government decides to allow you to have. Yes, it is that stupid.

Basically, rather than protecting our rights as we mistakenly believe, Taz is informing us that the second amendment is actually a power of government to decide what guns we may or may not have

Don't forget to mention where we're all supposed to be as stupid as Taz and believe there's some direct corollary between firearms and radioactive materials.

So our Constitution purposely leaves us outgunned by a tyrannical government?

Only if you assume the government is going to nuke its own territory, and leave itself governing nothing but empty, radioactive wasteland.

But then, you're probably stupid enough to actually think that.

But it's not just nukes that they have more than your guns, they have tanks, mortars, bombs, cruise missiles AA missiles... all kinds of things that you're not allowed to have. Nukes was just an example.

You should be able to have all those things as long as you do it without violating the rights of other citizens.

And the hypocrite who thinks children have 2nd amendment rights but not 14th amendment equal protection rights trying to show this is a conflicting argument is hysterical

I agree that you SHOULD have the right to these weapon, but we don't, that's my point. My other point is that nobody seems to care about that, they only care about guns, in a cherry-picking kind of way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It still does mean that. Boe is correct in distinguishing between "arms" and "ordnance".

Because it says that where in the Constitution? Please quote the exact passage.

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

Yes, we are just fine with restricting the Second Amendment to the actual wording of the Amendment. Dingbat leftists trying to sound clever are the only people I know who think tactical nukes are in any way equivalent to personal weapons.

Pardon us for "cherrypicking" things that make actual, logical sense, rather than just blathering the first insane thing that pops into our heads and expecting to be applauded for our "brilliance". Mature adults are funny that way.

 

[kaz]

The Constitution doesn't mention radioactive materials, because they didn't exist

I'm surprised you don't understand what the Constitution is. The Constitution cedes specific powers to the Federal government and restricts all other powers from them. Again, it restricts all other powers from them, it does not grant all other powers to them.

So think about what you said. "radioactive materials ... didn't exist."

If you understand what the Constitution actually is, that means by default that the Federal government by has NO say over radioactive materials unless the people give them that say. Read the 10th amendment.

The people have the power to amend the Constitution and give the Federal government power of regulating radioactive materials. The process is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. They have not done that. Therefore, the Feds do not have a legitimate Constitutional power over radioactive materials.

The State governments can however say killing your neighbors with radioactive materials is murder.

Also, the idea that the second amendment only applies to muskets is silly. Obviously they means arms as they advance technilogically. Nowhere in the Constitution or their private writings did they say they meant muskets.

In fact they strongly contradict that as they did often write that they wanted the people to be armed as well as the government and obviously they didn't want to limit the government to muskets either

I'm aware of what the Constitution is, thank you so very much for the condescension. I'm always quite aware of what I said, and it's fundamentally correct. The Constitution could not possibly mention radioactive materials, because they didn't exist. Like everything else that has been invented since 1787, it is necessary for us to categorize it properly within the basic framework we are given.

So saying, "It didn't exist" doesn't mean I think the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets. I'm not a leftist, so I don't spout silly, narrow-minded, uninformed bilge, but thank you again for knee-jerking and thinking that I would. The Constitution doesn't specify muskets; it says "keep and bear arms", and it seems obvious to me that intelligent, precise men like the Founding Fathers used such a general term because they expected weapons technology to exceed muskets at some point.

Radioactive materials are not "arms". They're just dangerous materials. They can be used to make weapons, but they can also be used for other purposes. They do not qualify under the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

I agree I should have worded it better and of course I know you're not a leftist. Though you've snapped unnecessarily at me before as well. So if you don't like it, remember I don't either. I'm not putting it back on you. I accept responsibility this post by me was poorly phrased in that regard.

On your post, you completely did not address my point. I did not say whether or not nuclear material is covered under the 2nd amendment. I actually argued it's covered under the 10th. Here is the key part

Again, it restricts all other powers from them, it does not grant all other powers to them.

So think about what you said. "radioactive materials ... didn't exist."

If you understand what the Constitution actually is, that means by default that the Federal government by has NO say over radioactive materials unless the people give them that say

No say means 10th amendment, not the 2nd

 

[jillian]

So the 2nd Amendment is applied along religious lines? Didn't know that. And the 2nd Amendment has an age restriction? Where?

You brought up Muslims with nukes, you whack job hoe.

You're not an Archie Bunker, you're more an Edith dingbat, aren't you?

My favorite is still how you argued children can buy guns, but then you didn't get why children can't be forced to take a nap if they can buy guns. You're not the most colorful tulip in the garden, are you?

I said Arab-Americans, not Muslims. You lose. Better luck next time.

As for children with guns, the 2nd doesn't disallow it.

So race is OK with you to discriminate but not religion. Thanks for clarifying.

You didn't answer my question ... again. If children cannot be denied the right to buy a gun, how can you force a children to take a nap? How are you so dim you can't grasp that contradiction?

I don't get the analogy with the nap, do you have a right to a nap in the Constitution?

I'm not saying Arabs shouldn't be able to buy guns (although not a terrible idea ). Geez, lucky for you that you didn't have to pass an IQ test to get a weapon.

I keep saying "force" a child to take a nap. I also said you put them in a crib and detain them against their will. You admitted you can't do that to an adult. That is a violation of equal protection if the child has 14th amendment rights. You cannot forcibly detain an adult. If a child has the same rights, you can't forcibly detain them either. How do you not get that?

