It was *never* a *debate*. And there never will be one either. There can be no meaningful dialog between dialectic and rhetoric. The two sides are diametrically opposed by their very nature. There can be no agreement or compromise with people who willfully and knowingly choose to refuse to accept any logical rational argument of facts. Because they would lose. And they know it. They were *never* trying to convince law-abiding gun owners of the correctness of their position. Gun owners see them as misguided, ill-informed and ignorant, who can be convinced through sweet reason. They see gun owners as an evil that must be destroyed as a necessary step in achieving an earthly utopia. All I've ever heard from the gun elimination side was: "Sit down, shut up, and listen to me while I scream a multiple decades long series of simple, emotionally charged, marketing buzzwords in your face that an inanimate object has independent agency, and is capable of being evil, absent any human actor, just by it's very existence, so we can try and convince the vast sea of ignorant sheep in the middle to vote to let us legally take your constitutionally protected gun rights away so we can finally just kill you and get on with the rest of our utopian agenda." If a man says he just wants "meaningful gun control" what he's really saying that that he longs for your death. There can never be any real debate or compromise with people who, in their hearts, wish for your death. If a man tells you he wants you dead, you should believe him. https://files.catbox.moe/njrt3p.jpg