M14 v Nifty - Page 3

M14 Shooter · 06-20-07, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

LOL, I guess you're going to have to wait two days for my response and close, also.

Take your time, dude - there's little you can do here except continue to argue strawmwn and dodge the issue.

M14 Shooter · 06-26-07, 03:48 PM

Nifty:

Enerything OK there, champ?
Hope there's not been some sort of emergency or whatnot.
If you need more time, please feel free to take it - just let me know.

M14

niftydrifty · 06-26-07, 11:19 PM

maybe another day. had company over the weekend and lost my dsl yesterday. i know you just can't wait to read all about how the 10 most extreme members of congress don't represent the opinions of most people, etc etc. lol.

niftydrifty · 06-27-07, 10:38 AM

Niftydrifty’s Closing Remarks

Part one of three

I will now respond to M14 Shooter’s entire post point-by-point, without excluding any passages, as he has done with mine that were problematic for him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

My opponent failed to notice that after characterizing the gun control argument as generally being one of the individual right v collective right, I immediately said that THIS discussion didn’t deal with who had the right, but what weapons were protected:

The discussion presented here, however, does not deal with the question as to whose right is protected by the 2nd amendment, but what weapons might fall under its purview

As such, my opponent is trying to argue that I am mischaracterizing a position that I, myself, declared irrelevant to the discussion and that when presenting my ACTUAL argument, a position on what weapons are protected by the 2nd, a position that I never took. Yes indeed, my opponent is grasping at straw men.

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

M14 Shooter introduced the entire topic by misrepresenting the “sides” and then going from there.

That is exactly what M14 Shooter did, is it not? What I said was true. Regardless of whether he said “however,” or not, M14 Shooter said those things preceding it. M14 Shooter makes statements that he later tries to disavow himself from, by pointing out how they are “irrelevant,” by his use of the word “however.” One must wonder why M14 Shooter said such things in the first place. He didn’t really mean them. They were off limits for me to address them. Right off the bat, M14 Shooter talks about his actual arguments, and his non-actual arguments. M14 Shooter is a gifted politician, actually. He might just actually be the most likely candidate at DP that there actually is … HOWEVER, there’s not a there “there,” and it all depends one what the actual definition of “is” is. So don’t bother addressing M14 Shooter’s non-actual words. Only address his “actual” words. I’d vote for the actual M14 Shooter. We’ll just have our campaign strategists actually clean up non-actual M14 Shooter and it’ll all be actually good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Actual M14 Shooter

Thus, the remainder of his argument to this effect has been sufficiently addressed in that he is arguing against a point that I declared irrelevant to the issue I presented and was not included in my –actual- argument concerning the issue I presented. He may continue to shadow box at his leisure, however.

While my interest lies in the full context of the world in which we live, M14 Shooter can only “win” by constantly referring to how he wishes to speak about this world. Any mention by me of what really happens in our world beyond how he thinks about it, is deemed a “foul” by M14 Shooter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

My opponent is trying to tell –me- that –I- don’t know what the subject is when –I- chose the subject and laid out –my- position regarding same. This is, of course, my opponent trying to change the subject from what I presented to what he wants to argue.

Look again M14 Shooter. I said “relevant to the context of this debate.” You left that out. What I “wants to argue,” is what I agreed to argue when you accepted the challenge. Again, reading comprehension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

It’s not a Liberal or a non-Liberal issue. I agree with most Americans about individual rights. And I would love it if assault weapons were banned, like most Americans seem to. But I believe a ban would be unconstitutional. Just as M14 Shooter does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

We all know that my opponent personally agrees with me – which is why he is trying to change the subject away from what I argued to something that I did not. He doesn’t have the mental ability to create a sound argument contrary to mine, and he’s trying desperately to avoid displaying that inability for all to see.

Yes, I’d rather avoid lying, seeing as how I’m a Christian and all. M14 Shooter was banking on the false hope that I’d be “forced” into saying stuff that I didn’t believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

And yet, my opponent has –refused- to argue from that position. Instead, he has made feeble attempts to show that the “liberal” position agrees with mine and with everyone else’s, even after being shown that prominent liberals and gun control organizations do NOT agree with me or everyone else.

