What is common sense? What is a conversation?

[RoyalTenenbaum]

I keep hearing the words common sense and conversation bandied about by my "friends" on the left. (It is getting harder to justify their friendship, but thats another thread for another day) The more they talk the more I realized that there is no commonsense between us, and their idea of a conversation is for me to sit down and shut up. They say they come in peace and want to compromise, but they offer nothing in return for their demands. I am thinking pretty clearly common sense doesn't mean to me what it means to them, and surely I must be mistaken about how conversations are defined. What do you guys think?

 

[SERparacord]

Mosquito = Left. They'll suck the blood out of a human or a pig.

 

[Mog]

I keep hearing the words common sense and conversation bandied about by my "friends" on the left. surely I must be mistaken about how conversations are defined. What do you guys think?

They talk, you listen. "Conversation" (to leftists) means that you agree with them. If you don't agree, you are not using "Common Sense".

 

[findingZzero]

I keep hearing the words common sense and conversation bandied about by my "friends" on the left. (It is getting harder to justify their friendship, but thats another thread for another day) The more they talk the more I realized that there is no commonsense between us, and their idea of a conversation is for me to sit down and shut up. They say they come in peace and want to compromise, but they offer nothing in return for their demands. I am thinking pretty clearly common sense doesn't mean to me what it means to them, and surely I must be mistaken about how conversations are defined. What do you guys think?

Run your arguments by me. I'm a moderate and can give you some thoughts, feedback. Maybe we can help each other out. Let's have an adult conversation. I think I represent the rational side of moderates. If it works, who knows, we could go national and be on Oprah, Piers Morgan, Fox News, and if we are really good at this, Youtube and maybe get our own permanent thread on INGO!
and get our own show!

 

[cosermann]

The first AWB did not reduce crime as promised.
The expiration of the AWB did not cause an increase in crime as predicted.
This has been tried before and PROVEN ineffective.

Since one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, this is NOT common sense, but is in fact emotionally driven NONsense, or insanity if you will.

I have no interest in having the same old, tired conversation about ineffective policies over and over.

Which side is really the unreasonable one?

 

[IndyDave1776]

You are bright enough that I am accepting the original post as posing rhetorical questions. In practice, 'common sense' is the anti-gun left's way of rationalizing flagrant disregard of the Constitution by replacing an unmoving objective standard with their own subjective notion of right and proper. 'Conversation' is a euphemism for a lecture from them to us about their idea of right and proper in which we are cordially invited to shut up and listen to their 'better' ideas given that we are obviously knuckle-dragging dolts as evidenced by the fact that we would own those hideous guns.

 

[thatgtrguy]

Well here's a conversation. You don't want to give away any guns. The left wants to do away with all guns. so the middle ground is that some guns are okay to own and some aren't.

You would say all people should own guns. The left would say no person outside of military and law enforcement should have guns. So the middle ground would be people must undergo waiting periods annual classes and certifications that include mental, emotional and psychological fitness evaluations.

Those are middle ground conversations. But as long as the drum beat is "You can take my weapons when you can pry them out of my cold dead hands" then let's not pretend that the left is the only ones guilty of being infelxible.

 

[ViperJock]

Wait, you have friends on the left?

 

[cosermann]

Well here's a conversation. You don't want to give away any guns. The left wants to do away with all guns. so the middle ground is that some guns are okay to own and some aren't. ...

Then, a few years from now, we have the SAME conversation and come to the same middle ground.

Then, a few years from then, we have the SAME conversation and come to the same middle ground.

Eventually we end up like Great Britain and Australia.

No thanks. On some things there can be no compromise. Compromise is not always a virtue. Sometimes it is evil. See below.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_Compromise.html

 

[ATOMonkey]

Well here's a conversation. You don't want to give away any guns. The left wants to do away with all guns. so the middle ground is that some guns are okay to own and some aren't.

You would say all people should own guns. The left would say no person outside of military and law enforcement should have guns. So the middle ground would be people must undergo waiting periods annual classes and certifications that include mental, emotional and psychological fitness evaluations.

Those are middle ground conversations. But as long as the drum beat is "You can take my weapons when you can pry them out of my cold dead hands" then let's not pretend that the left is the only ones guilty of being infelxible.

