GBear4Life said:I knew you'd go there! You know analogies are to illuminate comparative logic, not to literally equate the two scenarios. You were attempting to skate accountability for your gun ban by asserting your willingness to compromise.sycasey said:GBear4Life said:This has always been my understanding of your position. What you would settle for is irrelevant. You support a full gun ban. That is what is nonsensical in my view, and that's what I was criticizing. If I was a Nazi in Germany 80 years ago, I'd support exterminating all Jews, but I might settle for imprisoning all of them and making them slaves. What I'd settle for is irrelevant in evaluating the merit of the position I'd prefer. It doesn't save me from criticism for supporting genocide.sycasey said:
You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between what I personally WANT and what I WILL SETTLE FOR based on current political realities.
I hope that one day the public will come around to my preference for a full civilian gun ban. Given that is not the reality now, I will settle for other gun control measures that do currently enjoy majority support.
Do YOU get it?
Banning guns = support for genocide
Got it.
But hey, now we're not talking about your gun ban
But you are basically saying that you find a lack of guns in society as equally unacceptable as the Holocaust, yes? Otherwise why make such an analogy?