You can bet your sweet ass that in many states, a solid majority would favor establishment of Christianity as the official religion and banning Islam. Should legislatures in those states pass such a bill? Perhaps the masses would favor a law that bans all public assistance for anyone. Should that be passed? Or if a ax increase is needed, how would you ever pass it?
Our federal and state governments are set up to be “republican”- that is, ordinarily we don’t directly enact laws by plebiscite. Instead we entrust the passage of laws to elected representatives whom (we hope) will add a layer of deliberation to important issues. The problem is when the representatives take this too far and decide that they’ll tell the hoi polli (the “sheeple”) what’s good for them whether they like it or not. Rightly or wrongly, there’s a widespread perception that progressives of the Democratic party aspire to be social engineers, whose job it is to “improve” society by imposing their enlightened wisdom on the great unwashed. That’s why the gun issue is so important to conservatives, libertarians, and the portion of the left who are truly liberal in the original sense of the word. We want representatives, not mandarins or philosopher-kings. And considering just how difficult recall elections are under most state systems, it’s a striking message when one succeeds.
No. I didn’t say that. You just made it up.
The NRA has backed many gun control proposals. This is simply factually incorrect.
I should have known better than to answer your post in good faith.
Wow.
You are actually defending your post?
Anyone familiar with this issue knows that the anti-gun spending was far greater than the pro-gun spending during this fight. Your post was transparently and apparently deliberately misleading. Anyone not familiar with this election that read your post would be left with the impression that the spending on the pro-gun side was greater than the anti.
That’s just a simple attempt to spread ignorance, pure and simple. Yet, you don’t even deny it.
Given the nature of the board’s mission, I have to ask: Why are you posting here?
Costa Ricans might disagree:
So apparently eliminating standing armies broke the Latin American cycle of generales and juntas.
“Ban demon rum! Only the saloon owners and drunkards oppose Prohibition!”
You gave one example of something you could call reasonable, then immediately said you opposed it anyway. Make up your mind.
What was the last one? :dubious:
Are you actually claiming that tens of thousands of deaths are not harsh, while restricting access to weapons of murder is? What is the “good faith” position which you are withholding from us rather than educating us with?
Ah, I see your disconnect now. Everything you oppose you consider “unreasonable”. Makes sense given your posting history.
Here’s the thing: Most people can find something “reasonable” even if they disagree with it. I’m pro-choice, but I think it’s reasonable for someone to be pro-life. That’s not an extreme position or far out there.
The NRA has been consistent in supporting banning guns from the mentally ill. This is something that I agree with them on, to name one example.
I’m saying it’s dumb to compare the two. Just like a discussion of traffic laws wouldn’t be helped by someone shouting “what about the tens of thousands of traffic fatalities!”
To repeat: I asked you what you would consider reasonable enough that you could support it. Your answer, in short, is “Nothing”. You do go on, however, to claim good faith nonetheless.
Goody. :rolleyes: Even those with strong enough delusional tendencies to think of the militia/tyranny stuff as realistic today, while dismissing tens of thousands of deaths per year as mere abstractions? That is not mentally healthy, even for, what’s the term, “law-abiding citizens”.
No, you’re not getting away with claiming guns are unlike anything else so no other experience is applicable. For one thing, as you know, killing people is not the purpose of cars. They are intended for a practical purpose. You do know that, don’t you, Mr. Good Faith?
There has long been, as you know, a very strong effort in both government and industry to make automobiles safer, to kill and injure as few as possible, with essentially zero opposition from anybody anywhere. There is no organized effort, no quasi-religion of Law-Abiding Car Owners, doggedly opposing any of it in the name of Freedom or something. You do know that too, don’t you, Mr. Good Faith?
And if there were, you would certainly hear a loud chorus of people reminding them what’s real and what’s important, even though you might well sneer at them in your attempt to dismiss the meaning of human life itself while holding this Freedom fantasy to be real. And no doubt you would claim they were not discussing the matter in Good Faith, right?
