6 Reasons Your Right-Wing Friend Isnt Coming To Your Side On Gun Control

[Nevernose]

100. On the surface those are 6 thoughtful points

It's just that when I actually read the whole thing do I realize that 95% of it is just plain obfuscation and rationalization. It's an old tactic, perfected on the Internet(s) by the right wing: give it a title or title with reasonable-sounding concepts -- stuff that normal, honest people wouldn't disagree with. Then use those headlines to bury the bullshit underneath. Like when the article starts off with the premise that "killing babies is wrong." I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that that position is one most people agree with. But then, a paragraph or two in, it starts to sink in (at least for discerning readers) that the baby killing they're referring to is "condoms."

1. We Rarely Get to Come to the Conversation in Good Faith
The entire article is in bad faith. At best, the article is simply preaching to the choir.

It is a true dehumanization of Second Amendment advocates to think that we didn’t see the events unfolding in Las Vegas and have the same ache deep in our souls...As hard as it may be to imagine, a person can watch this, ache, hurt, and be profoundly affected by these events and not change his or her position on the Second Amendment.

"Dehumanized?" Really? Like people with machine guns are poor, innocent victims and those of us who want to ban bumpstocks are motherfucking Pol Pot?

And no one doubts that you or other gun owners feel horrid watching these things unfurl on the television. That's where the disconnect is. You feel terrible, but you really don't care. If you did, you'd want to do something to prevent the next one. You're an abusive husband. You beat the shit out of your wife, and you really do feel terrible about it afterwards, but you don't care enough to make sure it never happens again.

Finally, if you're not willing to compromise, then you're the one not coming to the conversation in good faith.

(I omitted the middle portion, but y'all should read the original. A masterpiece of twisted persuasion.)

2. The ‘Blood on Their Hands’ Attacks Are Offensive

Maybe it's offensive, maybe it isn't. You spent that portion of the essay writing about how the NRA was gun owner's first line of defense, but the fucking NRA wasn't pro-gun enough for you because they were willing to discuss the possibility of preventing people on the no-fly list from buying AK-47s.

It's irrelevant anyway, because if your hobby frequently enables mass shootings, then you have blood on your hands. And you need to find a new hobby.

3. The Loudest Voices Are Often the Most Ignorant

It's gun nuts that confused and muddied the definition of "assault rifle" so much that the term is meaningless.

Your other bit of evidence was a HuffPo reporter once asked a question on Twitter, then publicly announced that his first guess was wrong. Clearly, a person totally unqualified to dig seventeen graves in Florida

4. The Most Prominent Policy Ideas Have Nothing to Do With the Tragedy

Which tragedy? This tragedy? That tragedy? The article seems to have been written after Las Vegas, so I'm assuming it was that tragedy.

All of which is irrelevant. The point isn't to stop the previous tragedy, it's to minimize the next one. If there's a less prominent policy idea that would be more effective, then stop writing shitty listicles for The Federalist and call your state representative.

5. We Seriously Don’t Care About Gun Laws in Other Countries

Then why can't y'all ever shut the fuck up about Switzerland?

6. We Really Do Consider Owning Firearms a Right

Okay. Sure. Your other rights are regulated, too. The word "regulated" even appears in the text of your right.