Not really. That question was answered by a couple of posters after I asked it, then a new line was raised by those who felt the questioning itself was an “anti” tactic with hidden implications.
Correct. It is important to note that the quote in the OP came about as part of an interview conducted by Moore, who is both anti-gun and dishonest about it. So this was not just an innocent question.
Regards,
Shodan
So noted and acknowledged. Disregarding the questioner(if that is possible), what about the question itself, and Heston’s subsequent answer? Or is it not possible for that question to be asked in an innocent manner?
So, say I was a guest in your home for whatever reason. I’m visiting for a weekend. I ask questions occasionally during the course of conversation. Do you refuse to answer any and all questions, or just those about the guns? Cos I gotta say, that sounds like a very dull vacation!
Hopefully you are a much better conversationalist in reality than the framing of Czarcasm’s question would imply.
Voltron, Defender of (a small piece of) the Universe.
eta: I would identify as a “home-owner” rather than as a “guy who lives in a house.”
I think it is very possible to have the question asked in a neutral, information seeking manner. But people are hip to nuance and context, and if the question carries with it a connotation that the obvious answer is, “No one needs guns,” then answers will be defensive.
Though I don’t have a gun, I was raised around them and I do enjoy target shooting from time to time. That said, I think there’s sort of a disconnect here in what the response actually means. To a lot of people who own guns, it’s not really anything special in the sense that it’s just a normal part of their life. To many gun owners, owning a gun is like owning a car or a TV or a computer or any other normal thing a person might own. To these people, it’s as much a plain and simple and obvious right and normal thing to own that asking them why they own a gun would be like asking them why they own a car. The only reason it gets any real special status is precisely because they feel that it’s normal or it’s part of an activity they enjoy like hunting or shooting or they consider it an important part of their security and they see people questioning them as not understanding that.
So imagine instead that, assuming you own a TV, someone asks you why you own one? Would your really go into detail about how you watch the news to stay informed and watch shows and all that stuff? I expect a typical response would be akin to “because I can.” You shouldn’t need to elaborate on those uses for a TV, it’s common knowledge, it’s normal to own a TV, you don’t really expect someone to question you about it as if it isn’t normal.
Of course, that’s only part of it. There are those too who believe that part of having rights is making use of them. And many do see the second amendment as a call to action, knowing it was put there as a precaution against tyranny, as much as it is a simple right to own one. Or to put it another way, imagine someone were to question why one may make a big deal about questioning the government and otherwise expressing free speech. Some would say that part of protecting free speech is making use of it and defending it and that as much as its a luxury to have free speech, free speech is as much a call to action and a tool in protecting ourselves and our other rights. I think if questioned why about free speech, in that sense it’s self-explanatory to say “because I have the right.”
Or a similar situation, I so often hear “Why not let them search/monitor/whatever if you have nothign to hide.”? Putting aside the issue of privacy, which is important to me, a huge part of protecting that right is exercising that right. If we become complacent, we may still technically have the right, but so many people will forget about it or those who would violate it won’t think twice anymore before doing so to someone who doesn’t know better.
So, yeah, I think many people see it as actually a patriotic duty to exercise our rights as a means of protecting them. So I can see that angle.
And there’s also the idea that by giving reasons, knowing that they’re an opponent, they may very well try to nickel and dime your reasoning and you just won’t have it. Oh, you have it for protection, here’s some statistics, or whatever. There is no arguing against a point like that because it’s simply true. They’re not going to be convinced by the same arguments or statistics and it is, essentially, a mind your own damn business.
As has been answered already, “becauseI have the right” is basically telling you it is none of your business.
If they were to respond with something else beside “Because I have the right” means that you will then try to dispel that reason as stupid or meaningless and they don’t want to get into a debate.
Sure, it’s possible. Like PlainJane says, it’s all a matter of context.
But “I was just asking!” act isn’t always very convincing.
As in the case cited in the OP. Sure enough, as it turns out, the question wasn’t innocent, and Heston’s answer (if he really did answer as Moore claims - as mentioned, Moore is known to play a good more than fast and loose with the facts) recognizes that this was not so much a question as a prelude to a polemic.
“Because I have a right to” is a way to forestall that kind of polemic. And it is mildly more polite than NOYB.
Maybe you can never tell when someone who is JAQ has an agenda, but not everyone is that naive.
Regards,
Shodan
:smack: :smack: :dubious:
I watched Bowling for Columbine and (although I didn’t hire a lipreader to confirm Heston’s words) the conversation was filmed, clear and seemingly undoctored.
Oh. I forgot; we’re talking to Shodan who would never watch a Moore film because he already knows all he needs to know about [del]Moore[/del] everything. 
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
So noted and acknowledged. Disregarding the questioner(if that is possible), what about the question itself, and Heston’s subsequent answer? Or is it not possible for that question to be asked in an innocent manner?
[/QUOTE]
As others have said, it’s possible. But it has the whole ‘just asking questions’-esque flavor of 9/11 Truthers most of the time, since it’s one of the gotcha! things that have been trotted out before by anti-gun advocates. The obvious conclusion of most pro-gun folks hearing this question is going to be the same as when I hear someone ‘just asking questions’ about 9/11…i.e. that the person asking has an agenda and that the question is a prelude to turning loose the tape recorded harangue on the subject. It’s the same queasy feeling I get when someone asks, innocently to be sure, what agnostics thoughts are on their agnosticism, or what ‘conservatives’ think about X…and one you probably get when some conservative asks, innocently, what ‘liberals’ think about Y.
