Bricker: any documentation at all = "intense documentation" so don't ask me for any

[RTFirefly]

@Bone

The idea that Bricker is pushing, that it was fairly common to try to assuage people’s reservations about democrats because the gun control issue was not a serious threat to gun rights advocates, seems reasonable to me.

Other than the “The idea that Bricker is pushing” part, I agree with you.

But Bricker is pushing something well beyond that. In post 83 of the GD thread, Bricker concurred with the second paragraph below:

@RTFirefly

For-instances would be better than analogies. Especially given that most people in this thread seem to be confused about what’s bothering you and why.

As best as I can tell, the ‘what’ is that when the Dems signaled that people who liked expansive gun rights could safely vote for Dems, they meant it only for a period of several years into the future, rather than for all time.

Bricker’s thesis that the Dems implicitly made a commitment for all time to not threaten gun rights, and that their having ever changed their mind violated that commitment.

I agree that a good number of Dems did, for a period of years, signal that they weren’t going to try to encroach on gun rights. What Bricker needs to supply substantiation for is the purportedly eternal nature of that implicit commitment. That’s well beyond any popular meme.