3 ms·
>Get dang to ask me to stop, and I will. Good grief, someone go and tattle to the moderator... This is just my opinion but I think that trying to bully or int
by fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
>Get dang to ask me to stop, and I will.
Good grief, someone go and tattle to the moderator...
This is just my opinion but I think that trying to bully or intimidate your way through arguments on this subject isn't going to be a useful tactic for gun rights in the long run. IOW, it's going to eventually end in a severe curtailment of gun rights. It works now because of the number of individuals with uncompromising positions on the matter and their voting habits, not because of the strengths of their arguments.
>But consider for a moment how "really unpleasant" the other side is when they blithely talk about using murder to confiscate me and mine's Constitutionally protected property, protected for just this reason.
I must have missed that part. Please consider how much you've overreacted to nearly everything in this subthread; and while you're at it, consider how much that kind of reaction re-enforces a negative stereotype of gun rights proponents as unhinged
people prone to making threats of violence.
- hga 11y agoYour advice on how to lose of little interest. The proposition that "if you do X we will kill you" is not a strong argument? My reading of history indicates otherwise. As of late, look at almost all the West cowering before another subgroup's much more stringent censorship demands on pain of death (that's often enacted), when freedom of expression is supposed to be one of the West's most cherished values. You may consider that the "Three Percent" of my side is overreacting the other sides' threats of naked force and murder, but they'll still be just as dead if we'd kept the "discussion" to the level of a faculty lounge. We simply don't care if you consider this truth (not "stereotype") as "negative". It is what it is.