Really, that’s all that needs to be said here – I picked the subject, and my opponent rather pathetically avoided it. By his on [sic] words, avoiding the subject makes him a coward.

I’m Liberalish, my views lean left. And it is my opinion that the second amendment protects what it says it does. Just as anyone whom would say that the second amendment ought to be repealed, is acknowledging. We’ve been going back and forth (ad nauseum) already about how M14 Shooter misunderstood what a “Liberal” stance was. (He thought anything that disagreed with him was Liberalism.) So I’ve had to drill it into M14 Shooter that this isn’t about him, it’s about the world we live in. And M14 Shooter isn’t entirely all the way there (in the actual world) with me yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

I’ve demonstrated how there is generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue. This debate isn’t just about a static question that exists in a vacuum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Regarding the ACTUAL issue, that the 2nd protects all modern firearms, my opponent has shown nothing.

He –has- demonstrated that there is a poll that shows that liberals and conservatives believe X Y and Z based on the particular way a question was asked. This proves nothing other than there is a poll that shows liberals and conservatives believe X, Y, and Z based on the particular way a question was asked. His sole support for his position that “there is generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue” is this poll, and at best, it is lacking.

Actually, I have shown quite abit regarding the actual issue. In my opinion, “actualness” has to do with what really exists in the world. Carving an “issue” out of current day politics and removing it from contexts, and calling it the “actual issue” is inaccurate. In this regard, M14 Shooter misunderstands the gun debate. The gun debate most certainly doesn’t exist in a vacuum of M14 Shooter’s design. I’ve already pointed out other ways that M14 Shooter doesn’t properly understand the gun debate in this country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

If M14 Shooter must persist in referring to me as a “coward,” the onus is on him to provide evidence for a correlation between political ideology and “gun politics” opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

All that’s necessary to show my opponent as a coward is to show that he did not argue the liberal position against the position I presented. This is clearly the case, as shall be demonstrated.

LOL, bring it on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

This is, of course, hogwash. My opponent has cited one, just one poll. He claims this reflects the opinion of “millions” which is, of course, silly.

I’ve cited several polls. Anyone can scroll up and see that. Reading comprehension and/or selective memory.

It’s easy to just call something silly, but M14 Shooter conveniently neglected to demonstrate how the polling methodology I referred to didn’t reflect the opinion of millions of people. In a representative random sample, if the sample is large enough there is a relatively slim margin of error. When using anecdotal examples, as M14 Shooter is fond of doing, there is a vastly large margin of error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

He then refuses to accept that the organizations I cited, being the leading examples of the anti-gun side, are indeed representative samples of the liberal anti-gun argument. I have to wonder that if these organizations do NOT effectively and legitimately illustrate the liberal argument regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd, then what organizations do?

If M14 Shooter chose to address what I actually said, we would be getting somewhere. I said that the opinions of Liberals can be determined by looking at polls, not by merely looking at the opinions of organizations, which tend to be more ideologically extreme than the general population. M14 Shooter is hung up on organizations. “What organizations do?” I’ve already said that I don’t think they do. And I explained why. Again, reading comprehension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

He –then- tries to dismiss the samplings I provided from leading liberal Democratic presidential candidates as ‘anecdotal’ and therefore not representative of the liberal/Democratic side of the debate regarding what weapons are protected by the 2nd

… because they are …

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

– forgetting, of course, that as leading candidates for high office, especially those who are already elected to office, are necessarily indicative of not only the party they represent and the ideology of that party, but their own ideology and, to at least a significant degree, the ideology of the people that voted for them. In that, the people noted indeed represent the opinions of millions – a claim based on concrete voting results rather extrapolated from some poll.

