No. I think gun regulations have been getting peeled further and further back and the enforcement of regulations on guns has been obstructed more and more. I think at this point, some people would have the public believe that the phrase “well regulated” in the Second Amendment means “unregulated,” which in addition to being nuts is obviously wrong because that’s not what those words mean.
I have flat out stated that elements of the 1994 AWB didn’t make sense, and I’ve said “assault weapon” is an ill defined political term. This makes no difference in your posts, of course.
See? I’m not advocating for “it,” whatever “it” means to you. I am advocating for sensible regulations on guns. I’ve even said I don’t know enough about the things to regulate them myself, which I think is reasonable.
“Gun rights advocates” is a bullshit term and I think I’ve used it exactly once before this thread:
That was a month ago in response to Scumpup, who was doing pretty much the same strawman nonsense you are engaging in here. I’ve said I think people have the right to own guns. I think there need to be sensible laws in place, and “there’s an incomplete background check process on some gun sales but with lots of other guns, do whatever the fuck you want” is not sensible. It’s completely stupid, and it’s stupid by design. I have said that people who oppose any kind of rational regulation on guns, like the leadership of the NRA, are batshit crazy and unwilling to compromise. They are batshit crazy, and they will tell you themselves that they are not willing to compromise. Lumping together sane people who would support rational gun regulations, as many gun owners do, and fucking loons who like to fantasize about shooting ATF agents under the heading “gun rights advocates” is a bullshit tactic, and I guess it’s supposed to suggest I have a problem with all gun owners and think they’re all maniacs. I don’t, and that’s actually what you are doing - you’re just attempting to attribute it to me.
This is what I was saying in the other thread, but you didn’t listen and you won’t listen now, either: you are determined to “discover” by any means that your opponents are acting in bad faith so you can declare yourself the winner of the debate instead of entertaining their arguments. Who is supposed to take that seriously?
The longer I discuss politics and observe politics, the less I care about suggestions like these. Of course it hurts “my side” - with you. But you’re opposed to what I want anyway, so what difference does that make to me? I don’t want a new '94 AWB. I want some sensible gun regulations, and some of Obama’s executive orders sound like basic common sense ideas that just about any rational person would support. If a new '94 AWB is introduced, it should be shaped into something better. The odds of Congress passing any gun law, rational or no, are pretty slim. You know the reason for that as well as I do: it’s not because the Democrats want irrational stuff, although some of them do. It’s because no matter what is suggested, the answer from Republicans is going to be “no.” In fact you could say that for almost any proposed law at this point.
I have flat-out said that’s not the case and I’ve explained why I think a ban on some types of guns can be justified even if they are not the types used in most crimes. But what a surprise! You vindicated your own point of view about the conduct of others regardless of what they say! How often does that happen except for every day?
Yup. You didn’t invent this kind of bullshit, but yes, you’re practicing it quite openly. You certainly recognized yourself in my description because you’ve done every one of those things.
I think they’ve stopped caring if you think they’re credible. And really, why should they care? You’re making it very clear that you’re going to make the same criticisms no matter what they do. Democrats have been taught that lesson over and over the last few years: your opponents will decide how to attack your agenda and they will make those attacks regardless, so you may as well do the right thing. It’s essentially same moral as The Boy Who Cried Wolf. If you look at the Republican responses to Tuesday’s executive orders, you can see that a lot of them either didn’t listen to what Obama actually said or they were ignoring it. They wrote their responses ahead of time expecting something they could call a massive overreach. It didn’t happen, but they went ahead with the same criticisms anyway. Why should anyone take that kind of crap seriously? It’s idiotic.
…to be the thing I was saying about them anyway and which I was determined to find a reason to continue saying.
That’s some rich irony right there.