1. Let me give some basic "grow up" advice to conservatives like @IngrahamAngle and @EWErickson and @SteveKingIA who think insulting and denigrating the Parkland survivors is debate.
It's not. Attacking the messenger is a sign of intellectual emptiness. It signals not only....
It's not. Attacking the messenger is a sign of intellectual emptiness. It signals not only....
2...that you have no security in your argument, but that it is so shallow that you don't have one to make.
So, is attacking them personally off-limits? You bet. Because you are just showing yourselves to be bullies who have nothing worthwhile to say....
So, is attacking them personally off-limits? You bet. Because you are just showing yourselves to be bullies who have nothing worthwhile to say....
3...now, another form of "debate" that you are using that has become the go-to for too many conservatives: Putting words in people's mouths, then attacking them for what you make up.
The Parkland survivors have put forward specific gun rules they are seeking. None of them are..
The Parkland survivors have put forward specific gun rules they are seeking. None of them are..
4..."take people's guns" or the other nonsense you guys spew. So, you have either not bothered to look up what they say, or do not have an argument against their proposals.
Third - making up what the 2nd Amendment means. What YOU think, what I think, what THEY think it means....
Third - making up what the 2nd Amendment means. What YOU think, what I think, what THEY think it means....
5...is absolutely irrelevant. What matters is what Supreme Court precedent SAYS it means. The two main cases on this issue are US v. Miller and DC v. Heller. Read them in that order, because Heller revises an important point in Miller BUT doesnt overrule the entire thing....
6...now, you can be anti-constitutionalists and say what the Supreme Court says doesn't matter. And then once again, you are not making a relevant argument.
For example: Many of you scream than bans on high cap mags would be unconstitutional. You seem to be totally....
For example: Many of you scream than bans on high cap mags would be unconstitutional. You seem to be totally....
7...unaware that some cities HAVE banned high cap mags, the NRA sued, lost, appealed to the Supreme Court, which swatted away the appeal. So saying "high cap mags ban is unconstitutional" is simply wrong.
See? That's debate. Marshaling facts and information. Not putting words...
See? That's debate. Marshaling facts and information. Not putting words...
8...in people's mouths that they haven't actually said.
So, when you complain that insulting the Parkland kids is declared off-limits, it is because it is inhuman and has no purpose than appealing to the most ignorant, lowest-common denominator of your fans, the ones who....
So, when you complain that insulting the Parkland kids is declared off-limits, it is because it is inhuman and has no purpose than appealing to the most ignorant, lowest-common denominator of your fans, the ones who....
9...think insult is debate, who get off on being bullies.
Show your intellect. Debate policy, based on real information. Or stop talking.
Show your intellect. Debate policy, based on real information. Or stop talking.
10...I'll amend this thread. @EWErickson HAS given a kind-of response to the raising the age of buying to 21. It was still snarky, not much in terms of engagement, but it was a response to the policy. But then he spent most of his effort raging against @davidhogg111 personally.