You're arguing the child has 2nd amendment rights, it does not have 14th amendment rights. You lose.

You really aren't very smart. No wonder your other arguments are so bad.

there are many rights that are limited until adulthood.... I'm not quite sure what the confusion is here.

 

[kaz]

Right, you mentioned that. You believe that to put down a 2 year old for a nap and illegally confine him to his crib is unlawful confinement and you're guilty of a crime.

You're a serious whack job. Actually, ding bat, the Constitution says no such thing that children have the rights of adults

Where did I say that? You made that up for lack of a real argument.

Is it Constitutional for you to detain an adult against their will in your house?

No. And?

OMG. OK, fine, I'll really, really dumb this down for you.

The equal protection clause says you cannot treat people differently under the law.

There is no age stated on the equal protection clause, there is no age stated on the second amendment.

You agreed you cannot detain an adult against their will, but you are arguing that you can detain a child against their will.

You are contradicting yourself. You are arguing equal protection does not apply to children, but the second amendment does apply to children.

That's what happens when you argue the stupid crap you argue. You contradict yourself all the time and you're just too dim witted to see it.

You cannot have it both ways. Either it's Unconstitutional to force a child to take a nap, or it's not Unconstitutional for a child to not be able to buy a gun

A child WANTS to take a nap, I'm not forcing anyone to take a nap. I've had children, so I know. And I've NEVER locked a child in a crib, you must be a sicko. So, um... looks like you failed EPICALLY again.

You never forcibly detained your children. You never made your children stay in their crib, a playpen or their room. If they wanted to wander off in the store, go into the basement unsupervised, get down from the table, go into the yard, run out into the street, you tried to persuade them, but you never forced them to stay anywhere against their will.

Gawd you're a liar.

It's hilarious how every time you're pressed, your arguments get even more pathetic

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have a 2nd Amendment right to own one. And maybe I live on a farm far away from people.

where in the constitution does it say you have a right to weapons grade plutonium?

Where does it says that you can’t have a nuke?

Where it says you can keep and bear arms, not ordinance.

So the Constitution allowed people to have guns to guard against a tyrannical government that outguns them?

If you say so. I don't think that's the only reason to have firearms, myself, but if you are worried about a tyrannical government, there you are.

It isn't. That's the explanatory clause they used in the Constitution, but the writings of the members of the Founding Generation make it clear that they thought the right to keep and bear arms encompassed a wide number of reasons.

 

[Taz]

So the 2nd Amendment is applied along religious lines? Didn't know that. And the 2nd Amendment has an age restriction? Where?

You brought up Muslims with nukes, you whack job hoe.

You're not an Archie Bunker, you're more an Edith dingbat, aren't you?

My favorite is still how you argued children can buy guns, but then you didn't get why children can't be forced to take a nap if they can buy guns. You're not the most colorful tulip in the garden, are you?

I said Arab-Americans, not Muslims. You lose. Better luck next time.

As for children with guns, the 2nd doesn't disallow it.

So race is OK with you to discriminate but not religion. Thanks for clarifying.

You didn't answer my question ... again. If children cannot be denied the right to buy a gun, how can you force a children to take a nap? How are you so dim you can't grasp that contradiction?

I don't get the analogy with the nap, do you have a right to a nap in the Constitution?

I'm not saying Arabs shouldn't be able to buy guns (although not a terrible idea ). Geez, lucky for you that you didn't have to pass an IQ test to get a weapon.

I keep saying "force" a child to take a nap. I also said you put them in a crib and detain them against their will. You admitted you can't do that to an adult. That is a violation of equal protection if the child has 14th amendment rights. You cannot forcibly detain an adult. If a child has the same rights, you can't forcibly detain them either. How do you not get that?

You're arguing the child has 2nd amendment rights, it does not have 14th amendment rights. You lose.

You really aren't very smart. No wonder your other arguments are so bad.

"The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children"
Children's Rights

 

[Cecilie1200]

I understand that it is all de rigueur on the Left to change the meanings of words and to just plain make up shit when what you substitute for reason completely unravels. To Normal People, the actual meanings of words matter.

The 2nd Amendment says "Arms", which has a specific definition.

It does not say "Arms and Ordnance".

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Arms are ordinance. But the Constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate "ordinance" either.

By the 10th amendment, that means regulating "ordinance" is not a Federal power ...

... and by the 9th amendment, that is as important a right retained by the States or the People as the 2nd amendment.

You could argue that since it isn't spelled out, that means States could regulate ordinance. But that argument doesn't lead to that it's a Federal power to do so

Good points. In any case, the fact that individuals cannot own tactical nukes is not a justification for taking away their rights to own rifles and handguns.

Maybe not, but it does show that EVERYONE is ok with restricting the second Amendment. That was my point all along. So if you're all ok with infringing on the 2nd Amendment, why the fuss now? You guys are cherry-picking your outrage, just thought you'd like to know.

THEY AIN'T GETTING MY DAMN GUNS! I LOVE MY GUNS! I OCCASIONALLY MAKE LOVE TO MY GUNS....

This is hardly a surprising revelation. Given that you are unable to tell one gender from another, it was inevitable that you would descend into the inability to distinguish humans from objects.

Do you know that's actually real, honest-to-goodness psychological disorder?

One sees a literal cross-section of the human condition on this board.