The irony of it is that they still don't understand why. When they're not banning dissenting voices on their FB pages or calling their opponents 'traitors' and 'insurrectionists' (sure starters for reasoned discourse in any setting, right?) this response on Huffpo is a perfect example why:
Then there needs to more "conversations" or those having the "conversation" need to get much louder.Now this is pretty typical of what you get. There is not ONE rational or factual piece of information in it. Instead it relies exclusively on strawmen, character attacks, emotional diatribes, and myths/talking points, none of which hold up to scrutiny. They've got nothing else. The only time it's effective is when people like Bloomberg or the Joyce foundation pay tons of money to flood the media w/ their skewed information in order to influence those who don't normally pay attention to the issue.
Apparently everyone posting on this story who are against gun control laws haven't been the victim of gun violence because guns are too easily obtained by those who should not have the. And the reasoning that background checks don't work is the best reason not to have them is idiotic reasoning.
The anti- gun control people posting on this article will never say enough to sway those of us who believe in gun control to change our minds.
More guns, means more violence, that fact does not seem to mean anything to those obsessed with gun ownership.
Perhaps if you had a very young family member shot and killed by an equally young person who had no business having a gun, maybe you might actually be for some common sense approaches to gun ownership. Everyone being armed is not anywhere close to common sense and it is obviously not making for a safer nation despite what all the pro-gun, anti-background check people think.
But then, when/if they start researching it more, they find out they've been lied to and they tend to start looking at the issue from a view leaning more towards our side. That's how I and several others became 'gun nuts'.
And they still don't get it and never will.
4 comments:
It seems to me that they keep using the wrong word- this IS a conversation. They say things, we say things; that sounds conversational to me. The fact that they have admitted that they will not change their minds, and so, to a high degree, have we, indicates that while conversation will continue, consensus will surely not follow. That makes it a numbers game, and we ARE winning that fight. We have self respect and self determination, and fun, on our side. As we grow in number, we grow in strength. They have not these things, so their numbers and strength flag.
Like most causes of the left gun control is just another pseudo religion. The real hardcore supporters will never be swayed facts and truth,they are committed by faith to their cause. I suppose it is because they are too smart to be religious,yet the are so blinded by their beliefs that they can't see that they are replacing belief in God with belief in government. It is sad really when you think about it.
Let's dissect their arguments, shall we?
Their "conversation" needs to get LOUDER they claim. Why that sounds like desperation and that their viewpoints do not hold sway with many people. Maybe they should bang on the desk with their shoe, too.
They claim that victims of gun violence would naturally cling to gun control as their response? It seems more likely that many people think that the response to being unarmed and savaged by a criminal is to have the means to fight back the next time. I have not been the victim of violence (gun, or otherwise), but I can clearly see the value in having the means to defend myself.
Background checks don't work. Thanks for admitting that. So, when they are directed at the law-abiding and have about zero deterrent effect, you can see why we scoff at them. Sorry, it is NOT idiotic reasoning to reject a law or policy that does not have a net positive or demonstrable effect. To cling to useless policies is the definition of idiocy. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
More guns equals LESS violence. I suggest that they actually look at the statistics before lying about it. The inverse has been observed, so their viewpoint is incorrect. It is hard to take them seriously when by multiple measures, lawful ownership of firearms is an asset to our country.
Their example of a young family member getting shot is not the fault of the gun. It is the fault of the person who performs those criminal actions. If the person used a knife, a car, a bomb, a bat or a brick, it really does not matter. The young family member would be dead regardless and the criminal should be brought to justice. Now an armed young family member might just have been able to escape death by dint of being armed. That is the reality they refuse to ever acknowledge since it invalidates their argument.
Finally, while I can use a firearm to protect myself from criminals, there always remains a chance that the government could some day have all the weapons if they have their way. That would be a dark future where abuse of the citizens could proceed without any resistance. No thanks, I'll keep my weapons, just in case.
One cannot help but wonder if they even think about what they have written before pressing the 'send' button. Paragraphs one and three respectively:
"Then there needs to more "conversations" or those having the "conversation" need to get much louder."
"The anti- gun control people posting on this article will never say enough to sway those of us who believe in gun control to change our minds."
You seek to dictate the situation...That's not a 'conversation', Sparky.
Post a Comment