It wasn’t clear to me the part you were objecting to was ‘go unchallenegd’ as opposed to ‘made in the first place.’
Need I say more?
:rolleyes:
Not really, seeing as how that approach hasn’t served you very well. Try saying less, and see if that works to your advantage.
You are many, Bricker is only one. He’s still right, and all of you are still wrong.
That post by Fear Itself is fantastic. All you need to do is hope that this thread goes on a few more pages, Bricker, and you’ll get your ten cites right here. Why bother looking for them when they will come to you!
I read a lot of gun boards. Many posters lean republican though there are a number of posters who are independent, libertarian, and even democrat. During the 2008 election it was a common sentiment at least in the senatorial elections that the NRA should be supporting Reid since he has had a history of being a friend to gun rights, vs. his democratic opponent in the primary (I forget who it was) was anti-gun. In CA, where Jerry Brown was elected, people who were single issue voters were pushing for Brown over Whitman even though he was a democrat. Brown had recently wrote an amicus in support of Heller I believe.
My point is, it was fairly common for certain gun rights supporters to push for some democratic candidates because of their apparently pro-gun status, or even because it seemed like they would ignore guns as a political issue at all. 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.
Correction: He’s still on your team, and most ignorance-fighters are not.
Not the same thing, amigo.
nevermind, thread has moved on…
I, for one, make an effort to call folks on that sort of stuff all the time. But yeah, conservatives are a minority here and they have a tougher time at it. BFD. That isn’t going to change, so either suck it up or find someplace more GOP-friendly to debate.
And yet, their inability to get the AWB through the Senate shows this to be true. The fact is, Democrats are all over the spectrum on gun control, but the net/net is that they aren’t going to be able to pass significant legislation even if some minority of them would like to. That is not what the OP is talking about. He’s talking about a conspiracy to hide that there isn’t a fringe in the Democratic party that would like see radical gun control policies enacted. But whenever the Democrats elect a majority to either House in Congress, it’s not because the US has become a bastion of radical lefties-- it’s because more conservative Democrats got elected. And that means no go on gun control.
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:
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.
What terrible guesses. Here is the answer: you are not responsible for those shitty posts, nor am I. You are responsible for your own shitty posts.
You know I call out leftists who make bad arguments, so don’t try that ridiculous “but they do it too!” nonsense.
Challenge shitty posts. Avoid making shitty posts yourself.
Based on the gun threads the past few months, that seems to be less true as time goes on. In those threads both sides are evenly matched in numbers.
I don’t think so. I think that the gun advocates are just very vocal. We can do a poll in IMHO if you’d like and see what we get if we ask whether we need more gun control, less or whether we have just the right amount.
Now, that will be an unscientific poll, of course, but no less scientific than your own sampling of posts in GD.
I’ll grant you that I read the OP here, and the OP in the other thread, but wading through the rest of it, especially given you’re referencing post #83 - I could have missed it. But where is the reference from Bricker to “all time” or some commitment in perpetuity referenced other than by you and others?
I mean, you agree with the sentiment, you said so much yourself - just not some specific detail. Right? I mean:
Is the message I’m getting from Bricker’s post. He’s basically saying (paraphrasing) ‘Dems said they wouldn’t push for gun control. Now they are. They are liars or hypocrites or both.’ To which you’d respond, circumstances changed, and times are different, so yes they are pushing for them, and yes they said they wouldn’t, but that doesn’t make them liars or hypocrites. Then, end thread and no chest thumping.
No, it isn’t.
Where the HELL do you get “for all time” out of anything I said?
This is what kills me. You just agreed with everything I’m saying. Then you added something I never said and demanded I substantiate it.
Now let’s see if your fellow lefties leap on this and demand you substantiate the claim 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.
The Democrats haven’t proposed anything that would encroach on gun rights, so at least they are consistent.
From pretty much the entire original thread.
From your OP:
The point being that, regardless of what lapse of time occurred between their implying that, and their changing their views, it had to mean that they hadn’t meant it in the first place.
I started talking about eternity, the heat death of the universe, etc. as the duration of the implied commitment in your mind on the first page of the original thread, and kept it up throughout, and you never once contradicted me.
In fact, you concurred with this at post 83 of the original thread.
So take your fake indignation and shove it up any and all appropriate orifices.
If I’m agreeing with what you’re saying, then you must be agreeing with what I’m saying, which is this: whatever implied commitment was made by whatever Dems on the subject of gun control, it’s a commitment that is NOT for all time, that can be expected to lessen with each passing year, without any implication that it wasn’t meant in the first place.
Which is antithetical to your OP in the original thread.
So thank you for conceding your thesis from that OP, at long last.
Perfect.
Now you can finally answer my question from the OP:
Will the Democrats do it again?
That is, having laid out a position and seeing that position lessen with each passing year, will they again return to that original position at some future point?
Nobody can answer that question. “The Democrats” aren’t a hive mind-some will maintain their position, some will change their position, and some never had that position in the first place. If you want somebody to make predictions on how certain individuals will react to events that have yet to unfold, might I suggest you consult your local psychic.