Whoever moderates the discussion, there should be set rules the moderators are supposed to use to keep the discussion effective. There are numerous example rules online.

See Bigpawbullets he's got some stuff put together, 5 or 6 points

@MikeFlora I scanned the thread but it's late and I have a kinda full day tomorrow

@educatedredneck I put it a pm

@MikeFlora I like how Steele and Unger run their radio show.

Michael Steel, former GOP chairman and moderate conservative with Rick Unger, lifelong liberal.

Steele criticizes conservatives and Unger criticizes liberals. They both criticize both sides.

If you have multiple moderators, I'd be willing to be a mod who criticizes gun rights people but this ONLY works if there's a gun control advocate who will criticize their side too.

I'm also good just being a participant.

I can't pm you for some reason, so I posted it to conservative athiest

@MikeFlora I've noticed my PM and chatroom here doesn't seem to work, odd. Thanks

@SpikeTalon I honestly cannot imagine a truly neutral person on gun control v gun rights.

That's why you'd need at least one from each side who will consistently criticize their own side and demand diplomacy from all sides.

@SpikeTalon would both of you consistently reign in your own side???

I have no clue why it's like that
Here irresponsibility could mean dead people
Out of 27 amendments the 2nd is the only one that has a dangerous weapon at it's core.
Which is why responsibility has to be confirmed first
The 26 other amendments aren't even tangible, they are concepts of how we should treat each other, or limits on what we can do to each other, age you have to be to do something.
There is no way to compare the 2nd to any other amendment

@MikeFlora many of the amendments can be dangerous and we consequence irresponsible behavior and have laws against dangerous actions.

Irresponsibility in many things means dead people and we consistently err on the side of liberty above restrictions in almost every area.

You keep running back to confirming responsibility before allowing people to exercise a right and we don't even do that thoroughly and consistently with most privileges.

It's not an inalienable right if there are qualifications before you can even start to exercise the right.

You can easily invigorate gun control advocates with this talking point, but it won't go anywhere no matter how hard you push it.

If you're seriously curious why people in the other groups "hate you" then perserverating on your points and rarely (I don't think I've seen you acknolwedge valid points in gun rights yet) acknowledging validity for what you disagree with will engender animosity on any topic.

I experience you as someone who tries to dominate the discssuion with your points, returning to your points even if nobody is argueing what you're talking about and not engaging what others actually say. This comes off as extremely condescending, you're not a professor giving a lecture and a grade with authority in your own classroom.

I've also never seen you criticize any gun control points and there are some extremists in the gun control group. This is true for any issue, no matter how rational people who agree with you think you are, if you cannot acknowledge validity in those you disagree with AND criticize those you agree with you come across as extremely biased.

@educatedredneck You have to take Drivers ed and get a license before you can drive
If I take your word that you are capable and you prove incapable and kill someone, it's on me, because I took your word, and didn't make sure you could handle it.
After what I just said, I don't give a rat's ass who hates me
You people criticize gun control enough for everybody
DC vs Heller says your right to bare arms has limitations
A kid found a loaded gun in a couch at a Ikea store and fired it, and you think I'm just supposed to take your word that you are capable
I find it extremely arrogant that you think you are better than everybody else and can do whatever you want without any oversight or limitations.

@MikeFlora You'd consistently asked why people hate you, I was giving my opinion per your questions on various threads.

You're factually incorrect on driving, driving a vehicle on private property doesn't require licensing the vehicle or a driver's license. Farmers, ranchers, people with large game preserves often have trucks they don't license and people wt driver's licenses can drive those vehicles. I learned to drive on a farm years before getting a driver's license. You want more restrictions on a constitutional right than we have for driving privileges.

You "find it extremely arrogant..." I'm no better than anyone else. Your emotion is getting the better of you and strong emotions shouldn't have a place in writing specific legislation. That's not to say strong emotions have no place in these discussions, emotions motivate people. That can be good or bad. Your opinions on other's arrogance has zero impact on any rights. My opinions people's arrogance has zero impact on rights as well.

If you want others to cooperate, then normative debate rules should be followed for all sides. While we should be diplomatic and understanding other's hating us has a negative impact, facts matter more than opinions and emotion.

@educatedredneck Yeah you do, you think you can have as many and whatever kind of gun you want, and take them wherever you want, with out any oversight or limitations, and I'm supposed to take your word for it, that you know what you are doing with one of the most dangerous tools there are in this country, without question.

@MikeFlora Nope sorry man, I'm already kinda tired but there are already a lot of existing laws restricting what kinds of guns civilians can own and where they can go with guns.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but you lack of information on this topic is limiting the discussion.

There simply isn't an extremely diplomatic way to point out when other's think they have a lot of knowledge on an issue but in reality their information is extremely limited.

So my question for you, if I poked tons of holes in your last comment are you capable of acknowledging your errors? I won't waste my time with most people, but if you're capable of hearing how you're factually incorrect then I'll invest some time in showing how your information isn't correct.

@educatedredneck I didn't say you did it, I'm saying you think that is the way it should be, and that is true, In a perfect world that is exactly how you would make it.

@MikeFlora Ok man, I don't argue when people have delusions and quite simply you're claiming to read my mind and your mind reading is counter to things I've said.

