A liberal with a gun

[Frenchy]

A very long time ago, a much wiser man then myself said you can hate the person’s views, but not the person, He then continued to say, “You have to respect your opponent even if you don’t agree with his views.” This is a derivative of a Christian saying that says hate the sin not the sinner.

The words where spoken by Pierre Elliott Trudeau to his son when he was speaking about Rene Levesque (Canadian politicians).

Many times here in posts people forget we are allowed to have opinions, people trash other people and not the opinion, and it becomes a person to person debate, not a views debate.

Who is better on a late night show: Jay Leno or Conan O’Brian? I personally think Jay hits the spot better, (Personal view) now some one may say Jay is just a jerk.. So I would say he shows the public’s view better, makes jokes in a way to make people reflect on things… then the person debating this with me might turn it personal, say I am a jerk for enjoying Leno!

Can you see how this happens in the threads here? The debate turns from one thing (a view or opinion) to personal (You’re a jerk, you’re an a$$ Hole) Many times it will go off topic and then people get all defensive because some thing they read and think was in support of some one and not their view was directed at them.

I have seen all too many times where some one will turn a debate platform into a personal bash on some one, no names specified, it is not always the same people. But there are times where if you read the thread right, you can see the deviation from opinion to verbal assault. It is not surprising when this happens that some one leaves the forum or retaliates with an attack against the other person.

I have actually seen people here attack verbally people who actually supported their argument. To a point it almost seems to become a habit for some people.
We have one of the best boards here at PAFOA for debate and regrouping of firearm owners in any state. Do we really want to destroy each other personally?

I have had a few people bash me here in the past, they went personal and I dropped out of the debate. Heck, there is even one thread where if you read it, no longer makes sense because I actually deleted what I had said to try and stop the personal attack that was happening. I believed in my views, but obviously the few other people debating there ran out of arguments and resorted to name calling.
It is one thing to show people where you stand on a topic, quite some thing else to attack others because their view is different. Every once in a while we get some one coming on to antagonize us, they post a topic, and then stop and just watch us totally bash each others. Then there are those who come here to post only facts, they do not debate, they do not respond to anything, they just post a fact and watch us debate it. Then there are the ones who just pick at what is being debated, they don’t seem to care what side they are on, they just want to debate it. Many times, their posts on one thread completely contradict what they stated on some prior post. Are they “Devils Advocates?” Change of mind? It is possible, but they some times also seem to debate only the same people, always bringing back the same Things. In some other thread, the topic of being 302’ed comes up and at some point, people got fed up and said this has been hashed before, it’s a beaten horse… But no one seems to notice when the same people bring forth posts that will antagonize the group. No one screams beaten horse or troll to the post. They just beat each other over the head and start calling each others names.
Certain posts can only lead to live debating; I mean when you put a political party on the platform, you’re bound to hear many views. But it does not have to fall as low as name calling.
Try to remember we are mainly all on the same side here; we defend the same ideas and values. Hot topics will always get a bit out of hand, there will always be some side tracking, and some request to go back on topic, but in my opinion, many threads have been closed here because they went to hell in a hand basket and turned to name calling. Let’s try and act as the respectable Citizens and adults we are and not stoop that low.
People learn from debate, they adapt themselves to one way of thinking because one side is more logical then the other, but when name calling starts, they suddenly drop out because they feel “they” where also targeted by the name.

In my view, the person being called a name may lose some respect, but the person calling the names often suffers a larger burden. When it becomes constant, they lose more respect then they gain.

Think about it guys.
Now back to the topic A liberal with a gun:

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

You want to dismiss your above post as a simple mistake, go ahead. But quite frankly, when someone is debating me, I at least know who I'm debating with. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh here, but I'm not buying it.

With that said, I have no intention of banning you. If you've ever read my posts on similar issues in the past, you'll find that I'm the type that would rather give people enough rope to hang themselves than have to do it myself. IMHO, everyone here makes their own reputation in the eyes of their peers through the content of their posts.

As for your statement above about "insults and childish retorts": I have no intention of spending time going over posts in countless other threads. However, in the context of this thread, billamj was the one you were debating with, I didn't see any comment made by him which warranted some of the comments you made.

