Should I invite the Brady Bunch...

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mike101

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
1,443
Location
SOUTH Jersey
....to play in our sandbox? I've been tempted to on several occasions. I know they lurk here and spy on us. I've seen excerpts from posts on THR posted there. Maybe we could drag some of them out in the open.

Also, I know they will be treated better here, than we are on Huffpo. I won't invite those people. They are just vile.

I think the Bradyites lack the courage to actually show up, but what do you think?
 
NO.

As a matter of policy, THR does not engage in flame wars with other forums.

Such an invitation, no matter how honorable the intentions were, would degenerate into that pretty quickly.

Rule 3244: Don't play with matches near the powderkegs.
 
LOL. Why not, jft? They're here already, and antis have been invited, more or less, by the management. Don't you get tired of preaching to the chior?
 
I say why bother. The invitation has been there since THR has been open. I see no need to push the invitation upon them. If the Bradyites feel compelled to discuss gun policy with a degree of sanity and open minded-ness (which I doubt many are willing to do), then all they have to do is register, post some comments or questions, and then keep to "The High Road". It's really that simple.
 
Geek said; "As a matter of policy, THR does not engage in flame wars with other forums."

True. But things usually remain pretty civilized on their blog (possibly because we outnumber them so badly), unlike Huffington Post, so I thought it might not be a bad idea.

I also realize the invitation has been there from the beginning, but I doubt any of them have read it. They generally don't delve that deeply into things. Too much reading gives them Brain Freeze. ;)

There has been a recent improvement on the Brady Blog. Your posts no longer have to be approved by the Puppet Master before they are posted. They go in right away.
 
As an aside, when I got into guns, I decided I wanted to get a balanced view of the topic (since I had no experience). THR is obviously great for one side, but I couldn't find any gun control oriented forums. Aside from commenting on blogs, are there any? Or do they just not have anything to talk about?
 
I would not understand the point of it.

The fundamental arguments of the Brady crowd is not based on factual evidence, or historical example. Any attempts on their side to provide "facts" supporting their case ends up revealing serious academic fraud and an agenda contrary to individual freedoms.

at which point it boils down to a purely emotional argument, which then means trolling and flame wars.

every rational argument supporting gun control is inevitably a argument supporting tyranny over freedom, the state over the individual. Why would they go somewhere that can expose that fundamental truth?
 
Good point Mr. Ozwyn.
I would like to further point out that these people seem to shrink away from individual confrontation. Thus the complete certainty of confrontation on this board would preclude them from joining.

Jefferson
 
the reasons listed so far

are all the best reasons we can have--from a moderator's take on it on down to joe demko's pure pragmatism.

as for nezumi's observation that "...THR is obviously great for one side, but I couldn't find any gun control oriented forums...." I offer two comments:

1. that THR does not cover only one side--i.e., the issues of this topic get debated completely here, in a rational manner that is congruent with the beliefs of thinking individuals; and

2. Google is your friend: There are thousands of gun control sites, and antigun sites. Start with the links from the Brady site, and with a google search, and you will find them. I also suspect you will find many of them are basically inactive--their intolerance for opposing viewpoints and the resultant banning--makes them uninteresting and dull.

To help start you, here's a link to our state's premier anti-gun site, paid for by Minnesota's eloi progressives, and which has some basis in fact, if not in reality. http://www.endgunviolence.com/ Register if you wish--and see how long you last.

I also suggest you seek out the Democrat Underground, and try posting 'progun' comments anywere but in the Gungeon. IIRC, you don't even get to edit for sometime, and they can boot you without explanation.

Jim H.
 
If they wanted to speak, they would. We know they monitor us, as many of us monitor them.

And their silence, is telling.
 
Besides, why would they?

They get better results from their side by giving sound-bites to an all too friendly media, and convincing Suzie Soccermom that somehow Jim in The Middle of Nowhere, Idaho owning an AR-15 is a threat to her routine of boinking her personal trainer before going to pick-up the kids from soccer practice and starting dinner for her hubby.
 
Many discussions with antis will feature at least one of these "points":

1) You are interested in guns because you are inadequate where your legs join your body.

2) Because I (the anti) would wantonly commit homicide with if I had a gun, YOU (the gun owner) are a murder spree waiting to happen. That is, if you haven't already killed a lot of people. That's because only criminals would own a gun.

3) You are a barbaric, uneducated, bigoted, racist, sexist, dentally challenged savage. How dare you even deign to disagree with me, a sophisticated urban/suburban representative from a civilization so advanced that merely glimpsing my world would melt your brain.

Perhaps I exaggerate a little when I outline the talking points of the opposition. Nevertheless, if they do not participate in our discussions I cannot honestly say I miss them.
 
"Perhaps I exaggerate a little when I outline the talking points of the opposition."

Not really. You're guaranteed to get all of the above from Huffington, though. I've seen it happen every time I've posted there.
 
mike, a couple people have posted here about how much "butt-kicking" gun owners are doing at the Brady blog, but it comes off as kind of childish. I think that's also why it's a turn off to bring this up. It seems like people who post at that blog let their glee run away with them too much and end up looking a little silly back in normal company.

I enjoy posting their to help solidify my thoughts and pretend like I'm actually helping make a difference rather than engage in the locker-room dogpile, but I think as far as the "high road" goes, we should really leave it as a guilty pleasure.
 
Nevertheless, if they do not participate in our discussions I cannot honestly say I miss them.


As well you shouldn't. What could they add? We read their stuff, we know they don't understand the nuts-and bolts of the technology involved (for me, an absolute minimum level and baseline for talks on gun control---if you can grasp basic physics equations--we can talk politics on guns---NOT before!!!). That is NOT too much to ask. If 1/2 MV2 is NOT in your understanding, we can't talk about ANYTHING THAT MOVES and might hit something else.

They come (mostly) with emotion. They come with a spectre of Ted Kennedy (or whoever) leading them on--they come with rightous emotion.
We do too, sometimes.
 
They're free to come if they so please.

I don't think I want to see a whole new source of conflict, as we've already got so much.
 
What would be the point?

I thought perhaps I should clarify one or two things, regarding my thoughts on whether it might be a good idea to invite the antis. Then I'll let this thread die, since the idea is so unpopular.

I'm sure that the regular posters over there would not come here. So, no, I'm not expecting Kelli to join us. I'm thinking that they must have anti-gun lurkers, and fence-sitters over there, just as we have pro-gun lurkers, and fence-sitters here. They would know that they can't just make claims without being asked to back them up with some documentation. They would know that emotional rants won't fly. Maybe some of them have enough of a clue to come here and ask some intelligent questions. Maybe some of them would be willing to be educated, or at least, give us a listen. My purpose was not so we could all stomp on them.

I really do believe that they would be decently treated here. We are usually pretty good about policing ourselves. And we all know that if they weren't fairly treated, the mods here would never stand for it. You know what Art's Grammaw would do to us if we weren't at least polite to them.

They might see that we are a diverse group, and not the wife beating, Redneck Neanderthals that we are often accused of being.

I thought we might make a few converts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
I think we should invite anti's to visit The High Road...
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
thorn726
T
M
  • Locked
Huffington Post Blog is a SHAM
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
XD-40 Shooter
X
O
  • Locked
Sarah Brady loved by Democrats and...Republicans!
Replies
8
Views
705
Art Eatman
A
L
  • Locked
Brady Buys a gun
Replies
10
Views
944
Henry Bowman
H
S
  • Locked
Maddox Invited To Range
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Crosshair
C
Back
Top