Concessions have already been made. We already have everything you've mentioned.

Why do we need to move further to their side?

Also, what about a conversation on the likelihood of criminals following regulations?

 

[ATOMonkey]

Shouldn't it be common sense that people willing to kill would also likely be willing to carry a weapon without permission?

 

[cosermann]

added link. Doh! Nuts. Should have gone in the "reason for editing" above.

 

[Ted]

• Science used to believe that common sense dictated that heavier objects fall faster, than it's lighter counterparts. So much so, that it wasn't tested until Galileo did so.
• Science also believe that there were only so many elements: Earth, water, air, fire. After all, it was common sense.
• Following commons sense, the Earth is actually flat......because if it were round, people would fall off.

It may be "common sense" to eliminate firearms to prevent "gun violence", but such types of programs have enough history to prove otherwise.

Advice your liberal friends to instead, utilize the scientific method, instead of that of perceived common sense.

 

[jkershner]

They talk, you listen. "Conversation" (to leftists) means that you agree with them. If you don't agree, you are not using "Common Sense".

This type of situation is not a left/right, conservative/liberal, smart/dumb, Christian/ Muslim, Team Edward/Team Jacob thing. People in general are wired that way: If you agree with me, it is evidence that my position is both logical and reasonable. If you disagree, you are either illogical or unreasonable (or both).

There is a saying in the world of cognitive psychology: We are not wired to seek Truth. We are wired to Win.

 

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

Well here's a conversation. You don't want to give away any guns. The left wants to do away with all guns. so the middle ground is that some guns are okay to own and some aren't.

You would say all people should own guns. The left would say no person outside of military and law enforcement should have guns. So the middle ground would be people must undergo waiting periods annual classes and certifications that include mental, emotional and psychological fitness evaluations.

Those are middle ground conversations. But as long as the drum beat is "You can take my weapons when you can pry them out of my cold dead hands" then let's not pretend that the left is the only ones guilty of being infelxible.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"Shall not be infringed" means NO MIDDLE GROUND! Period, no more conversation is necessary!

 

[cosermann]

"Ayn Rand also had some insight on the supposed virtue of compromise. As she stated bluntly through her iconic hero John Galt in Galt's dramatic radio speech to the nation in Atlas Shrugged, "In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

In addition, she reasoned in The Virtue of Selfishness: "There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property."

It seems to me that we have been "compromising" in the direction of bigger and more intrusive government for generations, to our great detriment. Perhaps it is time we started defending liberty in earnest and compromising in the other direction, for a change."

see - Reason Foundation - Out of Control Policy Blog > The Virtue of Not Compromising (on Liberty)

 

[cosermann]

"A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal." - The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand

Hence, where there is no shared fundamental principle, there can be no compromise.

 

[thatgtrguy]

Concessions have already been made. We already have everything you've mentioned.

Why do we need to move further to their side?

Also, what about a conversation on the likelihood of criminals following regulations?

The reason that the "middle ground" keeps getting re-defined is because America is a representative republic. And gun owners who want an unrestricted interpretation of the 2nd amendment only make up a portion of the entire republic. The rest of the republic also gets represented in these debates.

The question about criminals is a good one. But it's not really the spark that has lit the current debate. The current debate is centered around keeping guns out of the hands of troubled young people, minimizing the amount of damage they can do, and most of all protecting children in schools who have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal until he pulled the trigger on his mother.

Please don't misunderstand me, I am in fervent support of the second amendment. But I believe our constitution is wise. That the state of our union is solid. That thousands of men and woman across the country have taken an oath to defend the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. I was one of those servants and I am aware of the difference between a lawful and unlawful order.

I simply don't see the practical application of a "well regulated" civilian militia in our modern age.

 

[giovani]

W

 

[thatgtrguy]

"A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal." - The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand

Hence, where there is no shared fundamental principle, there can be no compromise.

Agreed. Where there is a lack of shared principle, there is no compromise. Then we must fall back to things like statistics, ethics, morality and practicality.

Freeing the slaves was pretty unpopular. Giving women equal rights as well. And letting black kids go to white schools. That was almost the next civil war in this country. I think that this question is at the crux of the current gun debate:

If an innocent kid doesn't even get to exercise his or her right to life; then what's the practical use of any of the other rights?