mousme: A view of a woman's legs from behind, wearing knee-high rainbow socks. The rest of the picture is black and white. (Reason is a Flawed Tool)
mousme ([personal profile] mousme) wrote2008-08-07 02:06 pm
Entry tags:

Moderation be damned, apparently

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?

Re: The fight is part of the human condition

[identity profile] montecristo.livejournal.com 2008-08-07 08:51 pm (UTC)(link)

  1. When did [livejournal.com profile] 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.