Debate about Gun Control

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The prohibition talk on the blue side applies to military weapons ("assault rifles, etc."). If this is the basis for their lack of compromise, then it has nothing to do with their interest in hunting or self-defense, but only in their interest in possessing weapons of mass murder, however they may justify it in their arguments.

You don't speak for the entire blue coalition.  There are some who want more prohibition than you.  Alas, these tend to be the most noisy and attention gathering bunch.  Paranoia tends to be focused on the most paranoid worthy extremists.

It isn't hard to justify arguments for military grade weapons.  The founding fathers expected the militia to repel invasions.  The weren't kidding when they said the government couldn't restrict the types of weapons the People could carry.  There is also a collective rights Supreme Court case from the gangster area that said the government could restrict possessions of assault rifles (Thompson sub machine guns).  This is because the Thompson was not used by the military, thus had nothing to do with a militia.  The collective right assertion was that anything carried by the military can't be restricted.  Alas, not long after that litmus test was set, World War II came around and the military started distributing Thompsons to many infantry.  That precedent hasn't been totally clobbered.  At the moment, if the military can carry something, so can the People.

Not that I'm crazy about that precedent.  I wouldn't mind the 2nd being rewritten, but the two sides are so far apart it isn't likely to happen.

(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: A few are pealing off now from the Trump/GOP base. The GOP and Trump are wedded at the hip, but if he/they lose a small percentage over the long run, then the GOP will lose elections.

We can hope.

(05-23-2017, 11:08 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I could say I understand the red base better than you, because I am able to see through all of their delusions, not just most. That's how I would spin your statement into my favor. Don't get too dizzy.

You have a well developed straw man of how Republicans think.  It is a dark twisted parody of how they really think.  The purpose is to justify hate rather than to understand.  If they say something that isn't part of your straw man, you'll substitute your straw man for what people actually say.  This is not the same, though it does induce dizziness on any who might try to take you seriously.  Alas, parody straw men are all too common around here.

When the other guy's world view is clearly conflicting one's own, it's easy to create one's own delusions while pretending to be seeing through theirs.