hga should probably stop posting to any threads about guns if they're going to post like this.
every single thread about guns will have hga saying similar really unpleasant stuff.
every single thread about guns will have hga saying similar really unpleasant stuff.
But consider for a moment how "really unpleasant" the other side is when they blithely advocate using murder to confiscate me and mine's Constitutionally protected property, protected for just this reason.
What gives your side a monopoly on saying "really unpleasant stuff"?
The sign of a classic flamewar topic is that it ends in a recognizable meltdown end state, of which the-culture-war-will-lead-to-a-new-U.S.-civil-war is surely one.
A quick review of my comments, including on this topic, shows it takes rather a lot to push me that far.
That Hacker News hosts "classic flamewar topics" is an issue in your court. E.g. in this domain, you could declare as non-germane any discussion of gun control per se, and limit discussions like this to e.g. the intersection of the 1st and 2nd Amendment issues these printed guns are prompting.
(Although I suppose it's hard to say "this makes gun control obsolete" comments are off-topic, but I have no dog in that hunt, it's not an interesting topic except in how it causes the authorities to over-react.)
The sign of a classic flamewar topic is that it ends in a recognizable meltdown end state, of which the-culture-war-will-lead-to-a-new-U.S.-civil-war is surely one.
Then it's a good thing I didn't say that, only pointed out that this topic in the US context is a part of our culture war. And it clearly is, e.g. given the severe political costs to his party, it's hard to see why Obama is still prosecuting it other than as part of a culture war.
(Seriously, I've just read a couple of stark statistics about the RKBA in the Age of Obama: 100 million guns have been sold (not all are new ones, but we bought enough to equip the active US Marine Corps on 2015 Black Friday (!)), and US firearms manufacturing is up 140% in units. I know people have been saying he's the best firearms salesman ever, but this was way beyond my gut feeling.)
Yes, because the rule holds regardless of provocation. It has to, because everyone always feels like they are merely responding to provocation.
Well, I suppose a simple "No." suffices.
And "no" would be a vast improvement over "no" followed by a violent threat, even an implied one.
"No." ^_^
Especially when you should be thankful it's been reduced to 8 words.
Oh believe me, I am. It's a step in the right direction, at least.
Respecting the HN guidelines would have meant dropping this a long time ago, so please stop.
That's untrue. You very quickly resort to threats of violence in any gun thread.
What you claim is not what dang called me out on, rather incivility in choice of the language to express my thoughts.
Yes, always and unconditionally on HN it is unacceptable incivility.
If someone is doing something which is itself uncivil which provokes you to want to respond this way, and you want to productively participate in the HN community, you should either use the flag/downvote buttons, or -- if you don't have them because the provocative post is a direct response to one of yours -- leave it to others to do so.
Good grief, someone go and tattle to the moderator...
This is just my opinion but I think that trying to bully or intimidate your way through arguments on this subject isn't going to be a useful tactic for gun rights in the long run. IOW, it's going to eventually end in a severe curtailment of gun rights. It works now because of the number of individuals with uncompromising positions on the matter and their voting habits, not because of the strengths of their arguments.
>But consider for a moment how "really unpleasant" the other side is when they blithely talk about using murder to confiscate me and mine's Constitutionally protected property, protected for just this reason.
I must have missed that part. Please consider how much you've overreacted to nearly everything in this subthread; and while you're at it, consider how much that kind of reaction re-enforces a negative stereotype of gun rights proponents as unhinged people prone to making threats of violence.
The proposition that "if you do X we will kill you" is not a strong argument?
My reading of history indicates otherwise. As of late, look at almost all the West cowering before another subgroup's much more stringent censorship demands on pain of death (that's often enacted), when freedom of expression is supposed to be one of the West's most cherished values.
You may consider that the "Three Percent" of my side is overreacting the other sides' threats of naked force and murder, but they'll still be just as dead if we'd kept the "discussion" to the level of a faculty lounge. We simply don't care if you consider this truth (not "stereotype") as "negative". It is what it is.