New Argument for Gun Rights Advocates: "**** you."

[bradmedic04]

Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is.

Somewhat interesting read. I guess he makes a valid point, though; not much sense in arguing against a position not anchored in fact.

 

[jamil]

Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is.

Somewhat interesting read. I guess he makes a valid point, though; not much sense in arguing against a position not anchored in fact.

That's my go to argument.

 

[BogWalker]

My go to argument is "because they're fun", but this is a good argument too.

 

[M67]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/legislation-2nd-amendment/389566-i-love-kurt-schlichter.html


Still a great response

 

[Bfish]

Some of the comments on the article are great too! Glad you posted that!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I used that argument when living in gun ban cities.

It was very successful.

 

[Bennettjh]

Good read. He's dead on. No sense arguing with the liberals. They ignore facts.

 

[tbhausen]

Nothing new to see there for me... That's been my position since the day I realized the absurdity of expecting criminals to obey restrictive gun laws that only diminish or completely take away law-abiding citizens' best means of self-defense.

 

[Yup!]

I've already complied. I've sold all of my gun in a private sale.

i don't have any

 

[IndyDave1776]

I've already complied. I've sold all of my gun in a private sale.

i don't have any

You're doing it wrong. We need to start a new organization, call it Planned Statism, and kill anti-Constitution people and sell them for parts. After all, those of the same general political persuasion seem to think that it's OK to do that!

 

[devious169]

My go to for anti gunners....come take em I'll give ya my ammo first.

 

[OWGEM]

This is exactly the reason we have such a sad excuse for political discourse in this country. You want to know why politics has become such a cluster****? I'm sure the refusal to listen to the other side and the copious amounts of sarcasm people are trying to pass for intelligent discussion are contributing factors.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This is exactly the reason we have such a sad excuse for political discourse in this country. You want to know why politics has become such a cluster****? I'm sure the refusal to listen to the other side and the copious amounts of sarcasm people are trying to pass for intelligent discussion are contributing factors.

Like this?

 

[Woobie]

You're doing it wrong. We need to start a new organization, call it Planned Statism, and kill anti-Constitution people and sell them for parts. After all, those of the same general political persuasion seem to think that it's OK to do that!

Lol, I like it. Just remember the hearts won't be worth anything, as they are all bleeding, and there won't be any brains.

 

[Woobie]

This is exactly the reason we have such a sad excuse for political discourse in this country. You want to know why politics has become such a cluster****? I'm sure the refusal to listen to the other side and the copious amounts of sarcasm people are trying to pass for intelligent discussion are contributing factors.

The argument is inappropriate when made in response to an honest argument from the other side. His point is that the other sides position has a sinister motive, and their arguments are dishonest. They are essentially saying "F you" when they make those arguments, so why not respond in kind. The dishonest fun control people hold political office, work in the media, or teach at university. They are all statists. The honest ones are your well-intentioned sister in law who's been duped.

 

[Thor]

When you have been backed to the cliff it is appropriate to refuse any further retrograde progress. So F*** you, back off; seems to be a reasonable level of discourse at this point.

 

[OWGEM]

The argument is inappropriate when made in response to an honest argument from the other side. His point is that the other sides position has a sinister motive, and their arguments are dishonest. They are essentially saying "F you" when they make those arguments, so why not respond in kind. The dishonest fun control people hold political office, work in the media, or teach at university. They are all statists. The honest ones are your well-intentioned sister in law who's been duped.

#1 Saying **** you is not an argument. It is a statement.

"An Iargument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion."

#2 What I said applies to both sides of an argument.

 

[Woobie]

#1 Saying **** you is not an argument. It is a statement.

#2 What I said applies to both sides of an argument.

All arguments are statements. It's a statement used to sway opinion, score points in a debate, or simply get your point across.

You're right, though, I could have worded that better.

 

[OWGEM]

And will saying **** you sway opinions, score points in a debate or get your point across (gun control is BS)? I don't think so.

 

[jamil]

This is exactly the reason we have such a sad excuse for political discourse in this country. You want to know why politics has become such a cluster****? I'm sure the refusal to listen to the other side and the copious amounts of sarcasm people are trying to pass for intelligent discussion are contributing factors.

What you're saying is true on several subjects. However, not with guns. Because "our side" has resolved that "**** YOU" is the appropriate response, does not mean we aren't listening to their side. I've heard it. I fully understand their position. Years ago I was kinda one of them. And it's not for the lack of them not listening to our side. They've listened, they understand our position, and they don't agree with it. Not even a little.

Both sides are ideologically opposed. It is impossible to find common ground. There is no point shared between guns and no guns. And they aren't really seeking common ground. To them, compromise means we go through a series of iterations where we incrementally give a little gaining nothing in return, until they have 100% of what they want, which is European style gun laws. They concede not one square inch of what they've already won. We concede not one square inch of what we have left, and what we've won back from them.

We're at the point of **** YOU because that's all that's left of this argument. They nickle and dime silly laws into the books, like bullet buttons and magazine restrictions and bans on even possessing a hollow point bullet! They want laws that don't do anything to end violence, but only punish gun owners because they think it's our fault that ***** ass *****es walk into theaters and shoot up the place. They think it's our fault that inner city kids with no nuclear family join gangs and kill each other. They blame us for gun violence and seek laws to punish us. "**** YOU" is EXACTLY the response to that. And not just "**** YOU", but "**** YOU" in your left eye socket! (rhetorical 'you', of course)

#1 Saying **** you is not an argument. It is a statement.

"An Iargument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion."

#2 What I said applies to both sides of an argument.

As noted above, at some point, "**** YOU" may be the only reasonable reply to an unreasonable argument. And if "**** YOU" is just a statement, then let's just keep repeating it so that it will be a "series of statements".