Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: Darren270
Quote:
I asked for a rational justification by gun owners to steer me back to my original view.
Your question is nothing more than a form of special pleading and that's the problem. Gun owners are not required by logic to justify their position in order to placate yours. This is what I meant by your shifting the burden of proof. Sandy Hook changed your previous position on guns. Now its up to you to justify that position. You don't do that by proclaiming "well this how I feel now, unless you can convince me otherwise." Again, I don't have to convince you of anything. Gun ownership (at least in this country) is the default. The onus is on you to prove that taking away guns or a certain type of gun would solve the problem that you believe gun ownership causes. If you are unwilling or are unable to do that, then you don't have a logical argument. This is what you're not getting.
Quote:
Your answer - f' you.
Tu Quoque. Was my tone defiant? Sure, but not without good reason which I have explained, twice now and which you obviously aren't interested in.
Quote:
Its guys like you that need a second look now. Thats what I think. And you reinforce that with your irrational perceptions of a threat, my comments.
No one called or perceived your comments as a "threat". Which is ironic considering that an ad hominem like "its guys like you that need a second look" certainly are.
Quote:
I'm done. Its always going to be a point of contention. Nobody wins.
And it always will be until people stop with the emotional knee jerking, straw men and slippery slope arguments in response to these tragedies. Were not talking about taking away sports cars or fishing poles. We're talking about potentially taking away someones rights. Rights for which many have died in the belief of and are a core defining belief for those who continue to defend it.
What LeakySeals was asking was not unreasonable. For those who missed it, BITOG is a forum predominately based on lubrication related topics. If I or anyone else was interested in a groupthink opinion of the pros or cons on the value of the second amendment, I, you, or they should seek out a website that promotes such an opinion. The value of having such a discussion on a site such as BITOG is you can get a diverse set of opinions on the subject. Yes this topic is dear to many for many reasons, unfortunately at times these discussions end with attacks or insults (either perceived or real), they add no value to the debate. Personally I am very thankful that the owner of this website has allowed such discussions to take place, I honestly thought that all such topics would have been locked in the immediate aftermath of Sandy Hook.
Secondly, yes the second amendment gives you rights, rights are not absolute nor are they perpetual. If your democracy decides to amend or dissolve those rights then what will be will be. Given recent events, these rights are under scrutiny by average citizens, politicians and the media. Frankly any democracy that doesn’t reflect the will of a majority of it's citizens isn’t worth having.
What the pro 2nd amendment crowd seems to miss is this discussion is going to happen, you can either meaningfully contribute to it or be left behind. Again, accusing people of an agenda adds no value to the discussion, it only chews up bandwidth.
It is an agenda....and looking at history I want nothing of it and will fight for my right. The constitution is not to be messed with as our forefathers wrote it to keep gov't in check. If you recall - we left a country to get away from what our country is trying to become.
I'm sorry, I do try to have reasonable conversation with gun banners and THEY usually turn the conversation ugly when FACTS don't align with their emotions and agenda.
