I am really not interested in continuing this argument [2nd amendment, gun
control (spun off from a question about a safe rating)], largely
because the 'right to bear arms', for many, is a religous view which is
> not suceptable to rational argument. (For many others it is the result
> of a "lie repeated often enough".)
Sure, take all the fun out of it.
How about arguing about religious views, their utility, and the use of rational argument to sway others opinions in this regard?
If we go there it might be a lot of fun, but I think we must require anyone that wants to play to agree up front that their opinions are subject to attack, ridicule and they will be abused unmercifully. Further if they do decide to participate, they agree to leave as friendly as they came in.
I wonder if such ground rules can work or if the participants would end up killing each other?
If the participants did end up killing each other, would this tend to prove Darwin's theory?