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
How queer, I came on a forum thread and ended up in the zoo...SOOOoOoOOo bizarre. — 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.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
some manner of regulation — 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.Ah, wait till you hear about the body snatchers. Maybe we're the last real humans Agu! — StreetlightX
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.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
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.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
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.Do excuse my assumption your comment was relevant to the point at issue (i.e. Pelosi and her "slippery slope"). — Baden
No you weren't:We were discussing a specific comment by a specific person and what it meant. — Baden
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.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
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
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
Sounds similar to all discussions about abortion with some leftists >:Otake sincere disagreement by the other side to be a sign of callousness, insanity, or moral inferiority. — Thorongil
The fascination with the rival of the same sex may show some latent homosexuality Freud would tell us.Oh Thoron I don't think you're evil, I think you're fascinating. — StreetlightX
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.