Skip to main content

View Diary: "One Million Moms" vs. a NYT must-read: "Selling a New Generation on Guns" (151 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Never said you were taking away *all* the guns. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose, ban nock, PavePusher

    That would be impractical and you need not repeat yourself on an issue not raised.

    I see your problem is with the particular organizations and firearms involved.  I acknowledge that and accept it, but I also point out I have different interests.  I want to encourage the next generation to safely and responsible exercise their Second Amendment rights, and providing  outlets like shooting competitions is one way to achieve that end.  We'll have to agree to disagree, since we're at the point where our difference boils down to this than personal taste.

    •  sorry (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, lyvwyr101, FogCityJohn

      my repetition was meant to say that your time fact checking would be better spent with those that expouse that myth than questioning people here, who by and large  imo are a pretty well informed and well intentioned bunch.

      •  The ones who believe that are few. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, ban nock, PavePusher

        And largely irrelevant.  And more importantly, it doesn't matter since they still obviously have their guns and aren't going to do anything until somebody actually tries to take them away.

        On the other hand, I do feel obligated correct mistakes your side makes, especially since they do bear directly on matters near and dear to my heart.  After all, we are on opposite sides of this issue.

        •  But their voices are louder and nuttier than (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher, Smoh, lyvwyr101

          ...the voices of respectful, common-sense gun owners.
          You guys have to speak up too, lest people classify ALL gun owners as being in league with the nuttiest fringe among you.

          Everybody got to elevate from the norm....

          by Icicle68 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 09:50:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am speaking up. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, ban nock, PavePusher

            I resent that I have to, because thinking people should know better than to paint with a broad brush.  I know others who won't precisely for that reason; there's a lot of mistrust, the demagoguery is hardly one sided, and when you get down to it we really are of opposing views on this.

            •  I understand what you're saying, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, Smoh, lyvwyr101

              ...but thinking that way won't solve the problem. This is democracy, and those who choose not to be involved in it will not get favorable results by assuming that those who control the levers of power will remember that their group exists.
              I think it would be quite constructive if responsible gun owners would take a stand for the ground that they hold, and differentiate themselves from the crazies. Otherwise, as I said, the loudest, craziest noises will be drowning out everything else.

              Everybody got to elevate from the norm....

              by Icicle68 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 10:29:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, it is a democracy. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose, PavePusher

                And it can easily go the other way.  And gun owners are considerably more engaged on these issues than others, which is why we've been winning for the past decade.  I'm not here to defend Wayne LaPierre or the NRA to people who are hardwired to hate them, and for my part I'm not impressed the fecklessness of their accuracy, or by the overpriced buffoonery from GOA.  SAF does good work in the courts, but that's about it.

                That said, I'm also not here to grant quarter to the gun control lobby or budge an inch on the 2A.  Still, this debate raises legitimate issues.  We can't simply say "well, it's not our problem" for the simple reason that it surrenders the stage to people who know a hell of a lot more about despising gun owners than protecting the public from gun violence..  So we have to be proactive, and that's the sort of activism I hope to see blossom on this site.  If we actually achieve something, we'll have the additional benefit of splitting yet another currently natural consistuency for the GOP.

                •  Hello new user (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bobswern, Burned

                  Since you've only been here a few days, please allow me to offer some gentle advice about DailyKos etiquette.  It is generally not considered good form to attack those with whom you disagree by characterizing them as somehow emotionally disturbed or incapable of rational thought.  Thus, statements such as this are to be avoided:

                  I'm not here to defend Wayne LaPierre or the NRA to people who are hardwired to hate them[.]
                  Most of the people here on DK are not "hardwired to hate" anyone.  We disagree with the NRA's positions on policy grounds, which is why we find LaPierre and his ilk unpersuasive.  Your attempt to cast valid policy disagreements as the result of some kind of unreasoning, emotional response is inappropriate.

                  For similar reasons, the following statement is out of bounds:

                  We can't simply say "well, it's not our problem" for the simple reason that it surrenders the stage to people who know a hell of a lot more about despising gun owners than protecting the public from gun violence..
                   

                  Again, you attempt to frame a policy disagreement as something other than that.  Instead, you claim people who favor gun control simply "despis[e] gun owners."  In addition, you also claim those who favor gun control don't know much about protecting the public from gun violence.  Since you've complained elsewhere about people painting with too broade a brush, you should be able to understand why your comment is uncalled for.

                  I hope you'll take this advice to heart.  Charging that those who disagree with you do so only because they suffer from some kind of emotional disturbance does you no credit personally.  Nor is that kind of argument ad hominem considered persuasive in these parts.  Indeed, it tends to suggest that your susbtantive arguments aren't strong enough to stand on their own, so you have to resort to name-calling.  And you wouldn't want to make that kind of first impression, would you?

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:59:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site