9 ms·

I don't think my description of right wing talking points is caricature. The right wing do see any reasonable reform as "taking our guns away", their side is th

I don't think my description of right wing talking points is caricature. The right wing do see any reasonable reform as "taking our guns away", their side is the one that fails to see nuance. That absolutist, literalist read of the constitution is the side without nuance, categorically. My view of gun control is neutral, I want to protect the rights of citizens to stand against their government and I acknowledge that loose gun laws can lead to harm, direct or indirect. That is the most neutral position possible and sitting members of Congress would consider me far-left and fascist for it. The Right is seemingly allergic to nuance, incapable of digesting reasonable objection. How do you meet in the middle with that?

giantg2 4y ago
How far right are we talking? In your previous comment you said Republicans. Now you say right wing. There may be extremist groups that say any regulation is unconstitutional (which can apply to guns, speech, etc). But that doesn't represent everyone. Gun groups have supported past restrictions/laws. Even fairly recently the NRA said that they support banning bump stocks. The real question is, what is considers an infringement? This is true of other rights as well. It's hard to define without trampling rights, especially for minority interests in a democracy.
- breadbreadbread 4y ago
  fair, I do use right-wing and republican interchangeably. In this context I do mean republican politicians and media commentators that largely follow the conservative party line, and not the more nuanced voting base that is potentially open to debate. > The real question is, what is considered an infringement? gee itd be great if that question was discussed in right-wing media instead of uncritically painting every attempt at discussion as a violation.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "gee itd be great if that question was discussed in right-wing media" I don't just mean on this issue, but in general. We see vastly different controls on guns/abortion/voting/etc from state to state. When is a restriction an infringement? Who decides that and on what basis? It seems that it's up to judges, but what happens if none of the judges are members of the minority group who are being restricted (think segregation)? That's the part I find interesting.

giantg2 4y ago

How far right are we talking? In your previous comment you said Republicans. Now you say right wing. There may be extremist groups that say any regulation is unconstitutional (which can apply to guns, speech, etc). But that doesn't represent everyone. Gun groups have supported past restrictions/laws. Even fairly recently the NRA said that they support banning bump stocks. The real question is, what is considers an infringement? This is true of other rights as well. It's hard to define without trampling rights, especially for minority interests in a democracy.

breadbreadbread 4y ago
fair, I do use right-wing and republican interchangeably. In this context I do mean republican politicians and media commentators that largely follow the conservative party line, and not the more nuanced voting base that is potentially open to debate. > The real question is, what is considered an infringement? gee itd be great if that question was discussed in right-wing media instead of uncritically painting every attempt at discussion as a violation.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "gee itd be great if that question was discussed in right-wing media" I don't just mean on this issue, but in general. We see vastly different controls on guns/abortion/voting/etc from state to state. When is a restriction an infringement? Who decides that and on what basis? It seems that it's up to judges, but what happens if none of the judges are members of the minority group who are being restricted (think segregation)? That's the part I find interesting.