Yeah, it's cool. What would you do without your friendly neighborhood liberal to poke fun at?

Hey, even Hannity has Colmes.

Since this started with an old post, I'll bring up some old news:

On August 28, 2007 Rev. Jesse Jackson organized an anti-gun protest in up to 25 cities nationwide. Not willing to lay the blame for crime on criminals, Jackson and his cronies claimed, "people who buy guns from gun shops kill people." Since the sale of every firearm from every licensed gun dealer is subject to a background check, it is unclear how the millions of law-abiding Americans who go through this mandated check and legally "buy guns from gun shops" are responsible for killing people. Then again, though, Jackson is never one to let the facts get in the way of a misguided PR opportunity.

This isn't a right vs. wrong (oops, I mean left) argument. It's just meant to be information in which one can draw their own conclusions.

For the record. differing viewpoints is part of the reason why I like Hannity and Colmes.

Narrow minded attacks...HA. Narrow minded in SoCo's mind means exposing flaws in facts and logic. Of course, in his world refusing to answer challenges to his position doesn't make him "narrow minded." He's so busy railing on the Right that he doesn't realize how incapable of discourse he's become.

Here's his playbook:

1. Repeat liberal rhetoric.

2. Substitute emotion for facts.

3. When faced with a question about his position's validity, attack the questioner instead of defending his position. This consists of either a) attacking the questioner's intelligence; b) accusing the questioner of being unable to think for himself; c) twisting the debate to try to pigeonhole the questioner and thus shift the debate away from the subject at hand.

4. If #3 fails, claim victimization for being on a crusade to rid the world of closed-mindedness.

5. Repeat.

The important thing to remember in the process is to never actually engage an opponent point for point.

In my view you are the one who claims victimization. You are the one claiming an evil left movement is out to steal what you have and make you dependent on the state. Funny how every label you hang on me you yourself are guilty of.

Do you not just repeat right wing rhetoric?

Don't you get angry and respond emotionally when you refer to my posts? Hell, one person claimed I made up who I was. That's pretty emotional!

Engage point for point, huh? Instead of looking at the whole spectrum of an issue you study only the ones that bolster your view and then repeat, repeat, repeat them ad infinitum. You then only accept as right others that repeat exactly the mantra you do. If a person dares shows the desire to form their own opinion and share that opinion you deride them as part of the evil left out to castrate you.

The sad thing is that's not honest intellectually or otherwise. Maybe it makes you feel good or gives you a purpose and a target to direct your frustrations at.

How are you so capable of discourse? All you do is say here, here is my proof now believe me and tell me I'm right. You are as close minded as anyone else who gets on a forum to argue political ideology.

Wow expatriate, you couldn't have been more "right." That was items 1 through 5 just as you predicted.

Well isn't that an earth shattering surprise whelland agreed with expat who used the exact talking points Rush taught him to say about 'Democrats'. Nobody saw that one coming.

I hate to get identified with the left-wing side, but this is too much.

You say that SoCoKHunter is ignoring reasoned debate and instead making personal attacks, repeating rhetoric from his side, and using emotional appeals.

That may be true (in more recent posts), but:
In this post, aren't you doing that too?

At the beginning of this, SoCoKHunter stated his view on gun control, but you never debated that view. I've read every word of this, and I still don't know your view of the issue or where you disagree. Everything written has been emotions and personal attacks.

Hmmm... so what defines idiotic? Clearly any law that takes "your guns", whatever that may be, away is extremism, but what about my guns? Please do tell what constitutes idiotic?

Lets think about this wide reaching statement just for a minute, because here in lies the heart of the gun control movement. First, lets take Cho at VT, he was adjudicated mentally defective a condition for which the laws already takes into account.

Cho lied on the 4473, the government however did not forward his adjudication to NICS and therefore was not denied at transfer time. No new laws are needed or were needed to stop Cho, enforcement of the laws on the books is what is needed. You should also note that a bill was passed by a bipartisan majority, backed by the NRA, and signed by Bush in order to make the adjudications more available to the NICS.

This topic is covered in an old forum thread here:

http://www.biggamehunt.net/node/22005

Now lets talk about Columbine. The weapons used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by Klebold's 18 year old girlfriend at a Colorado gun show. Two things happened, for one it was a straw purchase, two Colorado has since moved to require background checks at gun shows. Beyond that what other legislation would you propose?

Now about "mass murdering intent" people, it would also be great if we could know in advance about rapists, murders, robbers, and other lesser crimes. The problem is there is not a system that I'm aware of that could achieve this without throwing out a good deal of our other basic rights. No law can root out intent without tramping on rights.

Rather let responsible people arm themselves so they may at least defend themselves when the unfortunate and inevitable happens and evil comes knocking.

GBoyd, I actually did make repeated attempts to engage SoCo on the gun control issue in the presidential poll thread, I believe. The issue was his assertion that Obama is not anti-gun, and that we're wrong to say that he is. I (and a few others) pointed out Obama's record on the issue, complete with facts to back the position. He responded much the same way he responded to my last post here -- no debate, just duck, dodge, howl, and personal attacks instead of addressing the points at hand.

The best analogy I've heard was that gun owners voting for Obama is like chickens voting for Col Sanders. Obama's legislative record and public statements back that analogy. SoCo blusters, but won't debate on any sort of academic level that focuses on positions derived from factual evidence.