Your asking indicates that we won't agree on the reasons.Originally Posted by bae
Ditto. It'll be adjudicated in the court of public opinion, the legislatures and the judicial courts.
Your asking indicates that we won't agree on the reasons.
Ditto. It'll be adjudicated in the court of public opinion, the legislatures and the judicial courts.
So, you have no substantive discussion to offer, simply...bickering. Got it.
What kind of ice cream do you like?
It looks like bae beat me to the punch and he is exactly right.
I spent over 30 years of my life carrying weapons in every possible combination of buildings, crowds, events, cities and states, all for the purpose of defense, mine and others. Why would you or anyone else want to strip me of that ability and what interests are served by doing so?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Again, if you are asking, then I don't expect you to respect the reasoning that would take away what you think you have a right to. That's not to say that there aren't substantive reasons - it is rather a recognition that you wouldn't respect those substantive reasons, and an understanding that acknowledging that is superior than encouraging more disrespect for reasonable perspectives that you happen to dislike. We each know each others' positions, at this point. There's no need to brow-beat the thread talking about Ms. Giffords' initiative out of existence because she is promoting something that you don't want to happen.
But it's OK to brow-beat the thread talking about opposition to others opinions because you don't like them, with no responsibility to share the basis of your opposition?
I'm thinking you chose your name well grasshopper.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
You seem to be trying to be offensively abusive as a rhetorical tactic. I tried to invite you to agree to disagree, but you seem totally uninterested in respecting views other than that which placates your preference. It's kind of pointless to engage you in this discussion given that you have made it clear that you're both unwilling to agree to disagree and unwilling to acknowledge reasonable disagreement with your preference.
I was actually getting the impression that that's what Alan was aiming for, just argument for the sake of argument, instead of accepting that reasonable people disagree about it.
Well, not really since you won't share your reasoning. Maybe we should just call this a conclusion forum instead of a discussion forum. I guess it would make moderating a lot easier.
What is it about guns and gun control that make it such a heated topic? On either side this topic really brings out the heat.....I feel utterly and totally hopeless on this one. I personally find guns terrifying and anyone who is so quick to jump in and aggressively defend them really gives me pause. I also know that there are those who are very into guns that are stable - I really do believe this much - but the problem is - not everyone with a gun is. I remember back in 1993 reading of an American who had fled Brooklyn - actually fled is a very melodramatic word - he immigrated - to Canada to get away from guns. I can see now why someone would do this - the aggressive rhetoric about guns - an instrument that can indeed harm, maim and kill - really has me wondering - is this acceptable? Is this what I want?
Beyond what I have just posted, is it acceptable that there will most likely never be a civil resolution about this issue, either? Rob
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote