Drsunflower didn’t use the term “willing to trade”, he said “I hope.”
You mean for a well regulated militia, right? Like the well regulated militia that just killed all those kids in Texas?
I’m going to go ahead and say this entire post is so devoid of quality, merit and any originality compared to the 500 other posts in this thread that it deserves no further response than for me to note its deficiency. Literally every point you posted I have already responded to multiple times, the rest was histrionics.
Not really an answer to the question I asked; I would appreciate you trying again.
And in the interest of efficiency, I’ll ask another here instead of saving it for another post: do you consider that it would be patently absurd to construe Drsunflower1’s words as implying an addition of specificity to what has already been established as your “willing[ness] to trade,” and nothing more?
(I personally don’t consider that it would be absurd, but I have appreciated your candor in this thread so far, and would be gratified if you would indulge me again.)
“Willingness to trade a specific life” is not different from the principle of “willingness to trade life.” If I was a father and my son went off to war and died, I would be bitterly upset, but I couldn’t meaningfully argue that it doesn’t follow from my own principles—that we do have an obligation to serve our country in war as a general concept.
Drsunflower didn’t provide such a construction, he said “I hope” specific people die. In my above hypothetical while willing to lay down lives, including my own and that of a close family member, I would never wish a close family member, or ANYONE to die on military deployment. I would desperately hope they came home unscathed.
The entire premise that a willingness to sacrifice is akin to a wish of death, I REJECT. End of discussion. I will not discuss it further because there us no good faith misunderstanding possible.
Not sure how armed conflict became relevant to a question about your exchange with Drsunflower1, but oh well. I suppose I couldn’t have expected you to be motivated to find a non-malicious interpretation of the post. There seems to be a lot of that going around.
I wish you peace, and hope that you never find yourself experiencing the pain of a victim’s loved one.
You are deceptively editing drsunflower’s comment. He didn’t say, “i hope someone you know dies”. He said, “i hope the next death [that you are willing to accept in exchange for your right to use guns] is someone you know”.
He was trying to put a face on your nonchalant acceptance of the carnage in the US. He did not wish a single additional death. Just that you not remain insulated from the impact of your politics.
By the way, i see that Canada is likely to enact stricter gun regulation. They seem to have decided that five bullets is enough.
Fun Fact: Noted YouTube gun lover Paul Harrell is very fond of reminding folks that almost all civilian uses of firearms for self defense are resolved with less than those five bullets . . . but somehow 50 and 100 round drum magazines are required for legitimate ‘’‘self defense’‘’.
No, you’re choosing to put a maximally inoffensive spin on his comment while taking a maximally negative spin on the phrase “trade lives” to mean “wish for death.” It’s pretty obvious I’m dealing with unhinged bias.
Really? There’s a warm fuzzy interpretation of trade lives for?
He spoke of the “next death”, which in our current environment is inevitable. You, on the other hand, specifically spoke of trading “more deaths”.
Can you not see the difference between “more deaths” and “next death”?
It’s like going back a year and saying “I’m okay with more people dying if it means I don’t have to wear a mask” vs “If you refuse to wear a mask, I hope the next death is someone you know”.
Remember, he’s only working within the rules of your hypothetical world that involves “more deaths”.
If nothing else, as far as I can tell, you’re the ONLY person that’s okay with more [gun] deaths. Everyone else wants no gun deaths.
100% agree and perhaps that something you need to work on.
I just heard someone cite statistics that we’re getting more than one mass killing per day, so far, this year.
Inevitable? You can set your watch by them.
Where’s the thread about the more than 50 people shot, 9 fatally, in Chicago this weekend?
Yes, where is it? Did you start one?
People are ranting about the school shooting, but no mention of all of the shootings in Chicago EVERY weekend.
Well, maybe you should start a thead! I’m sure Martin will be along to explain why all those people had to die so he could be FREEEeeeeee!
More incoherent ranting.
Umm, shouldn’t you be starting a thread about the deaths in Chicago?
I can see why Martin_Hyde is frustrated. None of you post in good faith.