"@Blind Archer @Bill Volckening Sorry, but if you're a gun person, we have nothing to discuss. You're koo-koo-kray-kray."Sorry, there's no way to link directly to that specific comment, but for the sake of posterity and "memory hole insurance", I got a screen cap:
(Full disclosure: Yes, I'm the "Blind Archer" to whom he's responding.)
The first part is a lie; he's not sorry — not one bit. You can tell from the scorn and disdain nearly leaking from the computer monitor.
But the sadly funny thing is, I didn't ask for anything particularly difficult or unreasonable. You can read the exchange, starting from his original comment…
… followed by the brief back-and-forth:
So much for that "national discussion on 'gun violence'" we're supposed to have. Was that too much, to ask that he respond by citing actual incidents and keep name-calling and ad hominem attacks to a minimum? (Rhetorical question)
This is what they think of us: we like guns, and so we are too crazy/stupid/unstable to converse with. We're the "Other"; less than human — certainly less then themselves — and therefore less worthy or deserving of even basic courtesy.
Makes you wonder: what other rights and courtesies would they be willing to deny us, given the chance?