Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> The Left, when it exists, has only one concern: to become a larger left:
> i.e., to recruit leftists, and that is not done by argument.
>
> The Subject Line is incoherent.
How exactly do you (the left, not you personally) propose to recruit and become larger, when fully two thirds of the population are diametrically opposed to a particular point on the liberal agenda, a point you think meaningless and do not bother to refute or correct even though you are increasingly defined by it?
Your position seems inchoate.
Wojtek S wrote:
>
> I was reading the link you posted with interest until I encountered
> the following passage...
> [snipperoo]
> ...This is a sure sign that this is yet another right wing propaganda
> drivel, likely cooked up by the NRA or fellow travelers. It makes me
> even more determined to support Obama push for gun control - just to
> spite these right wing trolls.
When confronted with scientific evidence of the Earth's age, many Christians retreat into a protective shell of self-inflicted dogma too.
>> I can think of no better way to further
>> marginalize the left in the eyes of two thirds of the population."
>
> [WS:] I think that you are quite wrong on that. The left is marginalized
> for a host of other reasons, and its position on gun rights has zero
effect
> on that marginalization.
You are free to believe anything you want, that's the beauty of our system. You are not free to choose what is or is not a fact however. When two thirds of the populace won't listen to your first word because they think rightly or wrongly (rightly it would seem, in your personal case) that you would infringe their civil rights by imposing unreasonable gun controls if you could, you are in fact self-marginalizing.
> A great majority of gun
> owners do not kill anyone, so claiming that gun ownership causes homicide
-
> on the assumption that there is a statistical correlation between the two
> variables - is basically the fallacy of composition.
Wonderful. But why then support gun laws that negatively impact those same lawful gun owners but have negligible effect on the criminal minority. Taken together with your "even more determined" statement above it makes you look confused or manipulated or both.
> So the bottom line is that the most we can do is to introduce thorough
> background checks and - if we are very lucky - gun registration program.
A very smart person once told me that the best course of action in matters like these is the one that least infringes rights and liberties while still getting the job done, if in fact action must be taken.
If background checks alone would get the job done, what would you want the registry for? Not to trace firearms, that is already done efficiently-enough without the registry.
CB wrote:
> I'd say more like this derives from the idea that the left's goals
> are not much furthered by gun rights,
Leftist goals might not be furthered by supporting gun rights, but they are certainly hindered by not supporting them.
> What do you mean when you say the rightwing supports the first and
> fourth amendments ?
Are either the right or the left opposed to the first or fourth amendments? As I said, there are some minor differences in interpretation but that is hairsplitting for the attorneys. No one who is also serious and credible also opposes free speech per se, etc.
> Why are you looking for "fertile common ground" between the left and
> the right ?
To look for a thing even if in vain, is not the same as recognizing that it exists when it presents itself. Do you not enjoy our right to discuss these matters without the expectation that any of us might be disappeared?
Jordan wrote:
> I don't see much use for fast food (not even to hunt with!), and it
> causes the vast majority of preventable death in the US.
>
> How about some "shitty food control" laws?
You can count on my support.
Andy wrote:
> If you dig into the tables about 20k of firearm deaths are suicide (about
> half the suicides), 11k homicides, and the balance accidents. The total
is
> comparable to motor vehicle deaths -- should we disregard those as
> statistically insignificant, especially since the number of legal drivers
> is a multiple of that of legal gun owners? IIRC there were something
short
> of 5000 workplace deaths last year. Time to pull the plug on OSHA?
Guns kill far fewer people by accident than cars kill by accident or jobs kill by accident, you said so yourself. Guns kill fewer people on purpose than cars kill by accident. Perhaps that is why no one except the NRA seriously proposes public service announcements regarding proper & safe firearms handling and storage. Imagine if the government did produce and promote PSAs on that the way it does for drunk driving.
Bill Bartlett wrote:
> The issue with military firearms is not their relative capacity to commit
> a single murder. But their suitability as instruments of mass-murder. In
> fact, their suitability for nothing else but mass-murder.
This ties directly back to whether the state should be given an unfettered monopoly on the use of force. Any arms control measure that would prohibit civilian possession but allow police possession of the same item, causes imbalance that is detrimental to a free state. I would include PR-24 batons in that, I'm sure David Silva out in Sacramento would agree if he could.
--ma