There is no requirement for balance in this or any other thread. On this forum, anyway.
Balance is in the eye of the beholder.
And most beholders are blind in one eye.
About the only requirements we have on this forum are for people to avoid pointless shitfights and to exericse a modicum of courtesy when they are on the fringe of a shitfight.
Of course Mike M is pursuing his views here.
As are you.
And good luck to both of you, as long as you don’t get into a pointless shitfight.
If you’re opposed to those things, put your points and see if Mike M or anyone else wants to debate them.
Although in fairness to Mike M, it does seem a bit of a stretch to require him to defend Bush, Cheney, and the Republican war-mongers just because Mike M made a reasonable point about a politician being a hypocrite on gun control.
Perhaps it might be better to confine the debate to the point Mike M raised rather than widening it to a range of things which he didn’t raise.
Although clearly Mike M is a fascist of no value to society because of his opposition to gun control. Apart from, IIRC, being a firefighter who at times will risk his life to save the lives and property of people he does not know and who might well oppose his views on gun control and other issues. The community would be fucked without people like him, and people like the police, and the military forces. Some of whom use guns to protect the rest of us.
Mike M is entitled to express his views on gun control, as are those who oppose his views.
It would be nice if people who disagree with him argued their case clearly on gun control issues instead of just slagging him on the basis of his assumed political or other allegiances or attitudes.