Did you actually read it?
Well, if that’s your opinion, you’re entitled to it. No one posting here seems to share it though, so I hope you weren’t trying to characterize other posters’ views.
The question was whether libertarians and I mean Second Amendment libertarians (small “L”) were in the responding group that thinks Sandy Hook was a government set-up, and armed insurrection will be necessary within the next three years to protect their freedoms and gun rights.
If you think not, why not?
I thought you believed the gun rights side is the reasonable side and people like Sen Feinstein are the irrational one’s.
There’s s lot of nuts in the gun rights side as this poll confirms.
So why are they the reasonable ones?
Is there something wrong with the term “gun-right supporter” or something similar? Your previous anti-libertarian rants make me deeply skeptical of your purported use of it here to strictly mean gun-rights supporters.
In a poll of 863 adults, there’s probably at least 1 of every political philosophy.
Moving on, here’s some fast facts:
-
The poll asked respondents whether they agreed with this statement: “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” Nothing about gun rights specifically.
-
The “Some people are hiding the truth about the school shooting at Sandy Hook to advance a political agenda” question was similarly vague. Truth to advance gun control, or to prevent it? The “Agrees” broke down as follows:
Democrat, 20%
Independent, 23%
Republican 32%
Once again, strong support across parties.
In post 152, I told you that no one in this thread, me included, had stated that the “gun lobby’s tactics are fully based upon reason, as opposed to emotion.” I challenged you to produce a post to that effect, and you did not. Of course, I cannot attest to others’ beliefs, only their words and deeds. I can attest to my own. Once more, no, I don’t think the gun rights side is uniformly rational.
Here’s what I wrote about Diane Feinstein:
You keep trying to make me a radical in this thread. Sorry, but I’m not.
More fast facts:
-
This was a poll of registered voters, not gun owners or gun-rights supporters.
-
Sadly, there’s a lot of nuts everywhere.
Prepared to be appalled as you read:
Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories
6% of Americans believe the moon landing was fakes
45% of Portlanders oppose fluorinated drinking water
17% of American voters believe Barrack Obama is a Muslim
18% of Americans believe vaccination causes autism, and another 30% are undecided.
Some are, and some are not.
I mean card carrying Libertarians, and Republicans, Democrats and Independents with a strong political investment in protecting the Second Amendment rights. it is those with the SA being a high priority in their political and ideological views.
I am not addressing card carrying "L"ibertarians I am addressing Second Amendment small “L” libertarians.
Here’s an exchange. You don’t demand the Gun Rights side mutually disarm on unreason and emotion. It’s all Diane Feinstein keeping reason and common sense as part of it. Feinstein is the stumbling block against reason? Come on.
Why don’t the gun rights side need to wrench control of their side from their dishonest fanatics?
No I don’t. I am bringing up your expressed view that the crazies and the emotional and unreasonable are on the side of gun regulation.
So?
The term for them is “gun rights supporters.”
Which is like using “Democrat” and “environmentalist” interchangeably, it’s inaccurate and just muddies the waters.
I also wrote:
Yes, Feinstein is a stumbling block for her own cause, and no, her views aren’t particularly reasonable.
Well, for one thing, they are winning, so they don’t have as much incentive to change, do they? They aren’t trying to pass laws, they are trying to maintain the status quo.
For another, there are moderate voices on the gun-rights side, Manchin-Toomey is proof of that. In Congress, the leading lights on the gun control side are radicals, who are profoundly bad at what they are trying to do.
Never said that, and don’t believe it.
So, you are assuming that everyone who agreed with either question is a gun rights supporter and/or gun owner. There is no reason to assume that.
Voting against a Bill you may be for just because you don’t wish to be seen as giving a victory to the President is anything but moderate lawmaking behavior.
Is Gabby Giffords radical and unreasonable in her quest for stronger gun laws?
Is Ted Nugent moderate and reasonable?
