Any long-time participant in the ongoing debate surrounding "gun control" and the unjust abrogations of our basic, Constitutionally-protected human rights will be familiar with the phrase Reasoned Discourse, but for those newcomers to the field, allow me to give you a short-and-sweet summation of the idea.
Of late, and in the past, "gun control" supporters have been crying that they want to have a "debate" / "conversation" / "discussion" about the future of "gun control" and the best way to proceed with it. Looking past the simple truth that we pro-rights activists have next to nothing to gain from such discussions, and a great deal to lose, those claims of wanting a debate are, in general, false. In truth, and on average, when those who support "gun control" are confronted with dissenting opinions, they resort to blatant censorship, threats and intimidation, "Memory Hole"-ing those threats when called on them, baseless misrepresentations of those dissenting positions (misrepresentations conveniently unfalsifiable by way of deleting the original material), attacking us through our families, and, when they cannot delete our material, deleting their material that started the actual discussion.
In other words, and in general, those cries for a "discussion" invariably resulted in "Reasoned Discourse" – a situation where only if you agree with those who support "gun control" are you allowed to speak your piece, which is hardly a "discussion" at all. If you want to read more about this particular behavior trend, feel free to dig through my archives.
To be fair, those of us who actively defend our rights – myself included – can be rather confrontational and brusque at times, but answer me this simple question: would you or would you not be "confrontational" with someone who wanted to have a discussion about enslaving you? Freedom from slavery and freedom to defend yourself are both basic human rights and Constitutionally-protected to boot; if a bit of an aggressively protective attitude is acceptable, if not encouraged, for one, why not the other?
Now, you will note that in the above paragraphs, I have been adding qualifiers like "in general", and "on average", and so forth. Why is that? Because I recently stumbled across this tweet linking back to this article at the Ruminator. Giving the article a quick skim at the time, I fired off a response tweet indicating that America is, in fact, not a democracy, was specifically designed not to be, and the rest of the article only goes downhill from there. This prompted a surprisingly reasonable conversation between myself and the man behind the twitter account (who, for clarification, is not the man behind the article; that site appears to have quite a few authors), and an invitation to write a guest post rebutting theirs.
At the time I declined, and they invited me to write a comment addressing the post, which I did… and the predictable happened. I got long-winded, the comment got verbose, and it ended up being a guest post anywise.
Take a moment and let that percolate a bit. I am certainly not going to say that the staff at The Ruminator are universally for "gun control" (though given it is a New Zealand-based site and most of the authors hail from there, Australia, or once-Great Britain, it is probably not incorrect to assume some/most of them do support it), much less rabidly so, but rather than nuke the comment from orbit – as other weblogs espousing "gun control" have done in the past – they went and made it a guest post.
Huh. It is almost like they actually want an actual discussion. How bizarre.
And speaking of, given that the author of the original post as well as one of their seemingly-regular commenters have continued that discussion (albeit misconstruing one of my main points), feel free to head on over and offer up your own two cents (though be advised that their system automatically moderates comments if they have too many links, just like mine does; this is not Reasoned Discourse, just good weblog management). However, I would request that you maintain whatever level of decorum you can and try to dial back the attitude a touch, as I did; these are not folks wishing for a missile strike on the NRA Annual Meetings, so please do not treat them like they are.