And, I don't think we're better off without you; as I said, I've found many of your arguments to be well written. As for the vice versa case, that's up to you.

That's all I have to say on this, as I have no desire to take the thread off-topic any further.

Again, the issue I have is, it's okay for someone to come along and ADD NOTHING to a thread except insults against another member, and you simply skip over that and come at me because I made a hasty mistake. Whom I replied to is of little relevance, the post I replied to was bullshit and it shouldn't be tolerated here if you're going to chastise someone because they make a mistake in responding to such an attack.

Originally Posted by phillyd2

Seriously, are you really such a A-hole in real life or is this the only place you can be such a dismissive dick? Or maybe just misunderstood like them freedom loving Dems? Serious question, honest. You have many good (or at least interesting) comments but what's with the stick up your ass, post after post after post after post......?

For you to even think of coming at me over this, when I was at least discussing the thread in question and the above post from philly was NOTHING more than an insulting troll post is bullshit. It had nothing to do with the thread, he wasn't even participating prior to that, he came here and made that post for no other reason than to directly attack another member. But oh god, NineseveN made a mistake in whom he was replying to, let's get him!


Make of that what you will, but I could really care less what you think of my explanation when you're seemingly fine with people attacking others while contributing NOTHING to the discussion at hand. I really don't care. I'm done with this thread. If anyone wants to directly attack me further, apparently, that jives with fine'n'dandy here at PAFOA. Enjoy your evening everyone.

[XD45]

i'd agree we don't need to have 2nd class gun owners or however you want to put it, theres alot of us, but if you split us into 2 groups we are done for. we need to come together no matter our small differences because we need as many people as possible fighting for our cause

[novice]

Originally Posted by billamj

Can you tell me of one time in recent history where the republican party has held enough of a majority of both houses of congress that they could shove anything down the democrats throats? You can't and the reason for that is that the dems decided to force the repubs into a position where a simple majority is not enough to pass a bill or an amendment through the senate even though that is technically unconstitutional.

Just want to point out that under the constitution, as a separate branch of government, the houses of Congress make their own rules. The filibuster, or cloture, rule in the Senate has existed since the beginning of the Republic, and it's entirely constitutional. The courts can't touch the Senate's rules of debate.

One of the most memorable uses of the filibuster in recent times was by conservatives trying to stop civil rights legislation. Maybe that should be instructive, since RKBA is a civil right, too, like the freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search, right to due process and all the rest.

As for liberals with guns, the right of citizens to bear arms is one of the great liberal principles guaranteed by our constitution but in almost none of the other present-day democracies. Our left-wingers are anti-liberal on gun rights.

[NineseveN]

Billamj sent me a PM about this, I won't quote what he sent me, but I figured my response was better left as public record. I'm not checking this thread, just posting this here and I'm gonna try and be done with it...


Billamj,
"You're completely right, that (the following around bit) was an unintended, yet absolute mischaracterization of your behavior. I apologize (for whatever that's worth). The more I go back and read, yeah, I still think you've been a jerk, but the direct attacks generally haven't come from your direction. For whatever reason, that's how I had remembered it, but that was not correct, at least not in any relatively recent discussion."

[phillyd2]

To 97 I would like to personally apologize that my words were not as well written as that of CR who in a much more professional way said what I meant.

Dude, quite simply - its not what you say but how you say it. You consistently dismiss and hold in contempt those who do dares disagree with your point of view. If you consider this all a conspiracy by some members to "follow you around" well that's on you but I am sorry that you feel that way.

If it is your feeling that others add nothing, that they are stupid for thinking their way, that they do not stick with the topic as you see it.....well, I'm also really sorry for it but that's just something you are going to have to deal with like you have to in real life.

Nobody is after you. We respect you and value your input and I would be the first to stand up for you if CR even considered a ban - which he is not. All I'm asking it a bit more tolerance for views that do not share yours. Disagree if you want but your tone takes away from what may be a reasoned point. Of course you are still free to do as you please.

Again, sorry for the 2x4 to the head.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by phillyd2

To 97 I would like to personally apologize that my words were not as well written as that of CR who in a much more professional way said what I meant.

Is this going to be the apology thread now?

