TexasCHLforum.com

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.

"Gunsplaining," Weinstein declares, "is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it's less about adding to the discourse than smothering it." Were it not for those condescending gun snobs picking apart every rhetorical misstep, we would spend less time arguing over little details and more time having reasoned discussions over just which firearms restrictions we should implement next.

Jusme wrote:So he thinks, the gun rights supporters, should simply stand by quietly, and allow uninformed, leftists, to provide their narrative, using, incorrect terms, and definitions, to run roughshod, over the Second Amendment?
Why does the left, get to make definitions, and generalizations, to exchoriate our rights, when they get triggered by anyone using non-gender neutral words and phrases? Why do they get to define border jumpers, as "immigrants"? This is just another attempt to try to get us to "sit down and shut up" so the omnipotent minds of the progressives, can expand their message, with no resistance, while trying to make us out to be villains, for injecting facts and logic, into their echo chambers. JMHO