I think I’d object to someone saying, though, that State B has attempted to suppress concealed carry rights, even though I’d agree that they have taken away a right to carry concealed.
The reason is that the two phrases convey a dramatically different message. The first suggests that there is some baseline standard for concealed carry which should be present, and which State B has abrogated. The second phrasing simply acknowledges that State B has eliminated a legal right to carry concealed, without a concommittant sense that this ability is part of the pantheon of human natural rights.
I meant that such a debate would be tiresome, but since you have this incredible fascination with my views – I assume you’re writing the Unauthorized Biography of Bricker – I will reveal the tantilizing detail that I don’t believe it’s unfair but do believe it’s unwise.
You’re talking about a country that gets indignant about requiring someone to show ID to vote. Anything other than that is minor IMO.
I once went to the polls to find out that I had already voted!! :eek: I had to demand that they look at my ID and then all I got was a provisional ballot. This is a tempest in a teapot when it comes to real voting issues.
You’re not a big fan of the concept of “ratcheting,” apparently, but it’s difficult to take seriously the implication that you can’t wrap your head around the idea.
Well, now,he has a point! It isn’t necessarily the case that this dramatic drop has anything at all to do with this issue in particular. There is an enormous amount of slimey shit slithering from the Florida GOP, you can’t actually prove that this particular issue is the one that’s causing a massive group-puke on the part of Floridians.
Once again, Bricker points out that even though the current crop of Republicans are the dumbest, slimiest, most ignorance-friendly bunch of knuckle-walking goons evah, Democrats are not right about every single thing.
Way to take the liberal point of view. It could also very well be that Floridians thought the abortion, vote restricting, and other legislation didn’t go far enough. If they’d just make it illegal for women who’ve had abortions to vote, they’d be seeing approval ratings in the 120’s.
Roughly, “Just because Event B happened after Event A doesn’t mean that A caused B.”
The implication of that specific latin in logic/debate is “You’ve established the order of two events, but until you establish a basis for believing A caused B, you can’t say it’s relevant.”
But since you said this, let me ask you what the relevance of your approval ratings post was. Just decided to drop in to a random thread and share the news, didja? Probably pure chance it was this thread and not one about the literary legacy of Increase Mather, huh?