Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
But you are 100% correct, it's amazingly hypocritical for conservatives to attack liberals for using the Vegas attack to advocate for gun control, and then do the same thing by using this terror attack to advocate for immigration security.
|
I think the real reason Republicans quickly said, "this isn't the time", is to spare Democrats the embarrassment of going off the deep-end proposing knee-jerk, ridiculously ineffective policy. If the Dem's can be counted for anything it is acting the fool when it looks like more than two decades of gun control blue-balls are about to be released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
There is nothing wrong, in the wake of any tragedy, to advocate for policies that would make another tragedy less likely. Both sides do it, yet each side acts as if only the other side does it. It's stupid.
|
One big difference between these instances is that Republican proposals would have an effect on the particular type of event. Just like liberals say, 'if there were no guns nobody would get shot; let's like, you know, get rid of them', righties say 'if we had a firm handle on who comes in we wouldn't be suffering these crimes at the hands of non-citizens'.
Big hint, only one side's "solution" to the "problem" are both reasonable and have a chance of being effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I don't get how any sane person can be opposed to our being aggressive and vigilant in the war on terror. Nor do I get how any sane person can think that the second amendment is absolute. Each of those two extreme positions, defies common sense.
|
I can admit that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute if you can agree that
that truth does not mean that any gun law the left can think up is constitutional.
It's hilarious, the people who most employ the "absolute right" line are anti-gunners. I rarely hear any such thing from pro-gunners; when the government can take someone's life, how can any right be said to be "absolute"?
The term when employed by anti-gunners is intended to quash dialogue rather than nurture it. It is uttered in the hope that the reader has as superficial an understanding of the issue as the speaker, so the speaker's opinion that any law the left can think up is A-OK is agreed to.
.