Gun Control thread (merged many)

[CaptainHaplo]

So because one idiot in a leadership role of the NRA proves his personal fanatacism and arrogance, the entire organization must be?

So what does that generalization say about the Democratic Party, headed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Or Democratic legislators led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

Care to stop blasting everyone that you disagree with using baseless and wrong generalizations?

[August]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

So because one idiot in a leadership role of the NRA proves his personal fanatacism and arrogance, the entire organization must be?

So what does that generalization say about the Democratic Party, headed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Or Democratic legislators led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

Care to stop blasting everyone that you disagree with using baseless and wrong generalizations?

Of course he doesn't. You take away the insults and the anti-gun side doesn't have anything. After all it's not like they have a record of accomplishment to concentrate on.

You take away the insults and the anti-gun side doesn't have anything.

Yet as the "pro gun" crowd repeatedly base their arguement on a position they have already rejected they appear to have nothing at all.

[Armistead]

The anti gun lobby has yet to do anything to save one life, yet they've cost many.

The anti gun lobby has yet to do anything to save one life, yet they've cost many.

The antis say the same aout the pros.
You need to get away from that and climb to the middle ground for a clearer view.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The antis say the same aout the pros.
You need to get away from that and climb to the middle ground for a clearer view.

But that would require looking at both sides and thinking about them. And then you risk getting called "fence-sitter" or "non-commital". Haven't you heard the catch-phrase "The man who stands for nothing will fall for anything?" Of course that is usually said by someone who already fell for something and is now afraid to let go of it.

But be reasonable. The middle ground is also no man's land, and that's the most frightening ground of all.

But that would require looking at both sides and thinking about them. And then you risk getting called "fence-sitter" or "non-commital".

I know.
You called me that recently, but hey I can live with that risk

Of course that is usually said by someone who already fell for something and is now afraid to let go of it.

Easily and frequently demonstrated.
On the one extreme you have the "its the guns".
You can drag them to reality where they agree its some guns, some people, those people, not those people, not those guns, not that situation.
Then they get frightened and fall back to "its the guns"
On the other extreme you have the "no restrictions"
Likewise you can drag them to reality where they agree to these restrictions, those restrictions, these people, those people, those situations.
Then they get frightened and fall back to "no restrictions".

Both extremes manage to destroy their own arguements, but still run away to try and cling to them again and again.

But be reasonable. The middle ground is also no man's land, and that's the most frightening ground of all.

Not really since the two extremes are shooting so far beyond their targets the flak the middle gets is just harmless noise.

Quite a comical process really isn't it.