I got a link to a DailyKos article hyperventilating about a Democrat on the Pro-Life caucus in the House or some such. I thought “good for her - it should be a big tent party.”
(Now, I probably wouldn’t vote for her - reproductive rights are one of my own priorities, but if that is what the people who voted her in wanted, and she supports other Democratic priorities, that’s fine with me).
Same as it ever was.
Oddly, you’ve repeatedly failed to show that I’m ignorant of anything at all. My discussion of Chicago’s history of gun laws has been completely accurate, the fact that there isn’t a ban on handguns or carry doesn’t actually contradict anything I said, just a strawman you invented and tried to attach to me.
If you actually read the thread, and especially what I wrote, instead of going nuts because someone made a comment about Chicago, you would have the answer to this question. You appear to be obsessed with misrepresenting Chicago’s legislative history on firearms and the words of other posters, and actively avoid discussing the topic of this thread or things that people have actually written, so I’ll leave you to it.
No, someone made up a strawman, claimed I said it, and then said that I was wrong because what they invented was wrong. What I stated was, in fact, completely accurate, but did not include anything like ‘there is a ban’, ‘they come as close to a ban as they can get away with’ clearly implies that there is not actually a ban if you understand basic English.
I would be surprised if a pro-life, pro-death-penalty Democrat won a seat, for the same reason I would be surprised if a unicorn won a seat. More so, actually, because you can make a unicorn by doing some surgery on a goat, but a person being pro-life and pro-death penalty is a contradiction in terms. Now, there are some people who are anti-abortion and pro-death-penalty, but anti-abortion is not the same thing as pro-life.
I would not be surprised to see a pro-life Democrat, because that’s the party where you’ll find most of the pro-life folks.
Interestingly, I fly by flapping my arms as much as I can get away with (not at all). I own as many Ferraris as I can get away with (none). I travel through time as much as I can get away with (forward only, on a 1:1 basis).
Never thought to use this sentence construction to imply the opposite of reality, but I plan to use it as much as I can get away with (every time).
Yes, and there’s very little chance of any significant gun control bills passing the Utah Legislature (I know because I’m active in those discussions with state legislators right now during the session), but … I own a couple of bump stocks. There’s been a push to ban those. I own some M855 ammo, with plans to buy more in the future. It was not that long ago that Obama was pursuing a rule change to ban that.
Although it’s run from the hijack to the chop shop with a lot of the parts being sold at this point…
I can see how my post can be read as implying that. Let me be clear, I was not implying that. My major point was that Revis was way outside of the mainstream of the party making it problematic to assert the win is a shift towards Democrats. Revis directly contradicts two parts of the most recent party platform- on abortion and death penalty. He’s not exactly mainstream for Party on guns either.
Pushing a candidate that runs very close to the center is a common tactic to try to compete in otherwise non-competitive districts. It’s easier to pick that well tuned for the district fringe of the party candidate when there’s not a primary challenge. Revis didn’t face one. He didn’t have to win among Democratic voters first. When there is a primary hurdle to get over it gets harder to be outside the maintstream of the party and get nominated. Winning without being pulled away from the center, damaging general election prospects, can be even trickier. There likely will be some Revis-style far right of the party candidates that survive the primary cycle. I don’t believe it’s safe to assume that all, or almost all, of them will win their primary.
Not reading too much into Revis’ win is still my main point. His win doesn’t clearly show a shift in the preferences of voters that can be applied to expectations about November. That effect is obscured by appealing directly to typical Republican preferences. If the Democratic Party had the ability to just select nominees for the general election and was showing a predisposition to shift quite a bit right to win, the separate effects would be moot. They don’t have that ability. We’ll see how useful a data point this election is as we start seeing who’s winning in the primary cycles.
Chicago DID have a ban on handguns. It DID have a ban on carry. The only reason it does not have those things now is because the 7th Circuit forced them to get rid of those policies. That fits right in line with the narrative that Dems will push for gun bans in areas that they control, like Chicago.
Eh, pro-life is a misnomer. You’ll find the vast majority of pro-choice advocates would love to see no abortions as well. It’s more anti-choice or pro-birth than pro-life.
So you agree that is not accurate to depict Chicago currently as if it had any kind of ban then. Good. My issue was with a misrepresentation of the current status of guns in Chicago. If your biggest baddest example of the horrors of gun control is a place were guns are available to anyone that wants them, then maybe its time to calm down and celebrate your victory. Guns aren’t going anywhere and Chicago is not a useful example for something to be afraid of if you are gun owner. Its fear mongering and false. But it does get the right reactions from the right people so I can’t say its not effective.