Since you asked...I have no desire to continue the debate. Not because point by point I agree; because arguing when it is pointless to do so is not worth my time (nor yours).
Ok, but I felt I spoke to each of your points and asked you some very pointed questions which you should at least answer to your own satisfaction. Simply saying, "well I'm not talking to you about that any more" pretty much indicates that you haven't really thought through those matters and prefer stopping that train of thought rather than riding it out to its honest, logical conclusions. Sort of like one of our pals here has in his sig, about some folks' conclusions merely being a convenient place to stop thinking.
It is why I cut off emails with the reporter. He was not swaying me, I was not swaying him, it became pointless.
That's all well and good if you actually distill the debate down to the fundamental points of disagreement. Figure out what it is that you believe that I don't believe. We didn't get there, yet, beyond the most superficial level. -- Unless your beliefs on these matters really don't go any deeper than what you've explained, in which case, yes, I feel I've wasted my time.
I do take great exception to having my motives questioned, being accused of being a shill for moms and being accused of being a "less than" type gun owner.
Of course. No one likes that.
What I have tried to point out from my perspective is that there is a propaganda war going on and whoever yells loudest usually wins since they are yelling it at the politicians who will do anything to appease the angry masses.
Ok. Sure. But there isn't MERELY a propaganda war going on. To a very real degree, it isn't the propaganda that take the gun from my hand, but the law. And in the law and in the courts, what we've been doing for the last 20 years has born GREAT fruit. When our side pushes the ball net 57 yards, and the other side has managed to answer that by gaining 4 yards of their own, who's "winning?" I can list a whole pile of battles won by following the path we're currently on. I can't list more than a handful of wins by the opposition in that time. So who's winning? Based on that, changing the program to some form of conciliation seems poor strategy.
I have stated that we need to do some things different, we cannot just rely on the NRA or the small wins here and there.
Small wins here and there? What does that mean? Are you expecting that some day someone will stand up and declare we finally WON the whole shebang? Like if we give in a little now, somehow we'll be declared to have WON the gun rights war? No, that doesn't make a lick of sense. All we can EVER do is win each small battle as it comes, or every last one we're able. That
IS politics. That's how our system works. Relying on NRA, SAF, and a few others to keep plugging away at the big and small legislative and court battles that arise is exactly what we do, while constantly working grass-roots and person-to-person to get folks to the range, build up more gun owners and shooters and encourage them to be more and more committed, and keep the pressure on the legislators, always.
None of that will mean anything if the anti's sway public opinion the right way. That is all I have tried to point out. Is that so terrible ? That I see danger on the horizon and wish to do something NOW to prevent it ?
Those things aren't terrible to say. But you've grasped one ugly straw as a pseudo step to try and do "something" in reaction to the fear you have about what might come to pass some day. I and others are quite opposed to the particular straw you grasped. Got any others?
None of that will mean anything if the anti's sway public opinion the right way.
And, really, if the antis couldn't finally sway public opinion to their side in the ghastly wake of Sandy Hook, what's it going to take? There has never been in living memory a more gripping moment to drive a stake through the heart of gun rights. But a year and a half later, we're STRONGER than ever. So, again, what's it going to take to finally get the public swayed?
Lastly, as to delusional and clueless. Perhaps a bad choice of words, but I see it time and time again in many of these threads, people not staying on topic or stretching things, shouting down those with a more rational thought process than merely shouting "second amendment".
It isn't that hard to ignore those who actually do drift off topic. And some of those you're implying are off topic actually raise points you should not ignore. Though you seem unable to respond to them with believable answers to their questions.
Case in point - there are some parallel conversations going on about mental health and that there needs to be a way to disarm folks who may be considered a short term threat. Instead of staying on topic, people start spouting how everyone would be at risk, everyone would have to be monitored, we are giving up rights, etc etc.
Ok, so answer those points. They are not without merit. But I'm sure you've figured out why those concerns can be set aside, so simply explain that and we'll move past those issues. Now, your responses had better be pretty good or you won't convince anyone...
No one is talking about that. We are talking about cases like the Boston bomber, the Ok school shooting....if someone feels strong enough that there is a serious threat..enough to get a restraining order, why is it so bad to temporarily take their guns ? I and others never said "well the neighbors said he is a bit off". And we never said we had the ultimate answer, just that serious threats should be disarmed.
Some folks have a bit of experience with those legal tools and don't agree with how you feel they'd be used, and how Constitutionally enumerated rights would still be protected under a system that forced folks to be disarmed without due process. If you're going to float these ideas, you MUST have those loose ends tied up firmly, or your concept is unworkable. Indeed, MUST not be allowed to be put into practice. The road to hell is, just about literally, paved with such good intentions.