Have a great time. I won't engage you significantly, other than to factually counter if you go too far afield, until you can discuss what people are actually saying and stop throwing out utter strawman fallacies and false claims about what I think.

@MikeFlora for someone who has consistently complained about "my side" stereotyping "your side" as wanting to repeal the 2nd Amendment...you sure do stereotype and lump gun rights people together man.

These tactics are EXACTLY why the USA cannot progress on issues. People are too busy stereotyping, demonizing each other then arguing strawman idiocy instead of discussing what others actually say.

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. If people would discuss what others actually SAY instead of the broken record in their heads that are incessantly reinforced by their echo chamber biased media then we'd have productive discourse.

@educatedredneck You are exactly right, I am most definitely your problem. You've been having fun at my expense from the beginning, calling me a idiot and making it look like constructive criticism. Patronizing me with your bullshit, you honestly think I'm going to believe votes are more dangerous than guns. More guns is never the answer, DC vs Heller says your 2nd amendment rights have limitations, and I'm going to make sure it stays that way.

@MikeFlora tag me whereI've called you an idiot. Tag where I've said the 2A has no limitations. Heck, tag me where I've said "more guns is the answer" or acknowledge you're doing more strawman fallacies.

If someone cannot address what other's are actually saying then they're not having a discussion. It's just venting. Hey, I get it both sides are pretty stupid so venting is appropriate but you're literally claiming I'm saying things I've never said, claiming you know what I really think but are counter to what I have said.

You're not "my problem" people like you on BOTH sides who keep up the strawman sillines are the reason we don't get anything done. How can we have a legitimate discussion on any topic when people keep pushing points others literally are not stating?

At this point I'm curious if you can do 3 posts in a row with no strawman fallacies?

I agree, in the meantime their kids could steal their guns kill everybody else's kid and no adult is held accountable.

@Kojaksmom thanks, we have created a brutal society. Not just physical brutality but also emotional and rhetorical unbalance.

@AmelieMatisse it amazes me that we could have person removed from a household, against their will, because they are a danger to themselves and others. What we cannot do is remove any weapons from the house of a mentally and emotionally unbalanced person.

@Kojaksmom same thing with domestic violence issues.

@AmelieMatisse I just read a shocking piece about the new direction domestic abuse is going. I am very interested in this because of my late partner (we were active in the local organization and I just realized - after 2 years of something that shook me up). It seems everywhere is down at this point and paternalism is rearing it's very ugly head in a scary way. [nytimes.com]

@JackPedigo I feel we lose ground as a society each and every day.

@AmelieMatisse Unfortunately, what one doesn't know can and often does hurt. The message is to be aware. I read the comments from others and see a lot of frustrations. This site helps but, being a virtual entity, they are often only words. Years ago I was a regional board member of a population demographics group known as ZPG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_population_growth) All that we are experiencing today was predicted on a reasoned basis by this group.
Also, I feel I need to explain the realization I made that shook me. My late partner had had 2 abortions and after the last one got her tubes tied. She did not go into detail and I did not push. Talking to a close friend of hers I realized something. She was from a very paternalistic society (Iran) and her husband was not very nice (mentally abusive). It occurred to me she might have been raped by her husband. I mentioned this to her friend and she concurred. This really hit me. She was probably ashamed of this and it explained her desire to get involved so heavily (it was the first board she ever joined) in the local Domestic Violence Program (was DVSAS now Safe [safesj.org] . Some of us are aware of marital rape in this country but elsewhere it is not acknowledged.

@JackPedigo That is quite a story and it also points out what a good partner you were for having insight and not pushing for direct answers.

@Kojaksmom That is not entirely true, some places have passed laws to do that very thing

I'm gonna try

Got to do something, I just can't leave things the way they are. In the end I can say I made a difference or I did my best.

Of course you are right. Many laws are old, unjust and often unfair. I think we all feel the same way as you about obeying unjust laws. However, what is the opposite of 'logically'? When we keep going at things from an emotional standpoint we get just what we have. The big problem here is that one sides idea of rights often mean other people are being killed. What is the saying "your rights end where my nose begins".

@AmelieMatisse I learned a long time ago not to push for anything. Some things are make or break (like religion) and let some other things come naturally. I wondered why she didn't go into more detail but she had her reasons and I respect that because sometimes I also have my reasons. I learned a lot from this relationship which, to me, is what life is all about. Still, when I realized what happened it was a real duh moment for me. To her I was often fes fes zu (slowpoke) and I sometimes am.

Actually my title is Bleeding heart liberal idiot gun-hater

I can't stop trying, and I don't give a shit what they call me.

Thats theyre mentally ill. the "never get past that" is part of it, as is the stockpiling of guns that no one person could use, for some "shit hits the fan" fantasy, or worse, that they are going to be in a crime situation, handling crime, guarding things, not enough talk is put up about these fucking people being crazy.

I've had rational discussions with people on every topic, even abortion rights. Although IMO abortion is the hardest issue to have a good discussion on.

I've had many discussions with gun control and gun rights people that went well.

It's the same thing over and over and over again. Waste of time!

"debating" is the wrong tact. unless you want a book report about the Puckle gun from a bunch of child killer enablers that flood America with guns that youd use to topple a country with. I wish the anti gun lobby would switch emphasis to highlighting how bad these domestic terrorist fucks are, instead of trying to "debate" them. They are clinically insane.