The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Today, 12:18 PM   #51
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 987
The first successful, college educated, law abiding citizen that gets killed resisting confiscation because they were made a criminal at the stroke of pen in Washington DC will start the ball rolling.

It won't be an immediate uprising but history will note just like John Brown's raid, the beginnings.
davidsog is offline  
Old Today, 12:34 PM   #52
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,104
Quote:
The first successful, college educated, law abiding citizen that gets killed resisting confiscation...
I wonder why you chose that description. It does imply that any (and all of us) who aren't college educated, and perhaps don't meet an arbitrary definition of successful aren't worthy enough??

Seems to imply that violating the rights of the college educated and successful is a matter of great import, and violating the same rights of the "ignorant poor" or "the great unwashed" is not.

Is that really what you meant??

I think that NONE of us should be made criminals with a stroke of a pen, and all our rights matter, no matter what our "social status".

John Brown's raid was a turning point, there are many in history. You might consider the Boston Massacre to be one, as well.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old Today, 12:46 PM   #53
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRet93
Donald J Trump for starters. As somebody said, the only 'poll' that matters are the ones in November.

So many howl when Cory Booker(who?) or Beto O'Rourke says something about increased gun control, even got a trump twitter-response....as if it's really, really a BIG problem but when a member of the GOP says something about increasing gun control..'nothing to see here'...
Who says that? I just read Hal, a member here, complaining about Kasich. I've recently noted Mike DeWine's dismal performance on RFLs, and it is a commonly expressed sentiment that DJT can be useful, but few trust him. Respect for his intuition on constitutionality is quite low, and he wasn't even endorsed by the National Review. The reaction here when he decided to torture English to ban bump stocks wasn't positive.

Contrary to your sense above, it is taken quite seriously when DJT fires up the tweet machine and endorses UBCs precisely because no one can tell whether he is serious and the energy of the repub party stands in opposition to UBCs.

In contrast, when Robert Francis O'Rourke says "Hell, yes, we are going to take..." it is taken seriously because it is akin to what attorneys recognize as an admission against interest. Gun restrictions aren't ever presented by legislative sponsors as part of a progression that ends in confiscation, but the suspicion is that each new regulation is confiscation in installments. When RFO says "Hell, yes..." he confirms a long held suspicion. That is sort of a big deal.

Looking for the condemnations from other putative candidates on the stage of RFO's admission? There were none. This isn't an issue on which dem candidates at this level seem divided. That's significant.

Ted Strickland, a dem, was elected governor of Ohio after Bob Taft, a repub. Bob Taft deceived people about supporting a concealed carry law (said he would sign, then didn't wen elected), and Ted Strickland was generally OK on guns. That specific instances like those occur doesn't support a thesis that at the national level the major parties are fungible on this issue.
zukiphile is offline  
Old Today, 12:57 PM   #54
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44AMP
I wonder why you chose that description. It does imply that any (and all of us) who aren't college educated, and perhaps don't meet an arbitrary definition of successful aren't worthy enough??

Seems to imply that violating the rights of the college educated and successful is a matter of great import, and violating the same rights of the "ignorant poor" or "the great unwashed" is not.

Is that really what you meant??
I don't concur in his thesis, but I know what he meant. He meant that when the kind of people who make up ordinary middle class suburban voters are seen being abused, that will have a greater political impact, than if, for example, some odd Mormons occupy a bird sanctuary, or a backwoods racist is besieged by federal agents when they fail to entrap him on weapons charges.

People with whom we would identify can be expected to generate greater general sympathy than people we can't fathom.


I think the violation of rights implicit in a buy back is going to have an impact on a lot of people who don't identify publicly as "2d Am. people". Having police, who are targets of Black Lives Matter messaging, run through minority neighborhoods violating the rights of people of color will be an odd fit for many activists.

Last edited by zukiphile; Today at 01:17 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.04927 seconds with 9 queries