[QUOTE=septimus]
I watched Bowling for Columbine and (although I didn’t hire a lipreader to confirm Heston’s words) the conversation was filmed, clear and seemingly undoctored.
[/QUOTE]
You watched the whole movie, and you don’t think that it had a certain orientation to it? And you figure Heston wasn’t smart enough to see that someone asking that question MIGHT, just MIGHT have an agenda? 
Seriously, even if you think that BfC was 100% correct and accurate, surly you know that pro-gun advocates don’t look on it as a positive portrayal of gun ownership in the US…right? Even leaving aside that not everyone thinks the film was a good documentary, free of agenda, slant or distortion.
I’d guess he DID watch it. I have, several times actually.
-XT
Nope. He has an AR-15 he bought right before the California ban over 15 years ago. He has a .45 automatic, a .38 revolver, and the rest are just run of the mill rifles and shotguns. I’ve asked him to take me out shooting, but he doesn’t want to. I don’t know why, but they stay in his closet, in the original boxes. He sometimes carries the .38 in his bib overalls due to the high rate of break-ins and home invasion crimes in his community. He has never used it though.
This gun thread, that was started in the Pit, is leading to a more reasonable discussion than most of those that are started in Great Debates. It would be nice if it continues.
After observing many of these discussions, I believe that the gun rights vs anti-gun positions are really a reflection of the great rural vs urban divide in the US. I can understand why many urbanites view guns as evil because they usually only experience the criminal aspect of gun use, and so believe tighter gun controls will solve the problem. This is the origin of the ‘why do you need guns’ attitude.
In more rural areas where people experience the other uses and attitudes about guns there is less fear about them. Familiarity allows a greater comfort level. Even those rural people who might not like or own guns, and would otherwise support stricker controls, see their neighbors, friends, and co-workers who do own guns, as reasonable people not to be feared. Sure, there will be accidents, and domestic violence, and other incidents, they happen everywhere with all sorts of impliments.
I am sure that in my earlier post with the pink AK-47, there are people sitting in that gym who think the whole thing is ridiculous. Then they look around and all they see are their neighbors, friends, and co-workers, and know them to be fine people and the fear subsides.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Nope. He has an AR-15 he bought right before the California ban over 15 years ago. He has a .45 automatic, a .38 revolver, and the rest are just run of the mill rifles and shotguns. I’ve asked him to take me out shooting, but he doesn’t want to. I don’t know why, but they stay in his closet, in the original boxes. He sometimes carries the .38 in his bib overalls due to the high rate of break-ins and home invasion crimes in his community. He has never used it though.
[/QUOTE]
Foolish then…you need to practice with any tool, and especially with a gun. Just loading and unloading, and handling safely are skills that should be kept up to date. Besides, it’s fun to shoot in any case…I don’t currently own any guns, but I go out shooting with my dad at least once a month just to keep my hand in, and also because it’s fun to go shooting with him. The only down side is the cleaning part, but even that isn’t TOO horrible.
-XT
I don’t want to hijack this thread, but something else mystifies me:
:smack: :smack:
Who was asking whether Moore’s film(s) had a “certain orientation”? :smack:
As you might have deduced from my
I have an unfortunate tendency to take people’s words literally. When Shodan wrote “if he really did answer as Moore claims” foolish septimus thought Shodan was asking whether “he really did answer as Moore claims.”
Does this help clarify my comment?
And anyone with an opposing opinion should always be ignored? What’s wrong with differing with you?
I totally get the “avoiding unwanted debate right now” element. But “you can be sure that person is ‘an’ anti” (I’ve not heard that terminology before but it’s been in this thread a but - is that the name for dissenters amongst gun owners?) it sounds like you’re just dismissing him FOR being “an anti”.
“An anti detected: ignore. Dissenting opinions not welcome”.
I could be reading you wrong. It could be that you just didn’t feel like getting into it at that time, and deflected it with the standard line; and that’s fine. Nobody reasonably should expect you to engage in lengthy detailed debate at the drop of a hat. I totally support that deflection tactic; it’s reasonable and harmless, and even avoids rudeness.
But "you can be sure that person is ‘an anti’ (that label again) sounds at first impression like the very prejudice you’re accusing that person of having. The very language you use, that you have a label, and an apparent procedure when ‘an anti’ is detected.
Disagreement with you is fine. Any reasonable adult must not only accept but embrace this. Shutting people down simply because you detect disagreement? Not so much.
I’ve spent better than 30 years as a 2A activist. I’ve put my time and money where my mouth is. I no longer have the patience to deal with every individual anti. Fuck them and what they think I “need.” I’m slam worn out on anti’s and their mendacity.
[QUOTE=septimus]
Who was asking whether Moore’s film(s) had a “certain orientation”?
[/QUOTE]
It’s kind of central to the whole ‘just an innocent question’ part of the discussion here.
Well, can’t speak for Shodan, but he was probably just being rhetorical there…or, maybe he didn’t see the movie or didn’t remember the exact phrasing being used here, and has a pretty ingrained skepticism about anything related to MM.
-XT
Correct. As Czarcasm has shown us, you should just ignore the question and say nothing. That is the “polite” thing to do. :dubious: