What is "true" is what conforms to how they think the world should be - whether or not the world really is that way. If it's not the way they want the world to be then, even if it's factually true, it's not "the truth" - which, of course, only they possess.This isn't remotely right. The claim of moral equivalence simply doesn't fit, for two reasons:
You can see that right now in the clamor for more gun control in the wake of the three mass shootings last week. Factual discussion of whether or not their proposals will actually work is neither here nor there - in fact, it's a waste of time. The extremists on both sides - those who want more gun control, and those who insist that not one more gun law is acceptable - all want it their way, and they want it now, and they refuse to even consider any alternative.
The moonbats on the left are as guilty of this as the wingnuts on the right.
1. Gun controllers are trying to take rights away from gun owners. Gun owners are simply trying not to lose their existing rights. Morally, these are entirely different categories.
2. Gun controllers have a long and sordid history of pushing lies to further their goals. The government agencies charged with enforcing the laws as written have a long and sordid history of blatantly breaking those laws. Gun owners are likely the most law abiding group of citizens you can find, although that may be breaking down (very large majorities of gun owners in New York and New Jersey have simply refused to register their AR pattern rifles).
One group simply wants to be left alone. The other uses falsehoods, misrepresentations, hiding contrary facts, and lawlessness by the Organs of the State. There's no moral equivalence between these groups. None.
No more gun control laws, period. The "Universal Background Check" law will lead to backdoor registration, even with the Organs Of The State saying that they won't build a database for sure you guys. "Red Flag" laws will be weaponized by Antifa and the thugs on the left to disarm their political opponents - and these kooks see half (or two thirds?) of the country as their opponents. No "Assault Rifle" ban - even the Department of Justice said that the 1994 one didn't keep anyone from (legally) buying one, and they also said that the law had absolutely no impact on crime rates.
How's this for a crazy idea? How about the government starts enforcing the existing laws on the books? How about the Air Force starts updating the background check database when they dishonorably discharge someone? How about the Broward Sheriff's Department figures out that after a couple dozen complaints about a violent student, they send him for a psych exam? How about the school does this once they expel him, rather than readmit him? The list of failures by public servants - and the butcher's bill that goes with that - is long indeed. It's a waste of time to add another law that the Powers That Be will ignore - but which will be used against law abiding citizens, sure as God made little green apples.
And so I'm afraid that I can't agree with Peter on this. I'm not remotely like the folks on the other side of the debate. They're on the attack, and it's a dishonest attack. I'm just sticking up for my rights against that dishonest attack. I will not consider any "alternatives", because there are no honest alternatives on offer - only more lies and fakes. No more gun control laws, ever.