Even though I've been trying to avoid political debates lately, sometimes they just happen. While browsing my newsfeed on Medium, I came across an interesting post by Dave Pell titled: The Power of the Gun. Right then, I should have known this is a post to avoid – not because I disagree with Dave, but because some gun-nut is bound to troll me. Yes, I just had to comment...
When I posted my comment I thought it would be left at that. I had no intention of getting into a heated debate, does anyone?
I immediately thought, great another gun-lover – trolling. Open fire!
I really intended this comment to be a big "buzz off simpleton". That wasn't very nice of me, guilty as charged, but why did Jay have to be so snarky? Obviously, we hold different values; why not leave it at that? It wasn't like he was the author of this post; he's just some random reader.
Well hey now, this guy is fancy too! He doesn't like being labeled ignorant. Fair enough, I suppose I was a little harsh on this troll. I just want everyone to get along after all. Better put out this fire before it gets to crazy.
But first, he needs to rethink his logic. He apparently values his life a lot – well your bullets ain't going to save you from old age or heart disease my friend! And while you're so focused on your own rights – consider that other people want to make positive change in the world. This guy appears to have a serious case of individualism.
I thought I'd let him know he was a little self-centered. One, because his views by definition are solely focused on his interests – he wanted to take on "our own government" after all. Two, he's intent on scoring points in the comment section. Leave it be already! I don't agree with you – get over it.
Does this guy ever know when to quit? Guess not. Law abiding citizens? I'm sure taking on "our own government" with force is perfectly legal. Oh and I see he's trying to be diplomatic, attack the idea not the person... cool. There's that word again, "civil rights". Yeah, since you want to go up against your own government. You've already premeditated this what if conflict. Responsible? A revolutionary responsible?
Thought I'd point out that his notion of rights is more fallible than he believes. Both of our absolutes are absolutely contradicted by everyone. One's right is another's wrong.
This is still part of the last comment, I broke it up since it was such a long reply. I wanted him to apply his logic for children. Hopefully, we both agree that children should never possess guns or bombs. Then I wanted to tie that to the idea that we are old children (mommy and daddy just aren't here to spank us anymore). We've gotten big and bad; suddenly no one can tell us anything. We do as we please. That means we get as violent as we like. Somehow this is a "right", but with our own children we know this is a definite wrong. Hopefully, anyways. Continuing my comment I said:
I took a big gamble here, I assumed that most gun-toting advocates are also Bible-thumping conservatives. I left out the conservatives, because I've gotten burned there before. And there's always that chance this guy is some random religion or even non-religious.
Okay, he's acknowledging I'm right about some things. So I'm not one of those totally "incorrect" people. But, there he goes on that what if train, again defending it with "rights".
Yep, he's an atheist. Burned on the god card. And now he's referencing someone else, implying I'm under-read. Also implying I'm a coward. Is that too much assumption? He continues:
Legally? LOL After saying you keep guns to defend yourself from "our own government" you're justifying your self-motivated what if story as legal? This guy doesn't know where to get off. Well, I've had just about enough of Jay. I'm not bothering to respond. Though I thought of putting:
Same old stuff. We're just going to go on and on, until one of us realizes how stupid this debate is! Our egos are definitely playing a role in wanting the last word.
There you have it. A good read spoiled.