This is a rather ludicrous claim. M14 Shooter is spinning out of control here. He argues that we shouldn’t look at the opinions of people, we should look at the opinions of elected leaders. Bush is the POTUS. Do his opinions match those of most Americans? No, they don’t. Such is the flawed logic being argued by M14 Shooter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

My opponent wants to dismiss quotes from people and organizations as the ‘fallacy of anecdotal evidence’, which is nothing more than a pitiful attempt to nullify information that damages his position.

M14 Shooter calls it pitiful. I call it reasonable. Anecdotal evidence is just that. I stated before that M14 Shooter didn’t know that he had committed a logical fallacy. Looks like he still doesn’t.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

IF one is to establish what the liberal position on a given subject, one MUST examine what the liberals themselves say about that subject. My opponent tries to dismiss this approach because he knows that examining what liberals say and do and compare that to what conservatives say and so will quickly and easily show how wrong he is.

Wrong, you can reasonably establish what the Liberal position is by looking at a representative sample of the opinions of all Liberals, not by looking at the individual opinions of some of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

So, to –further- emphasize my point, I will provide MORE evidence that the liberal position, as illustrated by liberal Democrats elected to office and/or running for their party’s nomination for President, is NOT one that holds that ‘all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd’ and NOT in broad agreement with that of conservatives and/or Republicans.

MORE anecdotal evidence? Oh, goody.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Remember that Hillary, Obama and Edwards, all noted mainstream liberal democrats, and all elected senators,– one of which was the Dem nomine for VP in 2004 – all of whom having received millions of votes, have already been shown to NOT agree that all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd. To them, I shall add:

[snip] … more anecdotal evidence … [snip]

I really tried to help M14 Shooter by providing a link with an explanation of anecdotal evidence. I really did.

niftydrifty · 06-27-07, 10:40 AM

Niftydrifty’s closing remarks, part two of three

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

And the list goes on and on and on – each of the 10 most liberal senators (John Kerry: The Most Liberal Senator? An Analysis) all support the banning of ‘assault weapons’, and therefore do NOT agree with me.:

[snip]

Let us compare these people to the positions of the 10 most conservative Senators:
Top 10 Most Conservative Senators - HUMAN EVENTS

[snip]

Comparing the “10 most ideologically extreme” of anything does nothing to change the facts about what most Americans believe. M14 Shooter has engaged in a pointless exercise. It is obvious why the “10 most ideologically extreme” opinions on any given topic aren’t going to match the opinions of most people, let alone most Liberals or Conservatives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

If he wishes, my opponent can try dismiss the power, the clarity, and the relevancy of this comparative information, all of which show beyond a doubt that prominent liberal Democrats, the leaders of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, representing the views of the millions upon millions of liberal people that voted for them, are espousing the liberal position of what guns are protected by the 2nd, and that their position contrasts sharply to those of Conservatives – but to do so is to self-sodomize his credibility as a sentient being.

Done. It all can be quite easily dismissed. What do most people believe? Is it the identical to what our elected leaders believe? M14 Shooter seems to think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Note that the ACTUAL liberal position, illustrated above and below, that certain modern weapons are NOT protected by the 2nd is FAR different than the his so-called ‘liberal position’ of the ‘broad consensus’ that ‘all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd’ my opponent claims to have argued.

What M14 Shooter fails to grasp is that all people, Left, Right and other, tend to agree that the second amendment covers individual ownership of “arms” but that they’d also like to see restrictions anyway. M14 Shooter also fails to grasp there is more talk of repealing the second amendment than of quibbling over what it covers. M14 Shooter neglected to mention this last point at all in his last post. A convenient omission on his part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

My opponent also dismisses the views of liberal anti-gun organizations noted previously, even though one of –his- sources lists one of them as a resource for further investigation of the liberal position on gun control. Searching for other liberal organizations and their stances on guns, and picking out the most prominent of those found, we find many similar positions: [snip]

I’ve already talked about how the opinions and motivations of activist groups can differ from the opinions of most people. I’m talking about the opinions of most people, while M14 Shooter loves to present anecdotal evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

And to –further- illustrate the point, that there is NO consensus across ideology and party let us look at the vote that passed the 1994 ‘assault weapon’ ban.
This bill passed the house 216-214,
216 yeas: 177 Dems 38 Republicans
214 nays: 77 Dems 137 Republicans
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1994/roll156.xml

