Aw. Dammnit Ma!
Liberal voices chastise us, and we drown.
Again, very fair – are we really in the Pit?
But I would argue that the current shy glances and embarrassed throat clearing does not mean that liberal politicians don’t want to implement gun control – it’s just that they can’t. They tried and lost seats. Where they dominate – Chicago, San Francisco, Washington DC municipal – they have.
I’m not sure if you offered this thought up as evidence of more reasonableness from the left, but I’d argue it’s a more base calculation.
Have conservatives made similar base calculations to abandon core priciples in the face of political reality?
When?
If those burgs implemented new gun controls during the past decade, that would support your contention. If not, then you’ve got no evidence that this isn’t a change of heart.
Dunno. Still waiting on that link, please.
Never. Conservatives stick to their principles, come what may.
Ha! Ha! I’ll be here all week. Don’t forget to tip your server!
Of course you’re quite right – states rights come to mind as a convenient principle that conservatives love, until the words “medical marijuana” or “assisted suicide” are mentioned.
Were those really the same thing as liberals backing off gun control because of political push back? Or are they more like mutually exclusive positions colliding within the conservative ideology, with one yielding to the other?
Here is a link to the March 2010 anticipatory thread, discussing the dire results that would come.
Starting at post #100, the thread was bumped by me in August 2011, with this observation:
In fact, a later post, after several folks rushed in to say things like, " I don’t see that that changes the fact that guns are dangerous and that people, when they carry guns, are dangerous," and “Either some other factor is causing a decrease in gun crime, or someone is lying,” Measure for Measure correctly observed:
OK, fair enough. In my view, a genuine adoption of the federalism viewpoint means that you can no longer claim that some greater social good allows you to flout federalism’s principles – that’s precisely the point. But I do agree it’s not a backlash of popular opinion driving that hypocrisy.
DC has, though… in the wake of DC v. Heller, the DC city council was faced with the fact that the Supreme Court had invalidated their existing legal framework. What the enacted to replace it was only slightly less invidious – it was as far as they could go and still be in compliance with SCOTUS, and some would argue that they still aren’t.
So, too, with Chicago in the aftermath of Macdonald.
But you’re making my argument for me: when the topic is gun control, look at the level of argument that’s necessary to carry a point with you.
Bricker, that’s way beneath your level, just in terms of sheer stupidity.
I know you’re smarter than that.
Any change of heart on the part of the left side of the political spectrum towards gun control for whatever reason it might’ve happened, happened after 2000.
So yeah, dates are important. If those cities implemented new measures before 2000, it would pretty damned obviously not constitute evidence that this alleged post-2000 change of heard didn’t happen.
You know that, I know that, and even the true morons on this board, like the one that’s the subject of the OP, are probably smart enough to figure that out.
Asking for dates is hardly requiring an excessive level of argument to carry the point. It’s more at the level of verifying the name and address of a witness testifying in court. Saying that this is an example of some unreasonable level of argument you need to carry this point is like saying it’s ambush journalism to ask Sarah Palin “Which newspapers do you read?”
So kindly get off your high horse and come back down to earth.
I’m about 20 posts in past your bumping, and the only person who’s suggested you’re lying is Der Trihs, a poster famed for generating more heat than light.
The only other person who’s said something you find objectionable is Captain Amazing, who basically said, ‘the statistics show what they show, but I still think it’s a stupid idea.’ He was expressing an opinion, not engaging in debate.
All I can say after reading that far is, did you used to be such a whiner?
In turn, bucko, I’ll just opine that you damn well have heard of DC v. Heller and when it came down, and you know damn well that DC politicians are doing everything they can to avoid implementing its dictates by passing new laws. The ridiculous demand was not the date – it was the pretend ignorance of only the most noteworthy and newsworthy gun control decision in the past 75 years, treated by you with wide-eyed, virginal innocent wonder.
Bricker -
Here’s my take on the Global Warming / Concealed Carry comparison.
Modern conservatives, when faced with the inconvenient facts on global warming, embrace the batshit.
