• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

Who gives a crap about the NRA? They have a membership of 5 million (and those are probably inflated) out of the 73 million gun owners in America out of the 235 million Americans of voting age. They are nothing. They don't matter. They're just a goddamn boogeyman the Democrats trot out as an excuse as to why they can't pass gun laws.
 
Last edited:
BrooklynBaby said:
Care to elaborate? I'm in the NRA and I've never heard anyone talking about stricter gun laws. Are you talking about an outlier here?
Click to expand...

The NRA leadership is deep in the pockets of the gun industry.
But its members, for obvious reasons, have no reason to let irresponsible repeat offenders or violent spouses have guns.
Polls have regularly shown that NRA members want better background checks.
After all, they already have their guns.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
A majority of NRA members support stricter gun laws, nevermind the general population.
Click to expand...

There seems to be broad consensus that *some* gun restrictions would be reasonable to adopt. Where the breaks down is in the actual history of gun control proposals, which seem to always include both reasonable and unreasonable restrictions.

I think a gun control proposal that narrowly targeted a specific, broadly-acceptable restriction would likely get passed into law.
 
Elagabalus said:
Bump stocks?
Click to expand...

The NRA was never "for" bump stocks, so being against them is no change in our views on the right to keep and bear arms. For those who want to bump-fire weapons, that can still be done, even with something as simple as a belt loop. To me, it's just a waste of ammo, which is why I have no interest in automatic weapons. The only reason I have an AR15 is because it looked like Hillary was going to be elected and it was possible they could get banned, so I went out and bought one.
 
Ziggurat said:
It should be obvious, but people like Craig4 keep acting like they don't know it. Seriously, your entire response is ignoring what Craig4 said, as if I've been talking in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

No, you're consistently missing MY point, which is:

You pretend (either naively or ignorantly or disingenuously...I'm not sure) that this behavior is unique among liberals, or that conservatives "learned" it from liberals.

And you are incorrect.
 
Cabbage said:
No, you're consistently missing MY point, which is:

You pretend (either naively or ignorantly or disingenuously...I'm not sure) that this behavior is unique among liberals, or that conservatives "learned" it from liberals.

And you are incorrect.
Click to expand...

Oh sure, incivility and even occasional violence has not been confined to one side. But again, go back to Craig4's post, which you are still ignoring. He's advocating something more specific than that, something that is new, and that so far is peculiar to the left. Your "point" is a deliberate attempt to distract from this uncomfortable fact.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I didn't conveniently leave it out. I conveniently highlighted the part I wanted to highlight and discuss. The hyperbole in the second paragraph was simply hyperbole. There was no threat to the guy. You don't see any footage the rest of us don't see.

You made a reprehensible statement. It is illegal to behave as you proposed. Can I come run you down, now. I mean, you deserve it for promoting that people break the law. By your standards, you're now fair game.

Here's a suggestion. Rethink your statement and then withdraw it.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is legal to defend myself and my family from danger. Period.(which is why i pointed out that part again) In a car, out of a car, blocked by traffic, not blocked by traffic. End of story. If you think I'm giving up the right to defend myself against idiots in the roadways blocking it -- you're wrong. Also, they're dumb for breaking the laws doing it.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. These are very different tactics.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate? I need you to define exactly what tactic you are referring to before I'll ever agree that only Democrats are to blame.

Because I am quite sure if I ever know exactly what it is you're trying to describe, I will be able to find examples of Republicans employing such tactics.
 
Cabbage said:
Can you elaborate? I need you to define exactly what tactic you are referring to before I'll ever agree that only Democrats are to blame.

Because I am quite sure if I ever know exactly what it is you're trying to describe, I will be able to find examples of Republicans employing such tactics.
Click to expand...

If you don't already know, then you obviously didn't read the posts I already referred you to multiple times. But since asking you to read them again won't work, here you go. This is the post where he describes what he's talking about:

Craig4 said:
Women are going to get their revenge on Kavanagh. He lives in the bluest place in the country. When he tries to put all this behind him, he'll find he can't. He's going to get called a rapist and a pig any time he goes out in public. Many of those women who loath him with every fiber of their being who were protesting live here.
Click to expand...

Here he states that liberals are already doing it:
Craig4 said:
You think I'm wrong? Look at what happened when Ted Cruz tried to go out to dinner with his wife while the hearings were gong on. That's Kavanagh's life now.
Click to expand...