Does anyone really believe that the opinions of the members of the House mirror the opinions of most people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Let’s also look at the 2004 senate vote to re-up the ‘assault weapon’ ban.
52 yeas: 10 Republicans, 41 Dems, 1 independent
47 nays: 6 Dems, 41 Republicans.
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Does anyone really believe that the opinions of the members of the Senate mirror the opinions of most people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

These votes dispel any illusion that there is general partisan agreement on this issue. It should be plain that -one- side supports the -liberal- position here that, since it is, indeed, “necessary”, to ban certain modern firearms, not ALL modern firearms are protected by the 2nd.

Only if one doesn’t understand that the opinions of Congress aren't the identical opinions of the general public. Only if one ignores points made before about repealing the second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Of course, since my opponent seems to think that polls are the be-all end all of evidence useful in a debate, let’s look at a few that specifically asks about support for banning guns:
Source:
Guns

When discussing public opinion, of course they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

ABC news, 4-22-07
67-80% support banning ‘assault weapons’, 1994-2007
32-38% support banning handguns, 1999-2007

CBS/NYT 4-22-07
33-43% support banning handguns, 1999-2007

Pew research 4-22-07
45-37% support banning handguns, 1993-2007

Gallup 9-12-2006
41-37% support banning handguns 1981-2006

Gallup 10-14 2004
50% support banning ‘assault weapons’

NBC/WSJ 9-19-2004
61% “dissatisfied” that ‘assault weapons’ no longer banned

Harris 9-13-2004
71% favor the continuation of the ‘assault weapon’ ban

So:
50-80% of people support banning ‘assault weapons’
32-45% of people support banning handguns

IF, as my opponent suggests, that there is a broad consensus that the 2nd protects the individual right to own a gun, then, given the large percentages of people that support banning guns, there is clearly NO “consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable)” that the 2nd protects all modern firearms, and that there is significant variance of opinions across ideological and partisan lines.

I spoke about a consensus across ideologies and I used polls that disclosed ideological leanings and the poll results broken down by those variables. M14 Shooter didn’t.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

To continue to show how invalid his ‘broad consensus’ argument really is – from the Harris poll noted above:

Quote:

Republicans and Democrats hold very different views on the overall issue of making gun control stricter. Just under half (48%) of Republicans favor making gun control stricter and 41 percent favor making it less strict. This compares to Democrats who by 72 to 21 percent favor stricter gun control. U.S. adults who classify themselves as Independent feel that gun control should be made stricter (63% to 32%).

M14 Shooter left out this portion of the article: “… a substantial majority (71%) of all U.S. adults favors continuation of this ban. Support for the ban is equally favored across all groups including Republicans, Democrats and Independents.” M14 Shooter also neglected to mention what is meant in his quote by “stricter” gun control favored by Democrats. Would it have anything to do with arms protected by the second amendment? The article isn’t clear at all. It doesn’t mention it. Making vague inferences and pretending that they’re actual, is just fine for M14 Shooter. Perhaps “stricter” gun control refers to waiting periods and registration numbers, which Conservatives also favor, just not as much? I won’t eagerly make such assumptions. I’ll leave that to M14 Shooter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

And, again, to the argument that there is consensus between right/left GOP/Dem regarding the basic tenets of gun control, that these ideological groups echo one another regarding gun control:
Quote:
• Liberals and populists generally favor more gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "more registration" or "more licensing" to describe seeking further restrictions legal ownership; or "close the loopholes" and "restrict access" for further restrictions on illegal ownership.
• Moderate liberals and populists will generally favor more restrictions on ownership while paying lip-service "sportsmen's rights" or respecting "the right of self-protection." A moderate compromise is to "extend waiting periods" before allowing ownership, to perform "background checks" of varying degrees of severity.
• Conservatives and libertarians generally oppose gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "Second Amendment rights" or "allow concealed carry". A call for "instant background checks" pays lip-service to gun-control advocates: it sounds like a restriction, but means allowing purchasing guns on the spot.
• Moderate conservatives and libertarians oppose gun laws while acknowledging that restrictions are inevitable. Look for buzzwords like "enforce existing gun laws," which implies not passing any NEW gun laws. Similarly, "more strict enforcement" of gun laws implies a pro-Gun Rights stance, unless it is accompanied by a call for new gun laws.
• Centrists and moderates from both the right and left generally support restrictions on juvenile access to guns, especially in the wake of tragedies like Littleton and other gun-related deaths.
SpeakOut.com - Gun Control

