Monday, November 18, 2013

‘Constructive conversation’ on guns precluded by ‘progressive’ goals and tactics

No constructive dialog is possible with people who omit and misrepresent the facts. No recognition is owed those who casually dismiss fundamental rights and ridicule opposing, well-substantiated viewpoints as “paranoia,” as Weiss did here. No concessions can be given to people whose only interest is to keep gaining and then occupying ground, and once that’s secured to press for more.


Anonymous said...

"Constructive Conversation" -- They tell us what knuckle draggers we are and how our childish hobbies and misunderstanding of the obvious meaning of the Second Amendment will lead to deaths of many more innocents. Then after we have silently reflected on our folly we meekly hand over part of what they left us after our last Constructive Conversation. Then perhaps as long as a week later, they start nagging us for another Constructive Conversation. Meanwhile, the "urban youth" of Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia continue to kill each other in wholesale lots with whatever weapons come to hand. I'm still waiting for a call from The Justice Brothers (Revs. Al and Jessie) to ban 4x4 lumber.

Anonymous said...

The most mentioned phrase I hear is "common sense measures". The problem is that for rational people, "common sense" means an innate logic that allows the average person to reach a conclusion that is, by nature of its simplicity, self-evident.

The progressive/liberal definition of "common sense" seems to be the absolute submission to and agreement with their opinions, otherwise you are simply a (insert insult here).

Rational people know that to poke a sleeping grizzly with a stick is devoid of common sense. If you're waiting for an explanation to the preceding sentence, then you must be a progressive who wouldn't comprehend the explanation anyway.

What progressive cultists don't understand is that the incessant petty insults and brow-beating has a cumulative effect. That effect is the gradual but steady laying of a foundation of resentment and anger that eventually boils over into full blown hatred. At that point, the results become predictably unpredictable.

The progressives still have time to avoid a countdown to an inevitable conflict. What progressives lack is the common sense required to stop poking the bear. Those with common sense know that means we're all headed for a bleak world of shit if the current course is maintained.

Anonymous said...

"No concessions can be given to people whose only interest is to keep gaining and then occupying ground, and once that’s secured to press for more."

To me, that's a goal of any side participating in a political (or any other) conversation. Keep pushing and gaining ground for YOUR side. Take it away from The Other Side.

The real question becomes, WHY are you pushing and gaining ground for your side? What is your MOTIVE? In this case, is it to further the ends of collectivism and statism? Or is it to further the side of individual liberty and freedom?

B Woodman

Anonymous said...

"What progressives lack is the common sense required to stop poking the bear."

Not too long ago we read the story of a woman who climbed over the barriers and into a bear habitat in a zoo in Germany with rather predictable results. I don't remember if there was any reference to the political leanings of the woman, but the German authorities were enlightened enough not to blame the bear for the results of the woman's foolishness.

Anonymous said...

Woodman -
GREAT COMMENT! I was thinking the exact same thing!
Today's discourse is often limited to he " should we or shouldn't we" level and that's often controlled by emotion so as to avoid the "can we or can't we" level of discussion.

For to argue the merits on the latter level means posing and ANSWERING the exact question you posed!

Well done, Sir.
Mike III

Ken said...

Can't have a constructive conversation with someone who argues in bad faith as a matter of principle.

Paul X said...

I actually once had a conversation with a gun control proponent that was very unusual. It was unusual because he was honest and did not resort to logical fallacies and other such crutches. Eventually he changed his mind about gun control.

It happens, but not very often. Fortunately it doesn't matter what "they" think about guns. It matters only what we think about them. They can disarm us only if we go along, and I don't intend to...