And as I said earlier in the thread, I think this kind of black and white thinking conveniently gets you out of a tougher discussion.
I think we should be able to have a rational debate on tightening up gun laws. Those discussions are generally short-circuited by fearmongering, lobbing, and an unreasonable reading of the Constitution. That’s my argument.
This.
I’m not sure of exactly the context and how tone deaf this statement actually was. But it’s completely true.
Or tens of thousands of them, even.
AIUI the comic book industry was mostly killed off in the late fifties/early sixties because of morality campaigns (and their decision to self-censor in response.) They got rid of scantly clad/violent superheroes and replaced them with Archie.
I’m not following the point you are trying to make. I think you saying that some proposals are being rejected not based on their merit, but simply because there is no goodwill between opposing sides. This is the slippery slope you were mentioning before I think. I agree there is an element of that.
I think so too. I don’t think it can be had with Bloomberg and Feinstein as the standard bearers on the gun control side. Same goes for the more extreme posters on this board. From my point of view, gun control advocates need to condemn and marginalize those people as a starting point.
Your side has been heard. The country has been debating this issue for decades. Your side doesn’t have the votes. Many politicians who ran on gun bans/registration/confiscation issues had to find a new line of work after they weren’t elected/reelected.
I’m saying that you’re calling all gun control advocates dishonest because you’ve decided some of them are dishonest. At best that’s a type of intellectual laziness. And the slippery slope is the rejection of even the idea of compromising.
People more extreme than Bloomberg and Feinstein have been carrying the standard on the other side for 20 years.
Right. And once we’ve met all your conditions, I’m sure we can start to negotiate. Of course that’s not how negotiation really works…
And who will your side be condemning and marginalizing before talks begin? Or is that only supposed to happen for one side?
A list of gun control advocates that you don’t think are “extreme”, if you please?
It’s not laziness - it’s effective. There is no reason to engage when gun rights advocates are winning in the courts. Strategically, it makes more sense to just dismiss gun control advocates because they are losing. It’s the same reason the incumbent candidate limits public debates during election cycles. The strategy is working, currently. If you want that to change, then the burden would be on you to offer something that makes it worthwhile to change.
Who? Who in a position of power in the legislative or executive branch is comparable?
I’m happy to call out people acting stupidly that are on my side both on this board and elected folks.
…
Thank you! This is the kind of repulsive honesty I was asking for.
That already happened, and for some reason change still wasn’t worthwhile.
I don’t actually know. The discussion is quite polarized and the moderates involved don’t get nearly as much coverage. Any suggestions?
Since I have no idea what you might consider a reasonable gun control advocate to be, I’m afraid you’ll have to provide your own list. Surely there must be one or two that you consider to be reasonable?
It has happened? When? What has been worthwhile to engage on? Background checks? I would actually support the background checks in a vacuum but it doesn’t make sense to strategically for reasons I mentioned above.
I’m in CA - we already have background checks on ALL firearm purchases. We also have both a long gun and handgun registry. Magazine limits, purchase limits, and virtually no CCW. Even with all that, new gun control measures are proposed here on a regular basis. Do you think it’s reasonable to believe that would also happen at the national level after some form of Machin-Toomey were to be passed?
Do you really think that anyone who voted against Machin-Toomey is equivalent on the spectrum to Bloomberg or Feinstein?
Why are you bothering to ask for reasonable proposals when you’re admitting you’d reject them out of hand just because you can?
No, because I think anyone with minimal familiarity with politics understands that California is more liberal than the country at large.
Yes, that kind of opposition to expanded background checks is rather extreme. We know 90% of the country supports them. And you also asked for people with power. Bloomberg is a wealthy guy who’s not in elected office anymore. Feinstein is a senator, and that bill was killed by her colleagues. Of course it had majority support but you know what that’s worth.
Joe the Plumber sums up our current state of affairs pretty well. I largely agree with this essay, which made the same point from a different political perspective:
You tell me. “Civil rights are not something to be voted on,” was a common sentiment here on the SDMB.
What do YOU think majority support should mean?
You do understand that I was talking about filibusters in the Senate, right?
While I acknowledge the real politik of the current landscape, I think it’s fair to say that for the sake of discussion on this board, that the idea of potential slippery slope should be tabled (not ignored). It does tend to stifle discussion on the merits of any particular issue. I’m willing to refrain from that line of argument for the purpose of discussion.
As the most populous state in the nation, and as one who is further on the control side of the gun rights spectrum, CA is a real world example of how far things can swing. It’s legitimate to point to all the regulation that exists in CA both for the purposes of comparison to other states, as well as an example of true motivations of gun control advocates.
I think that figure is actually lower, but still a significant majority. In any event, I’m struggling to see how wanting to stick to the status quo (defeating the bill) is even remotely close to the positions that Feinstein and Bloomberg have taken with regard to gun bans that would affect millions. These aren’t the same - not even close. I do believe that the background checks failed because they came immediately after the proposals to ban assault weapons and magazines.