M14 Shooter has pasted a list of bullet points explaining what the typical ideological labels “generally” believe. No evidence is presented to support these opinions. While I point to opinion polls and data, M14 Shooter points to how the political scene seems to appear to somebody.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

Then, compare:
Quote:
Liberal view on gun control
The conflict here involves distrust of government, individual responsibility, and attitudes towards violence within society. Giving everyone a mechanism to hurt other people quickly, easily, and at a distance is dangerous; people are more likely to do it. On the other hand, a basic liberal principle is that people should be trusted, and that large organizations should not. One approach to resolving this conflict is the Swiss system, in which large numbers of people own guns, but they are registered such that usage can be easily traced; such weapons are kept in a manner that reduces the possibility of sudden, irrational use. Many liberals prefer the outright banning of guns intended only to kill people, on the grounds that such weapons are by now ineffective in dealing with abuse of power by government.
Turn Left: Liberalism FAQ
(Please note that this source, one put forth by my opponent, links to the Brady Campaign as a extension of its remarks on gun control)

While I point to opinion polls and data, M14 Shooter points to how the political scene seems to appear to somebody. Is “many liberals” the same as “most liberals?” M14 Shooter hopes that no one will notice these details, as he pastes and pastes and pastes.

niftydrifty · 06-27-07, 10:45 AM

Niftydrifty’s closing remarks, part three of three

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

With:
Quote:
Why are conservatives so opposed to gun control?
Not only do conservatives think gun control is only effective at disarming law abiding citizens, not criminals who obviously can't be expected to follow the rules, we also believe the 2nd Amendment gives us the constitutional right to be armed. Because of that, conservative opposition to gun control is a given.

While I point to opinion polls and data, M14 Shooter points to how the political scene seems to appear to somebody. Most Conservatives supported the assault weapon ban.

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

It’s really unbelievable to me that M14 Shooter can confuse the term “modern firearm” with the term “weapon.” The poll he talks about mentions nukes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

My opponent fails to notice that there are other classes of weapons noted in the polls, all of which have to do with various – indeed, all – kinds of firearms, modern and otherwise. Why my opponent thinks the inclusion of nukes into the poll is relevant, one can only guess.

I was hoping M14 Shooter could tell me about the nukes. It was his inclusion, not mine. While I have responded to M14 Shooter’s previous post point-by-point, omitting nothing, M14 Shooter omits the parts of my post that are devastating to his arguments. He left this out:

Quote:

Originally Posted by niftydrifty

M14 Shooter is trying to connote the debatepolitics.com population with the US population. The percentages of political opinions represented at debatepolitics.com do not in any way resemble the opinions of most Americans.

This renders the DP poll irrelevant to our discussion here. I already pointed that out. It’s lost on M14 Shooter

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

The point of this poll, of course, is that there is –obviously—some degree of ideological disparity regarding who believes what firearms are covered by the 2nd, contrary to his claims. Please note the results of the poll:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...eman/Views.jpg

But what “poll” is this? This isn’t a poll at all. It’s an excel chart put together by none other than DP’s Goobieman. Where did the data come from? Is it any surprise that in the great big wide “actual” world, M14 Shooter could find no clean data to support his point of view, but that M14 Shooter could find such data from a local partisan source, and not disclose the data upon which the chart is based? I’m not surprised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

From this, it is fair to say that liberals and Democrats are more restrictive on this issue, and conservatives and Republicans are less so. My opponent argues there is “generally a consensus of opinion amongst the entire US population, regardless of ideology (or just about every other variable), on the issue” that all modern firearms are protected by the 2nd. It appears this poll negates this claim. Please note too that this poll is specific regarding the classes of weapons protected by the 2nd, and does not simply ask whether or not ‘assault weapons’ should be banned.

