Moderation be damned, apparently

[mousme]

Why oh why do I get into arguments with pro-gun people? WHY?

I am not anti-gun. I am pro-reasonable legislation. I think guns are useful tools for hunting and fun toys for target practice. They are also (regrettably) tools for professionals like soldiers and law enforcement officers.

Whenever I try to point out that guns are not a basic human right (I'm sorry, but they're not!), I am suddenly the Antichrist.

At least this time they're being polite about it. The last time I practically got accused of being anti-all civil rights.

*sigh*

I should know better. Apparently being shrill is the only way to be in this debate, no matter what side you're on. Heaven forfend anyone should take a middle-of-the-road approach.

Fuck this.

Also, this is NOT an invitation for a gun debate in my LJ. If anyone so much as fucking breathes in the direction of a debate (pro- or anti-), I will lock down the comments faster than you can say Bob's-your-uncle. Got it?

Comments

[fearsclave.livejournal.com]

*hug*

[mousme.livejournal.com]

*hug back*

Not aimed at you, obviously. I really shouldn't engage in those discussions in your LJ they just upset me. Remind me of this when I'm tempted to jump in again. ;)

[fearsclave.livejournal.com]

I figured :). To be honest, the shooty types on my flist are all very calm, polite, reasonable, moderate, well-groomed members of the species; I don't friend any loons. You want a sample of a really shrill gun nut, Google "War on Guns". David Codrea makes me look like Wendy Cukier in comparison :).

[tx-cronopio.livejournal.com]

No debate here, just a heartfelt sigh of understanding. There are TWO framed copies of the US 2nd amendment here at Casa Dysfunctiona. Oddly, no other amendments seem to rate ;)

[delta-november.livejournal.com]

You are not alone. I have stopped commenting on those threads because I don't think that it is constructive. There may be a large silent contingent that supports you.

[ai731.livejournal.com]

Ditto.

[meallanmouse.livejournal.com]

Thirded.

[toughlovemuse.livejournal.com]

Fourthed. In fact, have refrained from commenting in any thread that might eventually touch on it, because often someone will bring it up in a response.

[curtana.livejournal.com]

Fifthed. I don't even read comment threads that look like they might be going in that direction - I don't need the extra aggravation in my life.

The fight is part of the human condition

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

I'll respect your desires. I won't get into it with you, but I will say that this is a fundamental fight — there IS no middle ground, if you have any opinion at all on the topic. Logically, there cannot be a middle ground. It is a battle that has raged since before humans came down out of the trees and it will almost certainly continue after the present generations are gone. Sometimes it gets hot and sometimes it cools down, sometimes one side dominates and other times the other side is ahead. What it will not do is go away.

Re: The fight is part of the human condition

[mousme.livejournal.com]

Just on a common-sense note: humans did not have guns when we were still arbor-dwelling primates. :P

Also, I respectfully disagree that there can't "logically" be a middle ground.

Re: The fight is part of the human condition

[elanya.livejournal.com]

There is always middle ground.

Just like there's always a case for extenuating circumstances.

Or maybe this is just me being a Libra poster girl :p

Re: The fight is part of the human condition

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

The tool is not the issue. Self-defense is the issue. If some humans, perhaps ones calling themselves "professionals," to use your term, by virtue of "magic" badges or special clothing can arrogate to themselves a monopoly on superior weapons and an authority to disarm all other groups then that group has asserted for itself a priviledge of masters over the groups who do not have such access and such authority. "Authority" is an abstraction: it cannot turn human beings into ubermenchen. In fact, history has provided ample evidence that power over others corrupts and debases those who attempt to assume it.

Disagreement does not change the rules of logic. Either personal weapons are restricted to some subset of people or they are not. If they are, it is a violation of the right of self defense for those who are restricted.

Re: The fight is part of the human condition

[cpirate.livejournal.com]

Holy crap. What part of "Also, this is NOT an invitation for a gun debate in my LJ." did you miss?

Re: The fight is part of the human condition

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

1. When did mousme appoint you topic cop on her journal?


2. Just because I feel like humoring you, I will point out that I was not indulging in a gun debate, per se, but was attempting to establish the parameters and terms of one. Our hostess asserted that the fact that humans did not have weapons when they came down from the trees therefore a "right to firearms" is not fundamental. I merely agreed, because the debate is one of self-defense, not the "naturalness" or "appropriateness" of firearms per se. Also, the debate about whether there exists some hypothetical middle ground is also not a debate about firearms or defense but a discussion of logic. One may be for or against the restrictions on weapons and agree that it is an either/or proposition — there is no "middle ground".


3. I will point out, not that it's any of your business, unless I am mistaken in my understanding of point 1, that our hostess herself opened the tangential discussion, which I again add, is a meta-topic, not the proscribed topic itself, just so we're on the same page, you understand.

Re: The fight is part of the human condition

[luvenditti.livejournal.com]

um you just DID get into it.

[bodhifox.livejournal.com]

I love you. Really.

:)

[tcaptain.livejournal.com]

I never contribute to those threads (one way or another) because these days I rarely find intelligent discourse. People are shrill and ...passionate would be the polite and diplomatic way to put it and no one is interested in exploring an issue anymore.

Throw in the inevitable troll, the signal to noise ratio just gets really bad.

These guys were SO right and it makes me sad.

[heartofawarrior.livejournal.com]

If it makes you feel any better, there's probably still a price on my head where some former classmates are concerned. In US history class my junior year of high school, I made the mistake of saying I agreed, in part, with the South when we started discussing the Civil War. I didn't say I agreed with slavery, but I said I agreed with secession, to a point. Oh boy. My classmates were all over me in an instant, calling me racist, accusing me of being pro-slavery, and the occasional "white supremacist/Nazi" accusation. I countered by saying that Robert E. Lee had a choice whether to serve with the North or the South, and he chose to serve the South, even though he didn't agree with slavery. Nobody understood it, which makes me wonder how the hell they passed the class.

(Ironically, gun legislation is one of the areas where the concept of states rights has backfired in current times...)

*hands over tea*

[luvenditti.livejournal.com]

snickers and sympathy .... driver's licenses I tell you!

[diggerlicious.livejournal.com]

I've learned from personal experience in the court room that being "shrill" does, sadly, get the attention. Not the quality of the argument or the articulation of the speaker, but decibels are accepted often to cover any degree of rubbish! What does that say for our qualities of public speaking that a complete hissy fit is worthy of something. But sometimes necessary. Sigh.