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.
Well said. You nailed the argument in point #1. Everything else is supporting facts.
ReplyDeleteAye-bleeping-men, sir.
ReplyDeleteI like Peter to but... he’s a relic from another age when we actually sat down to talk with people we disagreed with. (And I say that as an obsolete man myself).
ReplyDeleteI was raised by shitlibs and I am nothing like them either. They get their facts from the mass media and day time TV and think they are informed. I used to think that if I could only present the facts right, they would come around to my side of the gun thing. Like all liberals and progs... they won’t. Even if you prove them wrong, they won’t change their stance... they’ll get mad and call you names. You can’t reason with people like that.
When some Lefty wants to “discuss gun control” what he actually means is that he wants to virtue signal and lecture, and you are only there to listen politely and respectfully. Unfortunately at this point, There’s only two statements left for those of us on our side of this thing:
1. F*** you.
2. Come and take them
Enough is enough.
I keep hoping there is still some room for dialog but before that can happen it is necessary to actually be speaking the same language.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, Gun Violence is a meaningless term. Sans human operator guns don't cause any harm at all. But if you take the term to mean harm caused by guns then it is necessary to break it down into categories. In some cases measures designed to deal with one category might help with others. Or be neutral or counterproductive.
Perhaps the list would be:
1. mass shootings
2. suicides
3. garden variety homicides
4. accidental shootings
5. police shootings.
1 and 2 have to address mental health issues. 3 is a mixed bag, lots of this going on in dysfunctional urban centers and/or domestic violence issues. 4 is important and could have physical measures to deploy. 5 is also important ..even though most police shootings are justified not all are.
I'm open to discussing this with anybody, but as I said you need to be speaking a mutually comprehensible language.
I'm also very big on accountability by those in authority positions. Too often the situation with troubled people is like that old Willie Nelson song:
"Don't boss him, don't cross him 'cause he's wild in his sorrow,
he's ridin' and hidin' his pain".
"Don't fight him, don't spite him and wait for tomorrow,
and maybe he'll ride on again."
Of course in the song the Red Headed stranger went on to kill again.
TW
Can't disagree at all... sigh
ReplyDeleteSomething like this:
ReplyDeletehttps://street-pharmacy.blogspot.com/2015/10/agree-to-disagree-id-rather-not.html?m=1
I am finished discussing this. The answer is no. Your move.
What makes people think gun control laws will work when the laws against murder, assault and other real crimes are completely ignored?
ReplyDeleteIt's almost like there's a hidden agenda to turn us from citizens to subjects...
Wait...
That's exactly what it is.
There should be no infringement on keeping and bearing arms of any type. Blade, mass weapons, throwing weapons, shooting weapons, big explody weapons, little explody weapons. You know, 'arms.'
Screw it. I don't just want my cake back (thanks, Lawdog, for that analogy,) I want the ability to have the production of arms back. I want to have machine tools, a section of pipe, washers, and stuff and not be arrested for 'intent.' I want to be able to hand-whittle full-auto components, or whip them up on that CNC machine I want to buy from the local tech college, or from some whiteboard dude when he needs some extra scratch if he's willing.
And, yes, other peoples' feelings don't matter. I'm tired of living in Florida and having wear fall or winter clothing to 'conceal' my weapons. Screw it. Open friggin carry, baby, like God intended.
Strictly speaking, getting the whole cake back would have to involve repealing the NFA, so that constructive possession horsecrap would go away.
ReplyDeleteThere is no middle ground. The gun grabbing scoundrels burned it to hell and gone. Our work to bring the moderates over to our view must involve demonstrating this conclusively, so they will understand, if not share, our sense of betrayal and outrage.