Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Pistol grips on long guns, and rifle crime in general. [View all]"What you've proven is that you have a substantial amount of anger towards those who disagree with you and will go to great lengths to make a rhetorical argument against them. Nothing more."
Based upon what exactly, do you make such an assertion? Be specific. I saw no evidence of anger.
"Oh please...you're the one insisting that I play your game to prove some vacuous point about how reasonable the gun culture truly is when there are tens of millions of educated adult Americans who disagree with that perception."
Facts not in evidence.
"Am I wrong to note that this is not a zero-sum game of right and wrong? That this is a policy issue requiring an approach of compromise, but to deny the significance of the effect of gun violence upon victims and their family is to deny their very humanity."
Theres that word: Compromise. What does your side of the debate have, which it is willing to give up, in the spirit of compromise? Compromise will no longer be defined as "they give and we take, and what we didn't get this year, we'll be back for next year" - like it was when the anti-gun lobby was allowed to define it.
So tell us all about what you had in mind, when you use the word "compromise". What is your side of the debate willing to give up? And to be crystal clear about this - its going to have to be something your side "has" in order to be in the position to "give" it in the firstplace. The days of giving things they dont have, in order to get something they didn't have, are over.
Nobody here in this forum denies the significance of the effect of gun violence upon victims and their family. Whats being denied, is the ability of people with beliefs and intent such as you have demonstrated on this issue, do do certain things about it. That doesn't mean NOTHING can be done about it. It just means certain avenues are unavailable. Those unfortunately, seem to be the only avenues you are interested in.
And that, unfortunately, speaks to your sincerity on the issue, and brings rightly into question, what your intent really is.
Here is someone espousing similar, familiar sentiments - only interested in the avenues pro-gunners oppose:
"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum
" I have no such desire to play some game with a person who can't appreciate the basic issues at stake and instead seeks to play a game in order to prove himself right."
The basic issue, as you state it, seems to be "gun violence". Why is it, that you and the few that make up the "anti-gun-violence" lobby are not interested in any of the avenues which gun rights proponents do not oppose, and are only interested in the avenues which we DO oppose?
I'd really like to see an honest forthright answer to that question.