That’s Toomey’s theory as to why it failed, it’s not an objective fact.
In her quest, perhaps, but not in the aftermath of that quest’s (to date) failure. Her New York Times opinion piece was anything but reasonable.
No, he is not.
Sophistic Stephen Colbert editorials aside, “I was injured by a thing so I am now an expert on that thing and you must do what I say regarding that thing or be deemed ‘insensitive’ to my pain” is a fucking terrible basis for lawmaking. Remember when we tried that line of reasoning towards black people, and Muslims? Trying it towards gun owners is neither different nor better, it’s just that it’s a group you WANT to persecute.
HA is not considering the recent victories for better gun regulations by the newly organizing gun victim’s rights groups at the state level. And at the Federal Level a pro-NRA vote is no longer what it used to be.
The Toomey Manchen bill went down although a majority of Senators voted for it , I think 54 to 46.
That, or they just weren’t what your OP was about or what the thread had been about.
There’s a dicussion to be had about this, though. Did these state laws pass purely because the constituencies are different, or did the campaigns to pass these laws use different tactics than the ineffective ones we saw at the federal level?
What would a pro-NRA vote be? Tax exemption for nonprofits? Lifting of restrictions on independent expenditures on political campaigns?
Yes, this is why I cited it as proof that there were moderates on the gun-rights side.
The fact that the Senate has usurped its Constitutional role and decided that anything needs 60 votes to pass rather than 51 is a general issue that has bitten both parties at various times, and has been talked about ad nauseam since it began to be the case in the 2000s. It has nothing specific to do with the fact that this was a gun bill.
I’m sorry but this comment is paranoid crap.
Nobody is trying to “persecute” gun owners and besides gun owners are not a religious or ethnic group so comparisons between them and blacks or Muslims are ridiculous.
I certainly wouldn’t be happy if some says “I hate people who play Magic the Gathering” but I wouldn’t compare that to someone who says “I hate Jews, Muslims and Swedes!”
Of course they are. When you blame a group for the actions of .001% of its members, place all of society’s ills at their feet, declare that their civil rights don’t count anymore, and even publish their addresses in the newspaper so they can be shamed or lynched, you are persecuting them. What you mean to say is “I don’t OBJECT to the persecution of gun owners because I think it’s a good thing.”
Oh please, nobody is calling for them to be persecuted much less “lynched” nor has anyone claimed their “civil rights don’t count anymore”.
Beyond that, it takes a massive amount of chutzpah for someone who rages against Obama encouraging black people to vote and who claims that he wishes fewer black people voted in 2008 to start waving around the absurd spectacle of gun owners being “lynched” and having their civil rights taken away.
Bullshit. Show me where I gave the slightest suggestion that I favored persecuting gun owners.
Yeah yeah, we get it, anyone who doesn’t drink the Obama juice is a racist. You’ve learned you can get away with this because the moderators think they’re on a holy crusade for Team Hope. Doesn’t make you look like any less of a fanatical cultist when you indulge in it.
Huh?
What are you talking about?
I didn’t say anything about Barack Obama.
Were you responding to someone else?
So you’ve gotten the sense I’m tired of reading this kind of nonsense in every thread you post in; unfortunately it hasn’t deterred you from posting it. You cannot insult other posters here (unless you’re in the Pit), and turning every thread into a personal fight is counterindicated. Your posting privileges will be reviewed by the staff. Until then, your account is suspended.
One big difference appears to be the 60 vote rule in the US Senate. It only takes a simple majority in State Legislatures. Fifty four of 100 Senators were for the Bill that failed to pass in the US Senate.
Yes, but that was a compromise bill that lacked the elements that had the gun-rights side fired up, like magazine size restrictions and “assault weapon” bans. Based on what you cited, it sounded like the state-level laws were more substantial than Manchin-Toomey.
Let us know if any of you Libertarians buy and apply the ‘slippery slope’ argument against any sort of tighter gun laws.