OMG THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY ALL OUR GUNS FOR EVER AND EVER. What kind of response is that? It's paranoid delusional. — StreetlightX

SOOOoOoOOo bizarre. — StreetlightX

How queer, I came on a forum thread and ended up in the zoo...

I've never pretended I don't like monkeying around. But really, I've no serious response to Thorongil's posts other than incredulity. When recourse to the most extreme scenarios is the first instinct, there's no serious discussion to be had.

I suppose it's the same person who said that we ought to be "banning all guns or passing regulations that make it nearly impossible to own one". The point being that I can play this stupid game of hypotheticals and intention projection too. An entirely irrelevant, idiotic game. — StreetlightX

Except it's not a stupid game, because the left sometimes openly claims to want to do just that. That's why the right has to be careful. What did Saul Alinsky say in Rules For Radicals? Introduce change gradually - by the time they realise it will be too late to go back. Look what the left claims with regards to abortion now - too late to go back.

And Alinsky's not the only one - left-wing agitators continuously use this double speech, and frequently openly claim that they want to use gradual changes in order to implement more radical ones.

some manner of regulation — StreetlightX

Just look at you squirm here! It does refer to "some manner" of regulation, yes, but not the kind Pelosi et al want. That was precisely the point I just got done making.

Ah, wait till you hear about the invasion body snatchers. Maybe we're the last real humans Agu! The things you can imagine and fantasize about if only you put your mind to it...

Ah, the classic 'you can't defend the point you never brought up to begin with can you?' tactic. Really got me there! At least 12 squirms you got outta me.

Ah, wait till you hear about the body snatchers. Maybe we're the last real humans Agu! — StreetlightX

Given my interest in strategy you shouldn't discount the fact that I've read Alinsky's manual, and have actually paid close attention to how the left goes about trying to implement its policies. This isn't about the gun debate now (I probably side closer to you than to Thorongil on that one), but a discussion of principle. I can understand why people on the right in US are so protective of pro-gun legislation - because there are some actual crazies on the left who really want to take all guns away.

Don't you start or I may have to return as the thread undead back to haunt Thorongil with annoyingly humorous comments he only half appreciates (the first half).

Speaking of humour: Pelosi as left-wing agitator - the woman who can't even bring herself to say the words "Universal Healthcare". Please, I'm choking on your rotting brains.

Speaking of humour: Pelosi as left-wing agitator - the woman who can't even bring herself to say the words "Universal Healthcare". Please, I'm choking on your rotting brains. — Baden

Sure, except I never mentioned anything about Pelosi :-d - nor did I claim she is a left-wing agitator. But there are many such people in the US.

Yes, all those crazies, look at them, trying to do something - anything - about the extraordinary disproportion of gun related deaths in the US. Madness incarnate. Better watch out for that insidious threat than the actual threat of real life deaths!

Yes, all those crazies, look at them, trying to do something - anything - about the extraordinary disproportion of gun related deaths in the US. Madness incarnate. — StreetlightX

If they only wanted to implement a minimal change and restrict access to automatic machine guns, assault rifles, and the like I'd have little to no problem. The issue is that they CLAIM to want only that, while in truth they want to use that as a stepping stone for future changes of law. I may be wrong, but I remember Michael openly expressing approval for such a strategy in a similar context awhile ago.

Do excuse my assumption your comment was relevant to the point at issue (i.e. Pelosi and her "slippery slope" comment).

Do excuse my assumption your comment was relevant to the point at issue (i.e. Pelosi and her "slippery slope"). — Baden

It was relevant, but that isn't to say that Pelosi was addressed as a left-wing agitator. My comment was at a more general level to explain why people on the right are reluctant to agree with those on the left with regards to guns.

Oh look I make no secret about where I stand. I said it in the shoutbox but I think people thought I was joking. All gun carriers should be wearing blinking LED vests and matching hats that mark them as gun carriers. Perhaps a little automated sound loop which shouts I HAVE A GUN every 90 seconds or so. By all means, do this and don't ban a thing.

Obviously that would be another way to funnel money out of the state and raise taxes X-)

I was responding to this false statement you made: "So I put it that the lack of regulation on firearm use is what is unconstitutional, and not the other way around."

That's the third time quoting it. Did you know the "manner" of the regulation in question, as the founders understood that word, when you made this comment? Do you even now? I think not. When you hear the word "regulation," you think of measures like those Pelosi and the Democratic party want to enact. Stop playing dumb.

We were discussing a specific comment by a specific person and what it meant. And you think it's helpful to bring in other people who are not that person and talk about what they mean instead. OK. Thanks.

Yes, I'm playing dumb because I'm the one who thinks it's remotely feasible that the democratic party wants to - and can - ban all guns or make it impossible to own one. Yes, I'm the one not attuned to any remote sense of political reality here. Me.

/s

We were discussing a specific comment by a specific person and what it meant. — Baden

No you weren't:

Pelosi just said that she "hopes" currently proposed regulations are a "slippery slope." So I think proponents of the second amendment have a genuine concern about the intentions of those who push for greater regulations. — Thorongil

You were disucssing a situation of which Pelosi is just one example. "Those who push for greater regulations" and their intentions are under question. That's not just Pelosi.

I honestly doubt that you and Baden, for example, would shed a tear if guns were abolished outright. Michael in fact wants this to happen. — Thorongil

And me. Don't forget about me. I was perhaps the most vociferous.

As for the topic, I've said a lot about this already over the last few days, so I refer you to those comments of mine made mostly in the Shoutbox, or, if you like, I can move them over here.

What should be highlighted in here is the authoritarian view taken by the left. Namely that they don't really care in the end - that's how they've always tricked the right. Gradual change, gradual change - and then it's too late because the radical change has already happened. Some admit to the radical change openly, like Michael.

And what do the Cardassians think of all this?

And what do the Cardassians think of all this? — Baden

I have no clue. Shall we write them a letter of invitation to a discussion on the forums? May get us some publicity ;)

I take it all back. You're a genius. :D

Yes, all those crazies, look at them, trying to do something - anything - about the extraordinary disproportion of gun related deaths in the US. Madness incarnate. — StreetlightX

I love it. The clear implication being: "if you don't agree with what I want done, you're not doing anything and don't want to do anything."

Leftist tactics in a nutshell: take sincere disagreement by the other side to be a sign of callousness, insanity, or moral inferiority. Don't dispute the points they make. No, just go straight for the ad hominem. There's really no use arguing with someone who thinks other people are evil for disagreeing about how best to solve societal problems, no matter how much the latter acknowledge the problems and want to try and solve them.

take sincere disagreement by the other side to be a sign of callousness, insanity, or moral inferiority. — Thorongil

Sounds similar to all discussions about abortion with some leftists >:O

The thing with many leftists is that they really don't care about what the other thinks, they just care about doing anything to get their policies implemented.

I take it all back. You're a genius. :D — Baden

X-)

Oh Thoron I don't think you're evil, I think you're fascinating.

Oh Thoron I don't think you're evil, I think you're fascinating. — StreetlightX

The fascination with the rival of the same sex may show some latent homosexuality Freud would tell us.

Oh the things I'd do...