-it starts...
This was the claim you initially made about prior posts:
"when i see the responses that were posted up on the first page of this topic. the majority of respondents were stating the obvious... "guns kill people"."
To which I responded with:
"The majority of respondants made no such point in this thread."
And you return with:
"reread all the posts before yours and tell me there was no anti-gun "guns are bad" rhetoric."
-your first post on this thread was a stunning, profound striking collection of tales of instances in which gun rights have been abused. you said:
Yeah, and look at all the people succesfully defended by militias exercizing their rights to bear arms
- The hispanic families in Arizona whose adopted children were taken from them because Mexicans shouldn't raise white children.
- African Americans massacred at Rosewood (I think that was the name).
- Laborers striking at at Bisbee Arisona in WWI rounded up and held without charges in the middle of the desert.
- Every Civil Rights worker beaten or killed by various pro-segregationists.
- Every black man ever lynched.
øh wait, no those are people who LOST their rights at the hands of gun-toting local militia.
-THIS IS THE RHETORIC I SPEAK OF. what does one say to this? it's like saying we shouldn't drive because people have committed murder with automobiles. and don't say you didn't say we shouldn't have guns. i know you didn't.. but ANYBODY who is honest to themself knows that's exactly what you meant "guns are bad". or if you want to get picky, "militias are bad". not only that, but you bring up militias... now i see that revolutio previously mentioned it, but who's arguing in favor of militias killing people? what's your argument here?
Please not that you have entirely shifted your position on the initial responses.
-is that so? i'm really curious to know what the position originally was and what it is now. because i'm not even sure what my "position" is. what i originally meant to say is that the pacifism and the general lack of support for guns/half-hearted support for removal of individual gun-ownership leads me to believe that the day the 2nd amendment is revoked is not far off. NOW, if you did not previously understand what i meant or what my "position" was, please go back a sentence and you should hopefully understand.
I am now supposed to reread the first thread in order to see if people criticized guns at all, and that will apparently prove that your comment was right and I was wrong to criticize you. But of course your initial claims was that the majority of the prior posts were making the obvious point that guns kill people. I denied that this was an accurate characterization of the initial response to the OP, and I still do. But I have not denied that the majority of critical responses were critical of guns (which would indeed be an obvious point - that you now appear to be making).
-Good, we're getting somewhere. although, that was the point i was TRYING to make all along. but you insisted on arguing a petty, hopeless case against what i MEANT to say. again, read my last paragraph and you will understand what i was trying to say. this will be better than trying to tell me that i changed my mind. my mind was made up all along.
If you wish to reformulate your own position, then feel free, but please do so honestly.
-thank you sir, for giving me the opportunity.
And before you lecture others on the need to read through the materials, you really ought to read your own posts to make sure you understand them.
-i do just fine, thank you
Calling something rhetoric does not amount to a refutation, and it is of course rhetoric in itself, decidely more vaccuous rhetoric than anything to which you are responding.
-so you've figured out how to make an argument go in circles. saying that what i call 'rhetoric' is rhetoric itself is a circular argument; one that i refuse to participate in. it's a yes, no, yes, no argument. also, if you weren't saying i was like a member of the NRA, then what were you saying? why did you even bring it up then?
Note also, that I didn't complain about failure to agree, but about failure to listen to what others say.
-really? well then what's this?...
And the complete and tota refusal to listen even, much less agree, with the views of those with opposing views
-refusal to listen, and WAIT...WAIT... THERE IT IS: "total refusal to listen even, much less AGREE with the views of those with opposing views". looks A LOT to me like you were complaining about the failure to agree. i don't know about you, but i don't agree with opposing views for the sake of being thought of as tolerant or anything...
the Second Amendment is persistantly advocated by those who have little use for anyone outside a narrow political spectrum, and as such they will never stand up for anyone's rights but their own
-not only rhetoric, but stereotypical rhetoric. predictable rhetoric. even worse, it's such vague rhetoric i'm not even sure what you're arguing here...
Revolutio in post # 2 is the only one who made the comment that guns kill people
-so you admit it. AND, with the addition of your anecdotes of guns gone bad (or militias, not sure which one, or if both), that makes two. then there's philosoft. HE'S obviously not pro-gun. so there's 3! SO... there were 5 respondents on the first page. you, philosoft, and revolutio were obviously not pro-gun, but rather MUCH more accurately categorized as anti-gun (regardless of how adamantly you oppose them. just because you're not in an anti-gun club or protesting on the streets doesn't mean you can't be anti-gun). since 3 of 5 people were anti-gun, that would mean MAJORITY were anti-gun!!! what more evidence do you want?
1) You ignore Revolutios argument about militia.
2) You ignore Philosoft's critique of the feasibility of defense by private gun owners.
3) You ignore my comments about the historical use of guns by locals protecting their rights.
4) You ignore Philo's response to BC on the UN.
-what do you mean i "ignored" them? i was supposed to pick apart every single post by every single respondent in this thread and try to disprove it? i'm not as insane as you must think...
Your characterization of his position would certainly be a straw man
-thank you for showing us your excellence in vocabulary by borrowing philosoft's term. <strokes beard and agrees> and finally...
So, out of the 4 critical posts, the element you picked out was PART OF ONE OF THEM. And now you wish to defend your characterization by shifting to a broader statemen to the effect that people were saying guns were bad. But you know what, even that would be inaccurate. Revolutio made that comment, but both Philo and I were responding to speciic arguments made in favor of gun ownership. So, even you fall-back position is an inaccurate characterization of the initial posts. And that is exactly what I am talking about,
-guess what? more rhetoric. what a surprise. too much to respond to. well, let me try. didn't shift to a broader statement or change my mind or position (if you think a change from a sarcastic "guns kill people" to a sarcastic "guns are bad" is a change in position, then you're in for a hard reality check. AND you weren't responding to pro-gun arguments with crafty logic, you were responding with a semi-relevant attack on guns and/or militias. AND my fall-back position is the same as my initial one.
THE PERSISTANT AND DELIBERATE DISMISSAL OF ALTERNATIVEE VIEWS WITHOUT EVEN TAKING THE TIME TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY ARE. No, people with such contempt for difference will never be defenders of American rights.
-that's absolutely right. the REAL defenders of american rights are those who accept and agree with ALL opposing arguments, the tolerant, weak-minded, easily swayed people person who is too concerned about what others think and is afraid to take a stand for what he believes in less confrontation arises. i mean, THOSE are the people who built this country, right? WRONG. if everyone was as understanding and as open-minded as you during World War II, we'd all be speaking German right now. but wait... why don't you accept my argument? it's opposite of yours, isn't it? well it sounds a lot to me like you've got a bit of contempt for difference as well. the grand finale...
Responsible gun owners do not back such rhetoric. The pro-gun lobby does, however, and in so doing it betrays America; it does not defend it.
-gun lobby bad, nra bad, guns bad. tolerance good, accepting all opposing viewpoints, good. for next time, try to keep your response under 4 posts. you have no idea how long it took me to respond to all of that. let's keep it simple. 
also, reply to this if you like, but i think that's about it for me. maybe i'll come back and read it but it just takes too much time to argue in circles. it's safe to say that both of us have made issues out of non-issues. my grand finale: i won't be changing your mind with anything i could possibly write in here, and you won't be changing mine, so why bother...