And here he claims that conservatives won't be able to copy what liberals will do.
Craig4 said:
I know I'm right. In fact, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and all the mainstream Dems will tell people to stop and not do it and it will still happen. Here's the thing, DC and its suburbs are the bluest places in the country. The people who hate Kavanagh can harass him with impunity because there's no corresponding group of conservative activists to go after their members.
Click to expand...

So why did you jump into the middle of a debate when you don't even know what we're talking about?
 
River said:
There are conservatives groups out there trying to shut down speakers events because they are too liberal? There are conservatives groups out there trying to shut down free speech?

There will be if the left continues the insanity.
Click to expand...

"The left". Stop making stuff up.
 
River said:
I think a lot of Americans are ready for a more centrist party. One that represents the core values of our past, and recognizes the civil rights we all have come to enjoy. These things can happen quickly with the right funding and representation.
Click to expand...

The Democratic Party is the centrist party right now.

The toxic polarization will remain as long as Republicans keep moving further to the right. Coming to terms with the fact that abortion should be regulated rather than banned, liberals aren't trying to take your guns, and the Dems are more willing to compromise with you than the other way around is the first step towards reconciliation.
 
Ziggurat said:
If you don't already know, then you obviously didn't read the posts I already referred you to multiple times. But since asking you to read them again won't work, here you go. This is the post where he describes what he's talking about:



Here he states that liberals are already doing it:


And here he claims that conservatives won't be able to copy what liberals will do.


So why did you jump into the middle of a debate when you don't even know what we're talking about?
Click to expand...

Because the language you used to describe this fault (which you claim is a uniquely Democratic fault) doesn't make it clear: Are you talking about disruptive behavior? Condoning disruptive behavior?

Again, I quote: " Your opponents will learn from you. This isn't a tactic that you can confine to your side," and "it's still surprising how often the left proposes new rules that they would immediately regret if they're actually forced to live under them."

It's not at all clear what, specifically, you are referring to by "This isn't a tactic...". It's certainly consistent with what Craig4 said that what you had in mind was the disruptive nature of the protests. Tell me, what word or words in your quote do you think excludes that possibility?

That, coupled with your laughably naive statement from earlier:

Ziggurat said:
You have that exactly backwards. It is exclusively the Democrats, not Republicans, who launch these vicious personal attacks against judicial nominees. The Democrats whined endlessly (and to this day) about Republicans blocking Garland, but the Republicans never said one bad thing about Garland himself. The toxicity comes from an abandonment of constitutional principles, not from adherence to them.
Click to expand...

...led me to interpret your claim as meaning, "only Democrats are disruptive".

That is wrong and I merely wished to correct you.
 
River said:
Wrong. It is legal to defend myself and my family from danger. Period.(which is why i pointed out that part again) In a car, out of a car, blocked by traffic, not blocked by traffic. End of story. If you think I'm giving up the right to defend myself against idiots in the roadways blocking it -- you're wrong. Also, they're dumb for breaking the laws doing it.
Click to expand...

It is legal to defend yourself from what? The protesters were crossing at a corner, which under Portland law gives them the right of way.

There was no family in the car. There was no threat. He used his vehicle as a battering ram (at low speed but a battering ram nevertheless).

He was defending his inalienable right to get to the next corner when he wanted to. He was not driving an ambulance rushing to an accident. He was not in fear for his life as no one is seen approaching the car. (Well, there's no speaking to "state of mind" and perhaps he's a paranoid whackjob, but there was no "reasonable" fear.)

This is not Stand Your Ground. The guy was a reprehensible **** who decided he wasn't going to wait forty-five more seconds for the few dozen protesters to pass and he was gonna turn, by golly, because that's his right.

He's wrong about his right. You are wrong about it. The pedestrians have the right of way, even if a crosswalk is not marked, at any intersection in Portland.

You could still put on your big boy pants and retract your statement, you know.
 
Cabbage said:
Because the language you used to describe this fault (which you claim is a uniquely Democratic fault) doesn't make it clear: Are you talking about disruptive behavior? Condoning disruptive behavior?
Click to expand...

It was clear what I was talking about because of who and what I was responding to. Pull your cabbage out of your patch and actually read what Craig4 wrote.
 
River, if you think the Charlottesville driver wasn't 100% in the wrong, you have been listening to propaganda: question your sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom