in my view, these events prove that the message was never accurate.
In other words, even a mass murder this horrible is only one event, and not a proper basis for setting policy. Anecdotes are not data – one horrible murder using an AR-15 does not justify banning AR-15s in the absence of more generalized data indicating the harm they cause. So what this set of events suggest is that Democrats were always predisposed to enact various bans, and stymied only by the lack of more general public support.
But again: irrelevant to my point. Let’s pretend you’re right. My question remains: having now seen the ease with which Democrats were persuaded to abandon their previous disavowal of interest in gun restrictions, can they, going forward, again claim a lack of interest in gun control?
Yes. Odd that you don’t similarly believe the First Amendment should mean exactly what it meant in 1791: the press is protected, but we can regulate the content of Twitter, blogs, and radio broadcasts as we please.
It’s safe to say that someone who came along with a proposal to regulate The Daily Show because of its dangerous criticisms of the government would be branded an opponent of the First Amendment, and I don’t for an instant believe that his attempt to distinguish himself as someone who “supports” the First Amendment as it was written in 1791 would be received with anything but derision.
So – save it.
Sure – but what about ten years down the line?
Will there come a point at which Democrats – or their proxies here – feel enough time has passed that they’re able to credibly distance themselves again from the “gun grabber” label?
This is because I’m a bit of a Constitutional pragmatist: I believe that, within the range of legitimate approaches to interpretation (and you do consider originalism legitimate, right, counselor?), those that work best for the citizenry should be favored over those that work poorly. There’s an element of IMHO in there, of course, but that’s inevitable.
Still, with some things like gun rights, there are tests of ‘what works well’ - can citizens still go hunting for deer, wild turkey, etc., can citizens possess guns that will repel intruders to their homes and businesses, are gun deaths otherwise minimized?
In 1872, who would have predicted that, 140 years later, the Republican party would be fighting for voting restrictions that had the goal of reducing minority voting, and the Democrats would be against those restrictions?
Given enough time, anything can happen. What’s your point, counselor?
Bricker, show us the names of the Democratic legislators who pledged never to consider new gun control legislation and then went back on that pledge. Or admit you have no point. Either one would be fine.
Then your view is really kinda worthless, isn’t it?
I mean, I understand you’re a Catholic and all, and the eternal is of great importance to you. But this is politics we’re talking about, not faith, hope, or love, and nothing is eternal in politics.
Which leads us to the conclusion that nothing in politics is accurate by your standard.
Which means that the only thing to do is get over any expectation that anything political will be accurate by your standard, and when discussing politics, retreat to normal rather than eternal usage of ‘accurate.’
Back to where we started, here we go 'round again…
I think we’d need to look at specific politicians and not just “Democrats”. Which ones previously opposed a ban, then supported it after the Sandy Hook shooting?
It’s actually 3: Democrats have consistently wanted gun control but know that it’s a losing issue for them so they don’t do anything about it. But as soon as Sandy Hook happened they took the chance it offered to attempt to pass the anti-gun laws that they desire. They always wanted them, but don’t act on it because they usually can’t.
That’s the point. If you value your second amendment rights you shouldn’t vote for Democrats.
Since that was never my point, I don’t see why the refutation of it would serve to show that I have no point. But there are plenty of examples of legislators who strongly sold the idea, without making it a notarized oath.
Yes - and your OP offers evidence that this statement would be true.
If somebody agrees with the majority of the Democrat Part platform but is opposed to gun control, then they should vote Democrat. Because no meaningful gun control is going to happen.
Put me down for a “Meh”. If there is one thing Harry Reid can do, it’s count votes. They weren’t there.
I’m sure that many are rubbing their hands like Montgomery Burns and cackling “Excellent”, in hopes that this will somehow hurt Democrats. I don’t think so for these reasons.
1- If your vote is primarily swayed by making sure that guns are readily available, you’ve already been voting Republican your entire life.
2- Every politician who has expressed a desire for more gun control lives in a safely blue district or state.
The NRA got what they wanted out of Sandy Hook, namely money. Their bosses, the gun manufacturers, made shitloads of money selling tons of weapons by capitalizing on the paranoia of gun lovers.
Now it’s over until the next Sandy Hook. Perhaps next time, the mass murderer will be more competent and the death toll will be in the hundreds. Maybe that will spark enough outrage to change things. But I doubt it.
But I also value rights to socialized healthcare and women’s rights to abortion and higher taxes on high income earners and improved social services for those less privileged and lower spending on military and higher spending on education and gay marriage rights…
But gosh darn it, I do love my Glock. What to do… what to do…?
I think there is also a point to be made that there are different levels of gun regulation. The concerns on the right was that Obama was going to make gun ownership illegal and send ATF agents into individuals homes and round up their guns by force. The left said that this will never happen. This statement was correct. Under even the most favorable of political circumstances the best that the left could come up with was proposing a mealy mouthed ban on the manufacture and importation of one specific type of gun, and even this didn’t pass. So yes the right didn’t have to worry about “Obama coming for their guns”.
The comparison with abortion is apt. No matter who was elected to office, Roe v Wade will not be overturned in spite of the left’s fear mongering. On the other hand there are many laws put forward by the right that eat away at the edges, such as invasive ultrasounds. The right doesn’t need to worry about the overturning of the second amendment any more than the left needs to be concerned about the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In fact it appears it has nothing to worry about at all.
My point may be found in the OP, and in a number of my posts above: Democrats generally disclaimed an interest in gun control. But when an opportunity arose that appeared to provide increased public support for gun control, they reversed that position. Now that the main thrust from that attempt appears to have failed, I’m asking if they will again try to claim no interest in gun control.
Absolutely not. I’m suggesting that the proper method of analysis for determining the First Amendment’s limits is not found by examining the technologies in use when the amendment was adopted.