That's just an NRA talking point

[Nuclear Unicorn]

"That's just an NRA talking point" is not a refutation of an argument; it's an admission of defeat.

First of all: We don't even know what the NRA does or doesn't say because no one is providing citations. It seems those accusing me of citing the NRA are far more familiar with their material than I will ever be. They either know NRA material front and back (which usually entails financial support of the group) or they're just parroting a trope.

Presumably everything the NRA says is factually incorrect. If the NRA said the sky was green it would be a simple matter to discuss how light is refracted in the atmosphere into which wavelengths of the spectrum and thus perceived by the human eye.

But those shouting "That's just an NRA talking point" never provide such presumably ready facts. They simply drop the statement and flee the discussion as if it were some rhetorical caltrop.

So what are we to think of this then? If we have no citation that the NRA claims a certain thing and -- particularly -- no evidence that the thing is in error we can only be left to assume the interlocutor has no countering argument.

"That's just an NRA talking point" isn't so much a rebuttal as it is a cry of, "Uncle!"

[tularetom]

1. It's a mistake to attribute every pro-RKBA argument to the NRA

Personally I don't give a rats ass what the NRA says, I don't need to check with them before I express an opinion.

But labeling everything you disagree with as an "NRA talking point" is a sign of a lazy thinker. I don't bother to reply to those who accuse me of parroting NRA talking points whatever the fuck those might be.

[Eleanors38]

2. We need to support the NRA: National Recovery Act.

[NaturalHigh]

3. "never provide such presumably ready facts"

The facts aren't on their side, and they can't admit that.

[virginia mountainman]

4. When you find yourself on the wrong side vis-à-vis the facts..

It is best to attack anything "BUT" the facts, that includes the source, the messenger, and anything else, BUT, never the "message".

It is the mark of the weak. Completely incapable of defeating the message, so they target everything else, and when that fails, post cartoons.

[safeinOhio]

5. Strange world

Pretty much the same thing can be said for the other side. Gun rights supporters are always quoting some gun control group or individual and saying that is what all of those that support any, even very reasonable laws, really want.

Then both sides claim the other side is unreasonable. Go figure.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. When Mrs Watts says she wants a total ban we tend t believe her.

And since Bloomberg paid for her we assume he wants the same. When GC advocates post material from EveryLie.org we naturally assume they are of like mind.

Ditto for postings of news commentaries and blog articles calling for total bans.

And then there are the incessant sexual references and claims of being indifferent to the murder of children.

However, as I noted in the OP, citations of NRA material never seem to find their way to this board nor do the claimants provide any evidence as to why an alleged talking point is not valid apart from the original accusation.

[safeinOhio]

7. I've posted many time

From NRA, quotes about Obamas secret 10 point plan to take away every ones guns. When he never did any thing in his first term, they doubled down and said it was an evil trick to really come after them in his second term.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. "From NRA, quotes about Obamas secret 10 point plan to take away every ones guns."

I'm not omniscient but the only Obama quote I've seen the RKBA'ers of DU attribute to Obama is his affirmation that the RKBA is an individual right. When was the last time the NRA did that?

Yet I don't see the pro-RKBA advocates citing the President's alleged 10-point plan to take away guns and that is the nature of the "That's just an NRA talking point" canard. (And for many Controllers here that would be 9 points too slow.)

But suppose an RKBA advocate independently makes an argument that mirrors an NRA argument. For example, I argue self defense is a natural right regardless of whether or not that right is recognized by law. I'll wager some RWer says the same thing though I'd be at a loss to provide a citation.

Yet, if someone rejects that statement should they simply say, "Well, a RWer somewhere believes that so you're obviously wrong" or should they say, "You're wrong and here's why" and then proceed to lay-out their argument?

I'm crazy enough to believe the latter (though maybe some RWer somewhere might also say the same thing, so all bets are off). It is the demonstrated inability to engage in the latter that shows the Controllers to be interested in little more than shouting down arguments they are unable to refute.

The Koch brothers are pro-pot legalization so I guess -- "Yay! War on drugs!" because "Boo! Kochs!"

I've seen elementary school aged children formulate more rational dialogues.

[safeinOhio]

9. So you quote

Mrs Watts. You think sher speaks for me?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. I never came close to suggesting she speaks for you. What I did say was

people will cite her and EveryLie.org as presenting GC arguments that they agree with. Those are the people I assume consider themselves to be confederates of Mrs. Watts.