Quote:
Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008
I'm curious as to how you respond to MY post. I opine that though his comments are okay, he does so in a vacuum ignoring just how many times we've been stabbed in the back by the other side. I'm not saying it's correct or right to threaten this guy, but to blithely ignore the other side's duplicity is kinda irritating.
I.e. I say again, it was THEIR constant and pervasive betrayals over 30 PLUS years which turned people INTO hardliners. Please take THAT into account. People don't become intransigent overnight.
|
First of all, I'm curious to know whether his "ignoring" of the other side's duplicity in his column is a function of ignorance (willful or not), or simply editorial constraints. It looks as though his column had a word limit, which might have required him to narrow the scope of his argument.
Second, nobody is asking you (or pro-gunners in general) to overlook the untrustworthy reputation of the gun control movement. I'm asking whether it's good for
our reputation if the RKBA movement demonstrates this kind of intolerance for views like those expressed by Metcalf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008
I don't think people realize, NOT even acknowledging something can be infuriating to folks.
|
Right, so are you arguing that RKBAers have the right to threaten their own for not conforming 100% to the party line? I really hope not. Under your logic, those Muslims who threw petrol bombs at Bagram last year after
rumors of Qur'an burning had the right to express their anger through violence. While the reaction to Metcalf's op-ed isn't as extreme, my point still stands:
Nobody in our society can demand their own special right to be offended.