Wow. There is some "coming out of the closet" in this thread.
One of the things that stands out, as I read through this discussion is the stereotyping, the "Judge me on my stand on the Second Amendment," while painting your ideological opponents with that "broad brush".
Coming here at this point in the discussion is a real education about the "hardened" attitudes we bring with us.
And poor analogies.
Try this- If you've grown up around horses all your life, why is it so hard for you to realize that someone who hasn't might be afraid of horses?
I am puzzled by this for the simple reason that it isn't difficult at all to realize that someone that hasn't grown up around horses might be afraid of them.
Thinking one level deep ... to the next conclusion, without some logic processing to the end of your argument may do your argument little good.
Here's another befuddlement:
Liberalism and Conservatism have to be reconcilable if this nation's manner of governance is to succeed. It's the compromise between differing ideologies that results in policy, that's the way it's supposed to work- the policies are the end-product of our political process, not the beginning of the definition of right or wrong.
One thing this does show is how difficult it is to allow discussions of the Second without an occasional suare` into general politics, of which I am guilty here too. But my befuddlement with this assertion is that I believe that Liberalism and Conservatism do not
have to be reconciled. I take that to mean some interbreeding
of philosophy to reach a common political point of view. Partisanship is okay. Really. That's why we have elections. Life is a struggle. And we see policy made day-to-day, right now, with little, if any, reconciliation and compromise. Maybe that's isn't how it is supposed to be, but take a look at how it's working.
The "Yeah, I agree with you on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but your kind is just wrong on everything else," is simply not helping any reconciliation on any level. It elicits an antagonistic response and off we go ... start all over: reluctant compromise with some anticipation of getting even next time. It is right here in this thread. In general terms (not political jargon), reconciliation
is an attitude change that might also result in some behavior change, compromise
is a practical agreement on outcome (Yes, these are my definitions but I looked up both words in Merriam-Webster Online).
"I'm too right to be wrong" is not a philosophy. It is a style. In any endeavor of political alliance, including serving the preservation of the Second, if one side has to stand for a stereotyping rant from the other side that wanders outside the subject of the Second, then there may be no alliance at all. On the other hand, I have no motive to change the way you think, if we support each other in action.
Some things can't be taught, they have to be learned. Think about it. Finger-pointing and sloganology is habitual. And if you can't join in this fight without bringing your political baggage with you, then you are baggage for the rest of us.
One last thing: If a discussion of the Second is merely an opportunity for a political food fight, then it will serve no purpose, so we need to choose our statements and positions carefully from here on. Me included.
[Edit: I see Glenn is pondering the value of this discussion. I think maybe he has a point.]