In places outside of the progressive echo chamber of this blog and others like it, I think society is finally becoming much better informed about mental illness as the real problem, not guns.
Thanks to the progressives, we lost decades where headway could have been made on mental health issues, but I think the dialogue is slowly headed on the right track.
The "progressive echo chamber" that you and others echo loudly in, by the way.
Thanks to the progressives, we lost decades where headway could have been made on mental health issues, but I think the dialogue is slowly headed on the right track.
Because the NRA and other radical conservative groups who don't give one inch after these kinds of tragedies have been so instrumental in addressing mental health issues and how they relate to firearm safety, right?
It gets tiring to sift through these kinds of distortions and outright BS, JM, in order to find the grains of truth and valid insight that you no doubt possess having read so much on the subject.
Here we go with the demonization and Alinsky tactics, right on cue Rick, bravo.
No "inch" has been given because there is no "inch" to give, because the left's solution has been to:
a) refuse to recognize that the 2nd amendment provides a right to personal ownership of a firearm.
Unfortunately, due to the left's rabid pursuit of a police state, the NRA and its members have had to expend decades of effort and millions of dollars to fight that battle. The Heller case, which finally put that battle to rest, was only decided in 2008. So as a matter of fact, the NRA and its members never had any moral or practical obligation to give an "inch" on a fundamental constitutional right, any more than women should be expected to give an "inch" on their right to an abortion (which is never stated in the constitution).
b) refuse to acknowledge any arguments against the latest progressive gun-control theory de jour.
Most progressives have never fired a gun, and even fewer have ever owned them, and tend to have very few close friends and acquaintances who do. They don't read and don't care to read the studies and literature in support of guns. Yet they feel imminently qualified to formulate gun control. When a conservative says, "that won't work and here's why...." or "that will just make the problem worse because ..." the progressives just tune it right out.
But what else is new. Disagree with Obama and you're racist. Disagree with progressives on gun control and you've got blood on your hands.
Whatever. You and bobby can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Okay, here's what we're going to do, JM. You've dropped a lot of comments here at SFDB today and up until now I've put up with the obvious trolling that you've mixed in with your opinions.
I welcome debate. But trolls are not welcome as my comment policy above clearly states.
You are welcome to disagree and present your opinions but the next time you troll, the comment goes.
I wonder if JM realizes that Dick Armey not only approved of Alinsky's tactics, he insisted that Teabaggers read the text book and adopt the strategies outlined within.
Ah well. I thought we were having a decent exchange for a while there.
JM generalizes as much as he accuses us of doing. I learned how to shoot a gun in 1965, I hunted regularly with my father, I scored very high on the NRA marksmanship course at camp, and I know a great deal of people who are proud liberals who own guns, collect them, spend autumn weekends in duck blinds or walking the cornfields hunting pheasant and other game. Like that matters.
By the way, Saul Alinsky died three days before the Watergate break-in. Yeah, he's really on point; right up there with Henry Wallace.
10 comments:
In places outside of the progressive echo chamber of this blog and others like it, I think society is finally becoming much better informed about mental illness as the real problem, not guns.
Thanks to the progressives, we lost decades where headway could have been made on mental health issues, but I think the dialogue is slowly headed on the right track.
The "progressive echo chamber" that you and others echo loudly in, by the way.
Thanks to the progressives, we lost decades where headway could have been made on mental health issues, but I think the dialogue is slowly headed on the right track.
Because the NRA and other radical conservative groups who don't give one inch after these kinds of tragedies have been so instrumental in addressing mental health issues and how they relate to firearm safety, right?
It gets tiring to sift through these kinds of distortions and outright BS, JM, in order to find the grains of truth and valid insight that you no doubt possess having read so much on the subject.
.
Here we go with the demonization and Alinsky tactics, right on cue Rick, bravo.
No "inch" has been given because there is no "inch" to give, because the left's solution has been to:
a) refuse to recognize that the 2nd amendment provides a right to personal ownership of a firearm.
Unfortunately, due to the left's rabid pursuit of a police state, the NRA and its members have had to expend decades of effort and millions of dollars to fight that battle. The Heller case, which finally put that battle to rest, was only decided in 2008. So as a matter of fact, the NRA and its members never had any moral or practical obligation to give an "inch" on a fundamental constitutional right, any more than women should be expected to give an "inch" on their right to an abortion (which is never stated in the constitution).
b) refuse to acknowledge any arguments against the latest progressive gun-control theory de jour.
Most progressives have never fired a gun, and even fewer have ever owned them, and tend to have very few close friends and acquaintances who do. They don't read and don't care to read the studies and literature in support of guns. Yet they feel imminently qualified to formulate gun control. When a conservative says, "that won't work and here's why...." or "that will just make the problem worse because ..." the progressives just tune it right out.
But what else is new. Disagree with Obama and you're racist. Disagree with progressives on gun control and you've got blood on your hands.
Whatever. You and bobby can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Here we go with the demonization and Alinsky tactics...
Please explain.
.
"Please explain."
Rick: don't worry. For your readers who don't know about Alinksy-esque tactics, they never will, and will keep sipping the kool aid you serve up.
Don't pretend you don't know what you are doing, it insults my intelligence.
I thought so. That's why I asked.
Okay, here's what we're going to do, JM. You've dropped a lot of comments here at SFDB today and up until now I've put up with the obvious trolling that you've mixed in with your opinions.
I welcome debate. But trolls are not welcome as my comment policy above clearly states.
You are welcome to disagree and present your opinions but the next time you troll, the comment goes.
.
You're a slow learner, JM. I can tell it's going to take a few of these.
.
I wonder if JM realizes that Dick Armey not only approved of Alinsky's tactics, he insisted that Teabaggers read the text book and adopt the strategies outlined within.
Ah well. I thought we were having a decent exchange for a while there.
PS JM: "eminently" qualified, not imminently.
JM generalizes as much as he accuses us of doing. I learned how to shoot a gun in 1965, I hunted regularly with my father, I scored very high on the NRA marksmanship course at camp, and I know a great deal of people who are proud liberals who own guns, collect them, spend autumn weekends in duck blinds or walking the cornfields hunting pheasant and other game. Like that matters.
By the way, Saul Alinsky died three days before the Watergate break-in. Yeah, he's really on point; right up there with Henry Wallace.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.