Quote:
Originally Posted by funkychinaman
Do you think an acknowledgement of such betrayals would've softened the backlash? I don't think it would. It's an unfortunate situation, but that's the world we live in. I don't think any gunowner would want guns in the hands of ex-cons or the mentally ill, and not even Montana is willing to lift restrictions on automatic weapons, and yet we have to throw this guy under the bus for even suggesting that there's a middle ground. |
Yes, yes it would. I don't think people realize, NOT even acknowledging something can be infuriating to folks. It's like a very important point is not worth considering. And if it seems like I hammer anti gun people constantly, it is precisely because they're slippery and evasive by nature. You can't pin them down when they are obvious talking garbage.
So never assume that someone acknowledges even the most RATIONAL of points. Lots of people don't. They fail to see what is directly in front of them. What he should have done is mention the long history of duplicity on the other side, and then perhaps suggest a solution to keep them from sabotaging ANY concession made by gun owners.
By NOT even acknowledging the lies and betrayals, this author lost his credibility, even though his suggestion would make sense in a world where there were NO such things as lies and betrayals.
I'm not saying that reasonable regulations are good. I'm saying that the other side can't be trusted as far as you can throw them and they will distort a "reasonable' restriction and morph it into something terrible.