No. This is incorrect. You didn’t ask me what laws would be reasonable and that I would support. You simply asked what laws would be reasonable. Being reasonable doesn’t equate with something that I support. As I’ve explained to you, it’s possible for something to be reasonable and still not something I would support.
You are such an extremist that you can’t understand this concept, and that’s what’s giving you such trouble.
So all gun owners are mentally ill, now?
If the only purpose of guns is killing, why don’t we just lock up all the gun owners in prison? After all, gun ownership is the equivalent of attempted murder, right?
There has long not been, as you know, a very strong effort in both government and industry to make guns illegal. This is why gun ownership needs to be protected by an organization like the NRA, while car ownership does not.
In California, tax increases must, in most cases, be passed by popular vote. It is difficult but tax increases do go through sometimes. Most recently with Propostion 30 which increased income tax rates to support school funding. So it is possible.
So this means, for instance, finding out if someone is mentally ill before selling a gun to them? Because last I checked, the NRA opposed such measures. Like, say, in the very case that prompted this thread.
IOW, in short, there is nothing you would support, even if you admit it’s reasonable. Nothing whatever.
IOW, “No, YOU’RE the extremist!” says the guy who could support nothing.
The ones who yammer about defending liberty and forming militias and such, while dismissing the very-real volume of killings, are claiming their fantasies are more real than death itself. If that fits into a “reasonable” definition of mental health for you, please explain.
There’s a simpler, easier solution, of course. One which pretty much the entire rest of the civilized world has implemented successfully. One which does not involve strawmen and other forms of fantasy, either.
All you show here that you can understand is the sole concept of ownership, not the concepts of actual use or intended purpose or real consequences. You especially show not even awareness of the rights of *others *not to be fucking killed on the altar of your abstract “right” to ownership of a fetish object. No, nothing else matters, does it? It’s all about you and only you.
Well, the U.S. has never had any reason, other than the expense, to regret having a standing army. And when we do call on the militia/National Guard, they do not bring their own weapons from home. And if there were a military coup here, it would make little difference whether civilians had their own firearms or not; see Iraq – lightly-armed insurgents cannot defeat the U.S. Army, they can only harass it. The reason why such coups do not happen here, and the military never bucks the authority of civil government, is purely a matter of political culture. All in all, the Second Amendment is utterly irrelevant to any matter of military or defense policy.
The NRA supports measures to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. They have taken some heat from their membership about this, as people have concerns that such as someone treated years ago for depression being prevented from owning a gun. That sort of thing.
There were a bunch of laws proposed in CO, some of which passed and some didn’t. Was one of them regarding mental health and gun ownership? If so please elaborate, because I wasn’t aware of it. (I’m not from CO.)
This is a lie. I just posted one example of gun laws I do support: Those preventing the mentally ill from obtaining guns. You can ignore it and misrepresent my position, but my post is there for all to see.
More lies. But yes, your position on gun ownership is certainly extreme, while mine is quite mainstream.
So only these ‘yammering’ gun owners are mentally ill, then? Further define it for me. Can you give me a percentage? How many gun owners are mentally ill? 10% Half? Is there anyone in the NRA who isn’t mentally ill according to you, given that just about all of the membership would agree that guns are necessary for defending liberty?
Warnings for both of you here; ElvisL1ves for personal insults and Debaser for calling ElvisL1ves a liar. I may consider closing this thread if this crap persists, but I will continue to warn people who break the rules.
I thought you could point out a specific lie, but not call a poster a liar.
I’ll go read up on the rules.
In any case, Marley can you check the double-secret-warning-thread for me? I think that in well over ten years of posting here this might be my first warning!
Hey, there’s even a little yellow box that says “received warning” on my post! Cool.
Sorry, I know I shouldn’t be excited about this. No more calling Elvis a liar.*
*Outside of the pit, of course.
In related news, here’s a blast from the past regarding ElvisL1ves and myself and lying and mod warnings. It’s got everything!
So far as I know, this is current: