Oh, this is just too, TOO rich.
Pointing out inaccuracies in your opponent’s arguments is a cynical ploy to stop discussion. Or so I gather from Adam Weinstein, who just published a Washington Post op-ed taking gun control critics to task for “gunsplaining”—Weinstein’s name for when one is “harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner” after one makes some incidental factual error about guns, such as calling AR-15s “high-powered” or confusing clips with magazines.
We ARE more credible than thou, you fucking douchebag. As I always say: the libtards’ argument isn’t really with us. It’s with reality. Kinda tough on them. I do not give a single, solitary, trifling damn. Not even one.
“Gunsplaining,” Weinstein declares, “is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it.”
When one side’s position is based entirely on ignorance, fear, dishonesty, and sinister ulterior motives regarding the subject at hand, what you’re having ain’t much of a discourse. And…”bad faith”? You SURE you want to go there, gun-grabber?
The rest of the article is a good enough rebuttal, and worth reading. But it’s at best unnecessary. At this point, I maintain that the only “discourse” we need to be having with the fascist, gun-grabber Left consists of this: NO. You ain’t getting them. Not now, not ever. You want a fight over it? You’ll get one, for sure and certain. In the meantime, go fuck yourselves.
Period fucking dot. Full stop, end of story.
Your move, assholes.