So much for that “broad consensus” between the ideologies and the parties and the people of the United States.

Yes, I say so based upon real data about most people, not upon suspect data and excel charts created by partisan friends, and anecdotal examples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

That his entire argument here rests on that concept that there is such a consensus, and clearly no consensus exists, his entire argument that there is “no liberal side” ultimately fails. That there is no consensus indicates there is a difference of opinion from which he could indeed argue; rather than argue this difference of opinion from the liberal side, as he agreed he would, my opponent tried to run away from the debate by changing the subject.

What has actually happened, however, is that I have challenged M14 Shooter’s assertions about the gun debate in this country and the relevance of his topic. Again, M14 Shooter omits mention of repealing the second amendment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

So, to conclude: My opponent has continued to refuse to argue against the issue I presented, choosing instead to change the subject to something that I did not bring up but that he thought he could argue against.

I chose to stay true to the statements I made and that M14 Shooter agreed to. Everything I’ve said are my own opinions and are consistent with Liberalism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

My opponent has tried to redefine the argument into one of consensus between ideologies and parties in an attempt to show that there is no “liberal position” against mine, in an attempt to justify not arguing against my position – and since it has been demonstrated that there is no such consensus, both in terms of gun control in general, and what weapons are protected by the 2nd in specific, he has failed.

M14 Shooter’s position has been demonstrated using anecdotal evidence, quotes from the most extreme members of both parties, and selective data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

My opponent continues to argue against a position that I, myself, declared irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion, and thinks his efforts to that end have some meaning.

What I did say was that in so doing, M14 Shooter had mischaracterized the gun debate in this country. And M14 Shooter did do that, whether or not it was relevant to this discussion or not. It took a few rounds of back-and-forth for M14 Shooter to be reminded that the statement was even made. Please forgive me, M14 Shooter, for pointing out how you were wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter

In the end, my opponent, knowing he can’t argue against my position, simply said “oh yeah, well I agree because there isn’t any argument against this”, and has since done everything he can to avoid addressing my argument. Each of the justifications he has used to avoid the argument have been shot down, while illustrating that there is, indeed an argument contrary to mine, leaving him with naught while still facing a position that he has yet to address in any meaningful way.

M14 Shooter assumes this is what I have done. My opinions stated here are my own. I won’t argue on behalf of the most extreme elements of Liberalism. I will argue on behalf of what my own beliefs are and (as I agreed to do) the beliefs of most people.

Despite agreeing to conclude the debate with his last post, I hope that M14 Shooter won’t drag it onward, now that his claims have again been demolished, and eke out of the agreement made, revealing himself to be a ... [insert M14 Shooter's favorite epithet here].

Here are a few key statements I previously made that M14 Shooter, for whatever reason, chose not to address:
• M14 Shooter has further confused the matter by mixing up “Liberalism” with any “position contrary to” his own.
• Most Conservatives disagree with Shooter. Does that make him a Liberal?
• “A number of people” is not most Liberals.
• There are much more contentious aspects to the gun debate.
• Links arguing against the idea of repealing the second amendment are evidence of a debate about appealing or not appealing the second amendment.
• I’d like to hear what M14 Shooter thinks the author does believe the second amendment covers, if it isn’t modern firearms.
• Most Conservatives are in favor of banning assault weapons, too.
• Most Democrats disagree with Ted Kennedy.
• The percentages of political opinions represented at debatepolitics.com do not in any way resemble the opinions of most Americans.
• Lobbying or advocacy groups tend to be more extreme than most people.

In addition, I made a great deal about there being more noise made about repealing the second amendment than there is about what the second amendment covers. After easily refuting M14 Shooter’s arguments about that, he let this aspect of the debate drop altogether. It appears that M14 Shooter hoped no one would notice.