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

[Measure_for_Measure]

But he’s our Dishonest, Amoral Weasel. Actually, I kid: I think Bricker is on the whole an addition to the board. He has stated that he gets more vociferous responses for lax arguments than liberals here do, and I’m guessing he’s correct. The problem is he has a SDSAB intellect (objectively and IMHO), so he really should be held to a higher than average standard.
What I typed earlier

1. The weird part about this is that AFAIK Bricker showed no inclination to believe these sorts of assurances extended by pundits (not commitments made by the Democratic party) yet he’s still butthurt about it. [ETA: Elvis sees dishonesty: I see butthurtedness.]

2. I see from the original thread that John Mace beat me to the punch yesterday by several hours. For example here:

@John_Mace

I think Democrats are happiest when gun control is not talked about at all. But that’s entirely different from making affirmative statements that they would not seek additional gun control measures, however minor or however downplayed those measures might be. What I think they did try to impress on people is that they weren’t looking to overturn the 2nd amendment or “take everyone’s guns away”, which does seem to be a mistaken meme among a large segment of the right-wing electorate.

Here’s John Kerry in 2004, during his presidential run, saying he wanted to extend the assault weapon ban, which is the key item in your OP:

etc., etc.

3. Personal characterizations, insults: gun nuts are pretty emotive. I established above that the background checks look like they will be easily circumvented and therefore pointless. There were similar problems with the 1990s assault weapons ban. And handgun bans are currently off the table -heck off the radar- and have been so since the 1970s or early 1980s at a stretch. They also have a certain court decision to contend with. The point being that even after a crazy shoots scores of pre-schoolers in the face, the range of restrictions considered are far more lenient than anything already put in place in the remainder of the developed world. (Definition of developed: OECD membership).

To vote Republican reflexively because, somewhere, somebody in the US dreams of turning the US in England, Japan or Switzerland and ignores the ponderousness of the political process is …highly emotive. Or at least taken in by an industry lobby that disguises itself as a human rights organization.

4. Constructively: Framing an OP around your political perceptions -or amorphous perceptions of any sort- is inherently problematic. That’s why you dig up cites before getting the ball rolling. It gives us something to work with, rather than pointlessly wrangling over 5 pages or so. This is why I am an empiricist: I think I have solid conceptual intuition on certain topics (so does Bricker- and we’re both probably delusional) but I typically need to qualify my remarks once my perceptions hit my citations. This effect is even more pronounced when the citation consists of data: there are always a few twists to unravel.