The aim of argument is to discover a solution to paraphrase Aristotle. Why argue if each party is simply defending their own position? This type of argument is then a waste of time and effort. It is a shouting match engaged in more to vent passions and frustrations than it is to discover any solutions. Pig-headed yahoos bumping heads for no other reason than the fact that they can.
Logic is the basis of order and ordering words and numbers to achieve positive or negative outcomes. 1+1 will ALWAYS equal 2 (unless you have been victimized by public education in the past 20 years, then YMMV). Conversely -1-1 will ALWAYS equal -2. "The sky is blue." is a positive declarative statement. "No trespassing." is a negative declarative statement. Their is no misunderstanding what is meant by these statements. Yes, we can (an do at times) certainly "deconstruct" these statements and ask asinine or genuine questions such as "Just what is meant by blue?" or "No trespassing where?". As you can see, the basis of the question is found in the motives of the person asking. A color blind man might be genuinely attempting to understand blue. A left-liberal anarcho-socialist may be attempting to segue you into something totally unrelated to the issue at hand when he wryly asks "Well, just what is blue?"
In some cases the answers are axiomatic or self-evident. In the question "No trespassing where?" the limit or boundary begins in the immediate context of which it is spoken like when you tell some revenuer that there is no trespassing when he intends to step on your property.. In other places the declaration may be on a sign posted on a pole or on a fence at the edge of some property. Here it is self-evident that the sign means from this line, fence, pole or whatever position and beyond, there is NO trespassing.
Logic may lead to brain surgery and rocket science BUT, you do not need this level of education to employ logic. 1 + 1 = 2 and it works for idiots and geniuses alike. In the equation 1 + 1 = 2 there is no room for arguments or compromise. It simply is. There is nothing to argue.
Regardless of anyone's opinion on the existence or utility of rights as defined in western civilization people will take action to defend themselves when constrained to do so. Regardless of anyone's political views or thoughts on laws and civilizations or society, crimes and aggressions will continue to be perpetrated. Put these two together and you will find that people will when constrained to do so will defend themselves against crimes and aggressions. Today firearms are generally the preferred tool to use by both aggressors and defenders. When firearms were not an available technology both camps employed the preferred or the at-hand technolgy of weaponry prevalent in their times. Rocks, clubs, slings, bows, knives, swords or whatever was available to gain an advantage over the other party. In another millenium people may well use laser weapons or ray guns or whatever technology is available at the time to employ force in aggression or for defense. Then again, we may resort to rocks, slings, clubs and other devices to gain what advantage we may by their use. In any period though it is still the people who will act as criminals or defenders.
Throughout the ages many schemes have been employed to thwart aggressors and criminals in communities. Watchmen, walls around the community, armed guards, shire reeves (sheriffs), militia and today, police. Rarely have any of these schemes been successful in preventing crimes and aggression. Why? Simply because they are a very limited, costly and scarce resource. Since these schemes were devised to thwart the actions of aggressors and criminals, it is no surprise that the aggressors and criminals preferred to act when these defenders are not around. So it still remains to this day that you simply cannot depend on these agents of the state to protect you and yours againt the criminal elements. We are left to defend ourselves.
In order to defend person and property against aggressors and criminals comparable means MUST be at your disposal to effect a good defense against those who would relieve you of your life or property. Today that means firearms. They are not a complete solution. It would certainly be better to have no aggression or crimes at all. Unfortunately, that is unattainable and therefore unrealistic. It would also be great to have personal defenders for each and every person but, that too is unattainable and unrealistic. The only effective solution then is the solution that has been provided for millenia, the means to defend ones self and property. Today, that solution is encapsulated in the personal possession and use of firearms.
Fears, state of residence, the "local mood" the various facets of psychobabbling, letters following one's name, religious beliefs, years of experience, laws, regulations, media effect and opinions, astrological signs and the readings of tea leaves are ALL irrelevant. It is the persistence of life, the basic and fundamental instincts and drives that are inherent in ALL forms of life to survive, continue on and perpetuate the species that causes man to flee or fight in the face of danger that constrains us to defend both person and property. No law or government can reach that deeply into the soul or being of any human to effect the necessary changes to eliminate criminality and aggression in the species, the society, the community, the family or the individual. Only fools and children could believe such fairy tales.
In answer to the original post on this thread is that there can be NO middle ground. There exists no grey area here. There is no room for dialogue. Indeed, there is no need for dialogue for no compromise can exist. It is the nature of the beast. It is the nature of life. After all, 1 + 1 still equals 2.
Chipper
