Where is to far? When is not now?

imported post

Carefully before any letter is typed and any thought relayed I think. I think not only on the responce my words will receive, but also the impact my words make. I read and re-read and check and correct every sentence in order to assure myself that I have not posted a grammatically flawed jumble of words that are harder to sort out than a word search puzzle. I often times refer to http://webster.com/ to ensure that I use a word in its correct pretense. I go through all this to pass knowledge or a question on in a manor that does not question the intelligence of my post. However...

I struggle constantly with that which is not easily distinguished. Even if my sentence is perfect and I have dotted my I's and crossed my T's I can still make mistakes in the content of my post. There are lines that are crossed that are not visable. There are grey areas that do not have a black and white areas easily visable by all.

My question is in the title. When does a conversation go to far? When do we as a group stop sounding like responsible liberty seeking individuals and start on a rant that appears to be written by a gun crazed fanatic bent on lunacy?
Passion is built into everyone and some subjects conjure up horrific scenes in our head that we feel must be subdued and corrected less anyone taste this horror and label an entire group as unsound.

It is true that a myriad of people both for and against firearms visit this site and read through the posts in search for fuel for their argument. But where do you draw the line in addressing both those for and against the cause. Where and when does one post their true feelings on a subject and when and where does one hold back? What is going to far? There are many many writers on this forum and in many others. Each with a different and important opinion on everything written or stated. But when does a conversation become an argument? And when has that arguement gone to far?

You are ambassadors to the world for firearm owners. What kind of ambassador does your post make you?

When is that line crossed that makes us seem to further the cause for those who wish we did not have a the freedom we do?

imported post

Short answer is;

First Amendment Rights.

Second Amendment Rights.

Both unambiguous.

Observe any parameters,if such parameters are written therein, andgood to go.

The guys who wrote the above did not pussyfoot around, agonising over whether they might upset folks, or make folks uncomfortable. It devolves upon us to express ourselves with courtesy and civility, no more, IMHO. It matters not how unpalatable our opinions may appear to some folks. They would likely have opinions diametrically opposed to our own. Human nature.

TrueBrit.

imported post

Ever since I began high school, I've been one to speak my mind regardless of what others think. This is why I often spent time in the "Department of Spiritual Activities" office (I went to a Catholic school), as I wasn't breaking rules but expressing myself on a variety of topics that they considered immoral and detrimental to the Church. Anyhow, what I've learned in my meager 20 years on this Earth is that half of communication is listening. Or reading, in the particular context of this post. Therefore, I can only do so much to dilute my message to "appease" others; so, I may as well just not bother diluting it at all.

In reponse to your question of what differentiates a reasonable individual from sounding like a crazy murderous gun wacko, the answer ultimately is that the line is drawn in the mind of the listener. Just by saying that I will carry a handgun on me at every waking moment (once I reach age 21 and am judged emotionally capable of carrying a handgun by the state of Pennsylvania) will make more rabid anti-gunners place me in the same category as the dirtbag at Virginia Tech and Charles Manson. Do I expect most people to seriously consider my more "extreme" arguments? No, but I hold out in hopes that maybe just a few people with hear them and make something click in their heads.

However, I will admit that I do draw one line, especially in forum posts and through e-mail and phonecalls (i.e. technologies that the government traces). I will not state anything that implicates me in a crime, and I will not say anything that can clearly be used to show premeditation in the future. That's why I often stay out of "What if" discussions on here because if, in fact, I were to find myself in a situation very similar to one that is presented, and I defended myself in the way that I said I would on the forum, I would not want an overzealous prosecuter to use it against me. It's a caution I give to most people. Sure, it may seem to useful to say "I'll shoot through the door anyway if there's someone threatening on the other side", but when the day comes where you do shoot a man through the door, and you're brought up on charges of felony murder, you won't want the former quote to come up in your trial. Hell, it also makes it a bundle easier for the DA to charge you with conspiracy to commit felony murder, since you "planned" it online with one or more other parties.

imported post

Whitefeather,

Your post makes me wonder if English is your first language. Writing/speaking clearly is very hard (just ask GWB). My wife, who writes for a living and has an MA in English, still agonizes over grammar. About all you can do is read things by masters of the language and then practice. You are correct though, well spoken argument will garner more respect than frothing gibberish.

C.

imported post

WhiteFeather wrote:

When do we as a group stop sounding like responsible liberty seeking individuals and start on a rant that appears to be written by a gun crazed fanatic bent on lunacy?

Click to expand...

The moment the party doing the hearing is an anti. We live in a liberal society and are raised by society to believe that guns are evil and such. Anti's view citizen armament as cowboys, Dodge City, gun nuts, and many other condescending labels. If met with information that contradicts their predetermined view, they will twist your words, call you names, change the subject... pretty much anything BUT argue potential counterpoints. As it stands, their leading points are all filled with emotional, knee-jerk supposition and are based little on fact. Unless they can find an isolated incident that fits their agenda.

That might sound like ONE child sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting, but together, the lies these people spread lead to bogus legislation, darkening of public opinion, and other, SERIOUS detriments to our cause, which is the fuel of liberty itself. Allow that to fade and we are no longer free. So they attack us and trick others into wanting to attack us, all with underhanded means. These are not polite people and their agenda could lead to the destruction of our freedom in general as well as our country.

Pretty up what I have to say for traitorous terrorists such as these? HAH! Never. In the end, it doesn't matter anyways. Why? We are a republic. Their opinion doesn't matter. Our opinion doesn't matter. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." They don't have a choice. They can gnash their teeth all they want. In fact, I rather enjoy watching people who are up to no good stewing in their own unsuccessful hate

imported post

Thank you all there have been some good answers. Maybe not the ones I was looking for but good answers all the same.

I will admit that I do draw one line, especially in forum posts and through e-mail and phonecalls (i.e. technologies that the government traces). I will not state anything that implicates me in a crime, and I will not say anything that can clearly be used to show premeditation in the future. That's why I often stay out of "What if" discussions

Click to expand...

That is a perfect example of a very clear line for me now. In the past I'll admit I got engaged in these threads. But as of late I stay away.