05-23-2017, 01:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-23-2017, 01:57 PM by Eric the Green.)
(05-23-2017, 01:37 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The prohibition talk on the blue side applies to military weapons ("assault rifles, etc."). If this is the basis for their lack of compromise, then it has nothing to do with their interest in hunting or self-defense, but only in their interest in possessing weapons of mass murder, however they may justify it in their arguments.
You don't speak for the entire blue coalition. There are some who want more prohibition than you. Alas, these tend to be the most noisy and attention gathering bunch. Paranoia tends to be focused on the most paranoid worthy extremists.
Not true at all. Those speaking out for gun control today are quite moderate in their proposals, as are all the politicians who support them. YOu can say that people are screaming for prohibition in order to explain the fact that the red side is rigidly extreme while the blue side is flexible. But it's just the fact that the red side is rigidly extreme while the blue side is flexible. If you want to be diplomatic toward the red side, that's fine, and good luck. But the facts are the facts.
Quote:
It isn't hard to justify arguments for military grade weapons. The founding fathers expected the militia to repel invasions. The weren't kidding when they said the government couldn't restrict the types of weapons the People could carry. There is also a collective rights Supreme Court case from the gangster area that said the government could restrict possessions of assault rifles (Thompson sub machine guns). This is because the Thompson was not used by the military, thus had nothing to do with a militia. The collective right assertion was that anything carried by the military can't be restricted. Alas, not long after that litmus test was set, World War II came around and the military started distributing Thompsons to many infantry. That precedent hasn't been totally clobbered. At the moment, if the military can carry something, so can the People.
Not that I'm crazy about that precedent. I wouldn't mind the 2nd being rewritten, but the two sides are so far apart it isn't likely to happen.
Infantry is military, of course. Restricting military weapons just makes sense; there's nothing more to say, and yet people keep arguing. That's because the red side is stubborn and extreme.
Quote:(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I could say I understand the red base better than you, because I am able to see through all of their delusions, not just most. That's how I would spin your statement into my favor. Don't get too dizzy.
You have a well developed straw man of how Republicans think. It is a dark twisted parody of how they really think. The purpose is to justify hate rather than to understand. If they say something that isn't part of your straw man, you'll substitute your straw man for what people actually say. This is not the same, though it does induce dizziness on any who might try to take you seriously. Alas, parody straw men are all too common around here.
When the other guy's world view is clearly conflicting one's own, it's easy to create one's own delusions while pretending to be seeing through theirs.
No, nobody knows the Republicans better than I do!
No, it's not about hate, as I said before. The point is not to hate them; the point is to oppose them. Even understanding them is quite compatible with opposing them politically. Quite clearly, it's about understanding, and what I report about what they do is generally accurate. No substitutes necessary. When you or others substitute the word "hate" for the word "oppose" or "disagree," and start on ad hominems, you are admitting that you'd rather make accusations than engage in honest dialogue. There is no use hating anyone, generally speaking. In fact, spiritual advisors and authorities generally say it's better to forgive, for they know not what they do. And am I really any better than they? No; they may be confused or even wilfully-ignorant about certain issues, but that's no reason to hate them. It would be nice if they would inform themselves. Heck, I don't even hate Galen!
Some world views are more aligned with reality than others.
Are YOU delusional about guns and self-defense? Probably, I would think so; or at least you think that I don't understand your point of view, and I think you don't understand mine. Both have been explained and researched ad nauseum here and elsewhere, so further explanation is useless. Certainly many gun advocates are delusional, whether or not that includes you.