NRA sounds like Russian Trolls

[Quetzal]

Evidence for this fantasy?

I had welts on my back for weeks- oh... uh oh... wrong fantasy.

 

[sealchan]

I should state that research has shown that mentally ill people are no more likely to commit acts of violence than non-mentally ill people. It is violent people who I worry about, those with police records, etc...

For the record I think I would be in favor of allowing certified teachers have a non-automatic weapon available in their classroom if it is stored securely and not advertised to the classroom. I think that a responsible citizen with a gun is one of the best deterents to violent individuals who want to indiscriminately kill because of their inner psychological conflict.

Hell, let the violent get a hand gun...they just don't need an automatic weapon so they can spray an unarmed crowd with death.

How many people here who think I am being unreasonable would say that as an American citizen protected by the second amendment should have free and unregulated access to shoulder mounted missile launchers? Anyone? That way a terrorist without a record could freely enter the country, buy such a weapon (no regulation to stop it) and then go down the road blowing up churches on Sunday and hospitals and...

 

[metis]

I should state that research has shown that mentally ill people are no more likely to commit acts of violence than non-mentally ill people.

You are correct as the percentage of people certified as being mentally ill actually have a lower chance of committing a homicide than the national norm.

 

[Curious George]

I am wanting dialog, compromise, rational discussion...saying people are unpatriotic for having such discussions is itself unpatriotic as it indicates it is not for an American to even consider.

And the best way to achieve this is to engage in the same sort of rhetoric which those you criticize are engaged?

 

[Revoltingest]

I had welts on my back for weeks- oh... uh oh... wrong fantasy.

Please.....continue.
Enquiring minds, you know.

 

[sealchan]

And the best way to achieve this is to engage in the same sort of rhetoric which those you criticize are engaged?

My point was to call out divisive ways of speaking...not to discuss gun regulations. My goal was to identify a self-defeating actor on the political stage and hope for its reform. My title makes a comparison not an accusation. It was provocative but it was also aimed at promoting free speech and calling out those who wish to humiliate to suppress it.

I did engage in the same sort of rhetoric but for a different purpose. The difference in purpose provides a context that i can live with. I see it as an effort at irony on my part rather than an accusation. Apparently as one poster has shown there is some possibility of reality behind my controversial rhetoric. Didn't know that, but I am not entirely surprised.

 

[esmith]

The NRA used to be an inclusive group organized around the needs of people involved with shooting sports. They have now become part of the gun-worshiping lunatic fringe. It's not surprising that Putin would want to support them to undermine our system of government.

I've posted in other threads a link or two to very much pro-2nd amendment people who disagree with the NRA's position that there is no reason to try to stop people with mental problems or even terrorists from buying guns and rifles, especially of the AR-15 class.

I seriously take offense at your branding me as a gun-worshiping lunatic fringe. I may love firearms but I'm not a lunatic...I've been tested.

 

[suncowiam]

I seriously take offense at your branding me as a gun-worshiping lunatic fringe. I may love firearms but I'm not a lunatic...I've been tested.

How have you been tested, since you brought it up and I'm curious?

 

[esmith]

How have you been tested, since you brought it up and I'm curious?

Well you see it went like this: I had to go to this testing place and there were two doors, the one on the Left was labeled Liberal the one on the Right was labeled Conservative. If I went through the wrong door I would be considered a lunatic.....I chose the right one which was the right one and they said I was sane.

 

[suncowiam]

Well you see it went like this: I had to go to this testing place and there were two doors, the one on the Left was labeled Liberal the one on the Right was labeled Conservative. If I went through the wrong door I would be considered a lunatic.....I chose the right one which was right and they said I was sane.

Common... You just invalidated your own argument.

Seriously. I would have agreed to some form of testing as you suggested but now that sounds like a fib...

Want to try again?

 

[esmith]

Common... You just invalidated your own argument.

Seriously. I would have agreed to some form of testing as you suggested but now that sounds like a fib...

Want to try again?

Well to be truthful the real test is as follows:
What is the difference between a fairy tail and a sea story?
What can a man do standing up, a woman sitting down, and a dog on three legs?
What is a four letter word ending in k that means to have interconnect?
What does a cow have four of and a woman only two?'
What is round and hard and sticks out of man's pajamas and you can hang your hat on?

If you can answer all five truthfully then you are sane.

 

[suncowiam]

Well to be truthful the real test is as follows:
What is the difference between a fairy tail and a sea story?
What can a man do standing up, a woman sitting down, and a dog on three legs?
What is a four letter word ending in k that means to have interconnect?
What does a cow have four of and a woman only two?'
What is round and hard and sticks out of man's pajamas and you can hang your hat on?

If you can answer all five truthfully then you are sane.

Sane enough to own a gun apparently.

Ok then. I don't think there's much more to venture here.

 

[Mister Emu]

I am wanting dialog, compromise, rational discussion...

You presumably want additional regulation for gun ownership, so what are you offering in return that would constitute compromise?

rational discussion

Here's an analogy...if calling someone unpatriotic is like firing a gun at someone

Hmm?

 

[sealchan]

I understand the concern that many people raise about all of this being about two sides with a different perspective, but there is a limit to such relativistic thinking...not every opinion is as valid as another's and not every opinion is as sincere or compassionate.

Valid concerns based on logic, experience, empathy or insight are valuable to everyone when expressed. But opinions which question the value of others who disagree with you, that go far beyond the topic at hand and call into question your own understanding of what civil discourse should be in an open and democratic society, that should be vigorously identified and called out. When you say "you are unpatriotic" for a specific belief then you should be prepared to back that up with something like reason and/or wisdom. Unfortunately there is no way to backup committing the fallacy of the continuum which states that taking a step toward an extreme, no matter how small, is the same as intending that extreme as an ultimate end. This is just plain wrong and is often used in heated rhetoric to make the other side emotional.

