LOL... I've read quite a bit of comments on King's piece and have seen a number of selections, including that one. I already watch probably twice as much MSNBC than Fox News... I believe you should watch both in order to see how many of today's hot topics are handled and/or ignored by both cable news programs. Honestly, doing so has cemented my conservative convictions even more. I also enjoy NPR very much... My bad!
Well, that's good to know. I assumed that since your initial reason given for not reading the Guns essay was that you didn't want to donate to the Brady Campaign, and that once that obstacle was cleared you still didn't plan on reading it, that was an indication of a tendency to ignore opinions with which you don't agree. But you know, just because I thought it doesn't make it right; I have been wrong before and certainly will be again. (I still don't understand why you won't read the essay, though.)

(Have you noticed that a recent 100,000 pro-life march was ignored by most of the media, but a 1,000 gun control event was highly covered?)
No, but then I wouldn't. I don't watch news, ever. Nothing against watching news; it's just that I don't generally watch TV. Used to, but I got out of the habit when I went back to school--because of lack of time. It's surprisingly very difficult to get back into the habit of watching TV once you've broken it for several years. I get my news through NPR (if I'm in the car) and online using an aggregate site called News360 that pulls from all kinds of sites. It saves me a lot of time and gives not only more balanced coverage, but also more complete coverage (seems like the major networks focus on a few stories at a time to the exclusion of all else), plus I set up my account to ignore the stuff I don't care about (i.e., sports). You should try it; it's free, although it amazes me that they don't charge for it.

Well you are allowed your opinion, and I doubt anything I say will convince you of the truth.

And what part of my repeated comments that I would favor Background Checks on all gun purchases, and a possible reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1996, is it that you don't seem to comprehend? Or is it that I'm not willing to lay down and have someone who supposedly knows better than poor old misguided me, run roughshod over my thoughts and convictions, that really rubs you wrong?
I think I remember you saying you are okay with background checks, although I'm not sure what that means exactly, but I actually don't remember seeing anything you wrote about assault weapons. I searched, but I couldn't find anything. Is it possible that you said that on another site or perhaps were PMing someone? Regardless, I believe that you misunderstood the source of my irritation as stemming from your refusal to just accept the argument for more gun control. Let me explain more clearly: when I enter into an argument or debate--and I am talking only about me here; I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else--I believe that in general, the truth, or the best path, or whatever you want to call it, lies somewhere in the middle of the two sides. My goal is not to emerge victorious; my goal is to move toward an agreement. If I'm wrong in some particular or not taking some of the facts into consideration, I want to know that. Of course I'm not perfect at this. At times, my emotions run away with me and I end up wondering why I pressed a particular issue (if you are married or in a committed relationship, surely you are familiar with that feeling). But in general, I actually don't assume I'm right. I'm willing to be convinced ... but you have to be convincing. And when people use tactics that are primarily those of avoidance--when they refuse to defend their positions--it leads me to believe that one or more of three things is true: they see that I might be right but do not want to admit it, they aren't self-aware enough to know why they think what they think, and/or they are for some reason not being honest about why they hold a particular position. (I would also add the possibility that they just hate conflict to the point that their brains involuntarily shut down, which I understand as I'm actually quite conflict-averse myself, but I don't think that applies in a forum dedicated to debate.) My frustration comes from my belief that in a debate, until everyone involved is honest and open, no progress can be made toward a resolution.

(My postings are ones personal in nature to provide opinion in a humorous or non-threatening manner so as to avoid hurt feelings, anger, anguish, sensitive burning and itching or any other discomfort.
I can see why you might feel this way. Here's some food for thought, though.

  1. This is a debate forum. That's the whole point of it. I know when I step into a debate forum (voluntarily, might I add) that I'd better have my big girl panties on.
  2. Hurt feelings don't typically come from disagreements, at least not where adults are concerned. They come from disrespect. It is not disrespectful to honestly express your opinion and reasons for it, and I don't think anyone here would get hurt feelings from doing so. It is also not disrespectful to request that the other participants also honestly express their opinions and reasons for them.
  3. If this issue (or any issue) matters enough to you that you're willing to debate it, it should matter enough to you that you're willing to really put yourself and your reasons out there. If not, what is the point of debate?
  4. You are one of the few people on this site who shares your viewpoint regarding guns. If you don't intelligently defend your position, there's a good chance that it won't be intelligently defended. Surely that matters to you.