Dude, quite simply - its not what you say but how you say it. You consistently dismiss and hold in contempt those who do dares disagree with your point of view… If it is your feeling that others add nothing, that they are stupid for thinking their way, that they do not stick with the topic as you see it.....well, I'm also really sorry for it but that's just something you are going to have to deal with like you have to in real life.

Disagreeing with an opinion is one thing, to get all bent out of shape when an opinion doesn’t jive with the currently offered facts or one asks for support with something other than ‘because I said so’ is absolutely lame.

It’s simple really, you won’t see me jumping on someone for saying ‘I love Glocks, they’re awesome’ even though I hate them personally, but when they say ‘Glocks were the first firearms to use polymer, so they’re better than all of the other guns that copied them’ (Remington Nylon 66 and HK VP70 predate the Glock), I’m going to correct them because that’s simply not true (the polymer part at least, the rest is opinion).

Or, as another example, if someone states that handguns have a 100% first shot kill ratio, and I refute that with FBI, UCR, DOJ or whatever data, if that person comes back and completely ignores that and continues with a story on how they saw a guy shot once and he went down in one shot, somehow I’m the a-hole because I belittle that argument (the argument, not the person)? I’m sorry, I just don’t see it that way.

Or, as one last illustration, to make a play on Frenchy’s example:

If the topic was, ‘Who has a stronger audience following on a late night show: Jay Leno or Conan O’Brian?’ One person could say they think it’s Leno, he’s funnier, has better guests and is on a stronger network while another could say that Conan is better because his material is more original and less mainstream. Neither of those have anything to do with the topic at hand, so if a third party comes along and states that prior posts haven’t really been relevant, the truth is that Leno has always had a better following according to Neilsen ratings, which may correspond with the better time slot he’s in, I don’t give a crap how much someone hates being corrected or confronted with verifiable information, if they try and spin it and turn their response into an attack on the poster, the one doing the attacking is in the wrong.

To me, the problem arises when people simply reply with things like “that’s your opinion and you’re stupid”, “you argue like a little girl” or “you’re an A-hole” and/or resort to Ad Hominem attacks, ESPECIALLY when that is the entire crux of their post.

As far as others not sticking to the topic as I see it, that really has nothing to do with it. If you ask a question which is at the base of the argument at hand, and I ignore it, when you ask it again, does that make it okay for me to reply “Dude, take the stick out of your ass”? The problem is, some people can’t handle being corrected or not having their argument taken on their word alone. Some people are afraid to admit that they don’t know something, One could have simply answered my question about true pro-gun bills by saying, ‘I really don’t know, but that’s not the only thing that matters…what matters to me is…”. But, instead of just admitting that, they ignore the point/question, so if I don’t drop it right then and there, I’m an “a-hole” right? Just so I get this right, I want to be clear so that I can discuss things in the proper way without inviting more personal attacks despite my repeated pleas for it to stop or offered agreements to disagree when it comes down to pure opinion in other threads. Seeing as they haven’t stopped, I just lodge my own in response instead of acting like a “little girl” and asking that we not resort to such childish things. I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t apparently.

In the end, I may not take your argument seriously, I may even refute it with factual evidence, but you’re free to offer your own without complaint from me, but what I won’t stand for is turning the discussion into direct attacks and Ad Hominem against me. It’s one thing to belittle someone’s argument, that doesn’t give one the right to go and directly belittle the person without retaliation. If I say that an argument is silly and not supported by facts X, Y and Z, and the arguer comes back and says, “Dude, you’re a [insert insult here]”, that’s not gonna fly.

But then again, who am I to say, I’m the asshole, right? That I mistakenly replied to your post as if you were part of this discussion (ala Billamj) is of no importance in evaluating the inappropriateness of your attack. The portions of my response in regards to this thread specifically are totally off point, but the characterization of your MO and the attack itself, that I’ll stand by.


And not to ignore Frenchy’s excellent post, he’s pretty much right on the mark, it’s just that the practice is easier said than done. The thread probably could have ended there and ended on a positive note. So Frenchy, you need to post something else now. If anyone wants to continue to discuss person-specific stuff, PM’s are probably best, no one wants to read this crap here (not even those of us doing the discussing of said things I’m sure).