Originally Posted by TailGator
When two extremes exist on an opinion, I like the OP am normally one who searches for some sort of truth in the middle ground.
When the two extremes are debating something that's a matter of opinion, seeking a middle ground is a viable and reasonable approach. However, when the two extremes are arguing a matter of fact, both can be wrong but both cannot be right, and if one extreme is right then any middle ground must necessarily be wrong.
Your statement, unfortunately, reminded me of the day I fully became cognizant that my first marriage was doomed. My then-wife asked me how to spell something. It was a word I knew, so I told her how to spell it. That was not, however, the way she wanted to spell it, so her response was "You think you're so smart! This is a free world and I'm entitled to my own opinion."
And, indeed, she was entitled to her own opinion. But just as calling a dog's tail a leg does not create a five-legged dog, holding or espousing an opinion that is contrary to fact does not cause your opinion to overrule fact. We all have an absolute right to be wrong.
is that the 2nd Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The anti-gun extremists say "WE want ALL your guns." Meeting them in the middle and giving up only most
of our guns and allowing them to regulate (i.e.
"infringe"] the rest does not make their position any less wrong, nor does it make the "middle" (cough, cough) right.