Liberals, when faced with awkward facts on gun control, generally respond with stunned silence. I mean geez, you really do have to discount poor Der Trihs. And note that there’s no media analogue of that poster, claiming vast conspiracies of Sheriffs et al. At a national level, the Democratic Party has basically taken a look at the swing voters and decided to STFU.
Sorry Bricker, but the off-board conservative team, taken as a whole, has only gotten nuttier over time. As I’ve said before, I’m a centrist by European standards: I would give British Tories and German Christian Democrats active consideration for my vote. This positioning puts me on the far left fringe of the American political spectrum.
I re-assert my old claim that this is a good case study though and don’t deny that more awkward observations of the left might be made. Hey, we’re here to fight ignorance, right? On the substance, I think a solid scholarly treatment of gun control has yet to be made. An analogue to this drug policy book would be terrific.
I’ll tell you a secret: I haven’t really been following the gun debates much for the past several years. Thanks in no small part to the Bush Administration, that issue had dropped to about #137 on the list of partisan issues I gave a shit about.
Yes, I’ve heard of DC v. Heller, and that’s about it. What various burgs (including DC) have been doing about it, I was, as a matter of fact, blissfully unaware. Or maybe I’d briefly known, but had forgotten.
So kindly stuff it, you overgrown anus.
And since I missed the edit window, let me remind you that this:
Is still bullshit, and your last post didn’t affect that one whit. Asking for dates, in a context where they’re of key significance, is hardly an onerous burden, regardless of the debate.
Exactly this. Is Bricker asserting an equivalence between the literature base on global climate change compared to a newspaper article about there being 145 gun crimes in Virginia bars in 2011 versus 153 the year before?
As a liberal faced with the awkwardities of reality, I am often stunned into silence. (I am a liberal who supports gun ownership rights and I have no problem with concealed carry or open carry.
But I did manage to go into the Antioch Armory today (my local gun shop) and noticed that there was a sign on the door prohibiting open carry within the shop except for law enforcement officers.
Bricker, as someone who has a lot of respect for you, I have to ask you… what precise point are you trying to make?
That some liberals are, at times, jerks? Or dumb? Or rude? Or stubborn? Or resistant to facts that challenge their world views? Well, of course. We’re people, and there are lots of us who are very different from each other, so for any of those precise accusations, you can certainly find an example of a liberal doing it.
Furthermore, it’s also unquestionably the case that the SDMB as a whole is left-leaning, so that any right-wing opinion posted is going to be met with a LOT of disagreement, of various tones, levels of intellect and levels of politeness. And, unfortunately, that has become somewhat of a vicious cycle… as right wing posters have become fewer, the ratio has increased, making the situation worse, etc. This is a bad thing. The SDMB would be a better place with more political balance (at least insofar as its likelihood of having rational discussions about political topics is concerned).
But, it is what it is. It’s not like we did it on purpose. A bunch of us SDMB liberals didn’t agree over email that we would start ganging up on right wingers one by one until we had an ideologically pure message board to post on.
What point am I trying to make? Two, I guess:
(1) I strongly believe that there is a huge difference in the way right-wingers-as-a-national-group act and the way left-wingers-as-a-national-group act. Right wingers are vastly more organized and more lockstep, and this leads to all sorts of negative things, including denial of global warming, etc. Now, I can’t easily prove any of this, and part of what makes it so hard to discuss is that any individual thing I can point to the right doing is probably matched by some example of SOMETHING similar being done on the left, even if the scope and scale are vastly different. If you can suggest a good way to really test or analyze my claim in some objective fashion, I’d be very interested to here it.
(2) Yes, the SDMB is hostile towards conservative views, and, to a lesser extent, conservative posters… for certain non-trivial but non-all-encompassing definitions of “hostile”. At the same time, though, it’s not hostile to the exclusion of all reason. Going back to the original topic of this thread, Shodan unquestionably gets more shit than an equal and opposite liberal poster would, both in terms of quality of shit and quantity of shit. But that doesn’t absolve him of all responsibility for the shit he receives… certainly a response like “well of course everyone says mean things to him, he’s a conservative, they hate conservatives around here” is both actively and provably wrong, AND very destructive to the SDMB itself. Because the more time people spend writing and reading hyperbolic exaggerations like that, the more true they become as self-fulfilling prophecies.