posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:21 PM
In a conversation about moderating another post - this thread came to mind, in a very abstract and distant sort of way. So I opened it to read it and
see if I might not have a moral reason to abstain from helping to decide an ATS specific issue.
To be totally blunt, I'd forgotten just about every word written here. In rereading them I am left with an overwhelming feeling that, somewhere along
the way, I might have lost sight of the ball. The Second Amendment debates started off polarizing and hyperbolic and, from there, became increasingly
more so as time passed. Quickly they eroded into a "with us or against us" tone - something it is in my very nature to rebel against.
And maybe that is by design? Maybe the rhetoric is engineered to push good, well intentioned people, on both sides of the debate, into extremes they
naturally would not inhabit.
Food for thought this evening, as we inch closer to the precipice. Is this great gulf between us all natural, or something willfully manipulated for