Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
Fri Aug 26, 2016, 02:34 PM Aug 2016

How a discussion with a gun rights person goes . . .

More guns means more people are shot. Makes sense, right? Well re-phrase the statement and see how it goes:

Me: The sky is blue.

GR: Do you have any data to support that?

Me: Well it's generally known that the sky is blue.

GR: Really? According to who?

Second GR: Actually the sky is not blue. Chromatically it is cyan. Most people think it is blue but they are wrong because the true color blue looks more like purple.

Me: Uh, the sky appears to be blue because of reflection and refraction of white light which leaves the appearance of a blue color.

GR: Oh, so it isn't REALLY blue, it only appears to be blue. So you admit you're wrong.

Second GR: Why won't you admit that the sky is actually chromatically cyan?

Third GR: It's clear that you have no actual knowledge of color related issues so you have no right to make such a statement.

Me: Uh, well, color is the perception of light either reflected of passed by a medium, so the color of the sky is blue.

Second GR: You still haven't addressed the cyan color of the actual sky or the fact that blue isn't really blue but purple.

GR: Okay so you have moved the goal posts from what you first said, ie the sky is blue to the sky appears to be blue to the properties of the medium. Which is it?

Fourth GR: Lott debunked that a long time ago.

Fifth GR: If everybody had tinted glasses the sky would look the way I want it to look.

Me: Jesus Christ you people are so crazy!

Mods: Your post has been hidden by a jury. Reason; personal attack and broad brush of an entire group.

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How a discussion with a gun rights person goes . . . (Original Post) flamin lib Aug 2016 OP
Boy, is that the truth. Aristus Aug 2016 #1
Its not worth engaging them etherealtruth Aug 2016 #2
The sky is blue because of scattering of blue light from the Sun... Buckeye_Democrat Aug 2016 #3
I personally believe that guns should be strictly regulated. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #4
It isn't about disagreeing or an honest discussion. It's about the tactics of trolling, ganging up, flamin lib Aug 2016 #6
I understand your points. I have read many insulting posts. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #8
You are correct that we should focus on billh58 Aug 2016 #7
Well understood. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #9
Pretty much the way it is. Hoyt Aug 2016 #5
K&R. nt awoke_in_2003 Aug 2016 #10
To prove my point . . . flamin lib Aug 2016 #11
It's almost as if billh58 Aug 2016 #12

Aristus

(68,357 posts)
1. Boy, is that the truth.
Fri Aug 26, 2016, 02:38 PM
Aug 2016

The number of different ways GRA's have to refute the assertion that an assault rifle is an assault rifle is mind-boggling.

I find it amusing that they want scary-looking weapons designed to kill lots of people quickly, but they don't want the firearm classification to sound scary.

Buckeye_Democrat

(15,042 posts)
3. The sky is blue because of scattering of blue light from the Sun...
Fri Aug 26, 2016, 02:54 PM
Aug 2016

... as it passes through the atmosphere. Those wavelengths get absorbed and re-emitted in all directions. It's also why the Sun looks reddish when viewed directly (since shorter wavelengths were scattered through the atmosphere).

You claimed it was from reflection and refraction, so you obviously don't know what you're talking about regarding guns!

They will sometimes employ the conservative tactic of staying on the offensive.

I think this comedian hit the nail on the head:

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
4. I personally believe that guns should be strictly regulated.
Fri Aug 26, 2016, 02:57 PM
Aug 2016

I also believe that the only valid reading of the Second Amendment supports a ban on personal/individual carry and possession that is not directly linked to membership in a well-regulated militia. That would be the National Guard.

But there are Democrats who disagree. On many issues,
from guns
to corporate funding of politicians,
to Israel,
to religion,
there are Democrats who disagree.

Simply because we disagree should not make us enemies, or make our opponents crazy. Democrats must work together and yes, we will continue to disagree on issues, but what unites is more important than what divides.

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
6. It isn't about disagreeing or an honest discussion. It's about the tactics of trolling, ganging up,
Fri Aug 26, 2016, 04:12 PM
Aug 2016

demanding evidence that must pass their standards only and attacking the individual instead of the argument.

You can't have an honest disagreement with people who are simply disagreeable.

Yeah, they say I'm just the same way but I spent more than a year in the gungeon and didn't say shit when I had a mouth full of it. All I got was ad homenim, personal insults, threats and unjust alerts (had one post hidden lately and it was worth it to tell one SOB what I thought of him).

I respect your honorable intent but these people are not really Democrats and simply troll the site.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
8. I understand your points. I have read many insulting posts.
Fri Aug 26, 2016, 04:23 PM
Aug 2016

But the same arguments can be, and are made in nearly every other group here.

I was banned from one group for posting information from a "banned" site that was not explicitly named as forbidden in the rules for the group. I was told that I "should have known" and summarily blocked.

And if you go to the "religion" group there is also much passionate discussion. I agree that name calling serves no purpose other than to make discussion difficult.

My pet peeve among gun enthusiasts is the tendency to fixate on terms such as "assault weapons". Many enthusiasts will tell you that the "Deathmaster 700" is not really an assault weapon because of (insert technical jargon here), but the "Deathmaster 700 is really a hunting weapon that just happens to have a 50 shot magazine.

(Note: Deathmaster 700 was my made-up term. As far as I know there is no such weapon.)

billh58

(6,641 posts)
7. You are correct that we should focus on
Fri Aug 26, 2016, 04:14 PM
Aug 2016

supporting other Democrats even while disagreeing with them. The problem with the Second Amendment absolutists however, is that it becomes very hard to tell the difference between an obvious right-wing troll, a Libertarian who claims to be a Democrat, and a Liberal Democrat.

In my experience, most Liberal Democrats do not call other Democrats "grabbers," "antis" or "prohis," and are supportive of reasonable, common sense gun control initiatives. Also, most Liberal Democrats who are gun owners aren't "gun nuts" in the common use of the term (absolutists, NRA apologists, or gun-splainers) and are actually pleasant to debate with.

I tend to use the "if it walks like a duck" standard to identify true gun nuts.

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
9. Well understood.
Fri Aug 26, 2016, 04:24 PM
Aug 2016

Especially

The problem with the Second Amendment absolutists however, is that it becomes very hard to tell the difference between an obvious right-wing troll, a Libertarian who claims to be a Democrat, and a Liberal Democrat.

billh58

(6,641 posts)
12. It's almost as if
Sat Aug 27, 2016, 10:46 AM
Aug 2016

you have a cult following, but then again I wouldn't let it go to my head if I were you...

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»How a discussion with a g...