I will admit that I did play that game to some extent, I called out a president of an organization for his divisive way of expressing himself and used an intentionally divisive way of speaking in doing so. For that I will now apologize. However, those who might criticize me for this can now hear what I could have said that is more direct and to the point.

When respected representatives of political organizations use language to call into question the validity of those who disagree with that representatives in a scope far beyond the topic at hand it indicates the following:

• That representative holds an extreme position even within the organization they purport to represent
• That representative has resorted to irrational (error of the continuum in this case) statements out of the emotionality of their opinion
• That representative does a disservice to fair and open political discourse and has, in their small way, done a disservice to the democracy they are a part of
• That representative appears to be afraid or insecure about their position or feel somehow threatened by the opinions of others (hence their emotionality)
• That representative shows signs that they may be amenable to more extreme measures if public opinion continues to provoke them

 

[sealchan]

You presumably want additional regulation for gun ownership, so what are you offering in return that would constitute compromise?

That's not really relevant actually. I just want responsible people in positions of power to speak responsibly and not make unwarranted accusations about the motive or validity of those who want to dialog about the extent of freedoms and responsibilities.

Hmm?

It's called an analogy. And one particularly apt for the subject.

Analogies can be very useful to show the meaning of something. In this case, I was trying to show the difference between someone attacking innocent bystanders and someone attacking someone attacking innocent bystanders.

 

[sealchan]

Shouldn't it matter to American conservatives that support Trump and the NRA that Putin, a man who would like to see harm come to America, supports both as well?

If you consider yourself a patriotic American, why do you want the same things for America that Putin wants?

That's the rub...by associating the position with Putin it can force someone who thinks on simple terms to feel like they have to choose to disown their own position (which they probably came to without any consultation with Putin) and to have to hate the other person for making that association. Hence our current president has such a hard time saying anything bad about the Russians no matter how much it was clear there was Russian effort to influence the election in his favor. He thinks on simple terms and cannot make the necessary separation between having an opinion because you believe it personally and having an opinion that is similar to someone you don't want to be similar to.

Many people don't really think about their beliefs, they are just owned by them. They find it threatening to consider that a long held belief might be causing someone pain and suffering or that promotion of that belief might be a weapon of a foreign government. Being stuck in that kind of black and white thinking makes you a potential danger to open and safe discourse. Taking it all so personally you want to villianize your opponent and call them all sorts of (from their perspective) derogatory things to get that emotional release of frustration, fear and anger.

This is why it wasn't necessarily the best thing of me to compare the NRA president to someone who is advancing Putin's agenda. I am no more or less subject to such emotionality.

 

[sealchan]

And the best way to achieve this is to engage in the same sort of rhetoric which those you criticize are engaged?

I concede, now that my need to rant has run its course, that this is not the best way for me to have called out the NRA president.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There can be no excuse -- none! -- in any civilized society for NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch's repugnant remark:
"I’ll say it really slowly so all the people on the platform in the back can hear me loud and clear: Many in legacy media love mass shootings. You guys love it. I'm not saying that you love the tragedy, but I am saying that you love the ratings. Crying white mothers are ratings gold to you and many in the legacy media in the back.”

Out-freaking-rageous! I'm a wicked atheist, not a Christian, yet I could never utter such a sentiment after such a tragedy, with all those "ratings gold" mothers as my eventual audience.

Those mothers are weeping because they are mothers whose children are dead (killed by what she is defending). Dana Loesch -- and the NRA -- dismisses that aspect entirely, and replaces it with "media gold," the source of ratings for news agencies trying to cover, and possibly understand (along with the rest of us) a heart-rending tragedy.

If this is what "Christianity" is about, then I'll take my more sympathetic atheism every second, hour, minute day month and year over that. Instead, I'll just do a "no true Scotsman" argument and allow that Christianity isn't about that -- just the NRA and Loesch are "no true Christians."

 

[sealchan]

There can be no excuse -- none! -- in any civilized society for NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch's repugnant remark:
"I’ll say it really slowly so all the people on the platform in the back can hear me loud and clear: Many in legacy media love mass shootings. You guys love it. I'm not saying that you love the tragedy, but I am saying that you love the ratings. Crying white mothers are ratings gold to you and many in the legacy media in the back.”

Out-freaking-rageous! I'm a wicked atheist, not a Christian, yet I could never utter such a sentiment after such a tragedy, with all those "ratings gold" mothers as my eventual audience.

Those mothers are weeping because they are mothers whose children are dead (killed by what she is defending). Dana Loesch -- and the NRA -- dismisses that aspect entirely, and replaces it with "media gold," the source of ratings for news agencies trying to cover, and possibly understand (along with the rest of us) a heart-rending tragedy.

If this is what "Christianity" is about, then I'll take my more sympathetic atheism every second, hour, minute day month and year over that. Instead, I'll just do a "no true Scotsman" argument and allow that Christianity isn't about that -- just the NRA and Loesch are "no true Christians."

I think it is just more examples of people wanting to score a point at the great sacrifice of empathy and good taste. It is the denigration of your opponent because you think that the most horrible thought is really the most true. Even as they try and walk back such a comment their lack of tact and low esteem for the humanity of who they have insulted is what is really shocking and shameful.

Too often we tell ourselves stories where we know what is in another person's mind without askung. But little do we know how wrong we might be and then we are revealed in our own insecurities, fears and crudeness.

 

[`mud]

hey Evan... and Seal...,
stars, stars, stars.