fallingblock
Member
Publicola, I disagree......
"With Gore in office & the Repubs controlling congress, do you really think things would have gone as smoothly as they have with a Repub president & congress? But as I said, that's a side issue."
************************************************************
Yes, I do think Gore would have done gun owners much more harm than Bush. Likely Janet Reno would still be AG, and the anti-gun minions in HUD would still be cutting deals with manufacturers on the executive pass.
What makes you think that the Repubs would have held on to their majorities if Gore had been president? With Al in the white house, the 2002 election could easily have given the Dems back at least one if not both houses.
************************************************************
"But to use the relative judgements to justify a choice of president is to further the problem that led us where we are."
************************************************************
This is the sophistic part of your argument....in what reality does your justification of choice of president dwell?
************************************************************
"I'm talking totality & they're talking degrees."
************************************************************
Perhaps another way of stating that sentiment is that you are talking hypothetical and they are talking pragmatic?
************************************************************
"I don't see how I'm being deceptive when I say Bush isn't pro-gun, or good for gun owners."
************************************************************
Simply put, because the alternative to Bush was indeed a worse choice for gun-owners than Bush.
Bush is a better choice of what was on offer for gun owners.
In the real world of what was possible.
Unfortunatley not what we'd most like to happen.
************************************************************
"Neither do I see how it's invalid to bring it up. You may disagree with me, or feel that a relative judgement is all that matters & thus think I'm incorrect, but I don't see how you describe it as bordering on sophistry.
************************************************************
It is not invalid to bring up "Dubyas" failings in relation to Second Amendment issues.
The fact remains that Bush is the better choice of what was actually available to us at the election. He appears to me to remain so for the current election cycle.
We do have to work within the possible if we expect to achieve any progress, don't you agree?
"Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary": sophism: an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid.
I believe that be drawing attention away from the reality of our current situation, in search of some hypothetical ideal, you are in fact constructing an invalid argument...at least as far as realistic attainment of our goals is concerned.
************************************************************
Now the Ashcroft statement about the 2nd amendment protecting individual rights subject to reasonable government restriction - that's sophistry.
************************************************************
I disagree, at least in the sense that Ashcroft's statement represents the courage and conviction to make a declaration of support for a concept that has been "kept in the closet" since the days of 'Roosevelt the Red'.
************************************************************
It intends to make people think that he supports an individual right, but most skim over the part about reasonable government restrictions which, subject to interpretation, could mean 1994 British style gun control laws.
************************************************************
And yet, it is undeniably more support for the Second Amendment than has been voices by any A.G. at least 75 years. It is up to us, those who are aware of the importance of the Second Amendment, to build on this support, however imperfect it may seem.
Keep waiting on that perfection, and fail to build on the positive actions, and you'll have nothing left in the way of Second Amendment freedoms before 'perfection' arrives.
It's POLITICS, for goodness sakes, not theology.
"With Gore in office & the Repubs controlling congress, do you really think things would have gone as smoothly as they have with a Repub president & congress? But as I said, that's a side issue."
************************************************************
Yes, I do think Gore would have done gun owners much more harm than Bush. Likely Janet Reno would still be AG, and the anti-gun minions in HUD would still be cutting deals with manufacturers on the executive pass.
What makes you think that the Repubs would have held on to their majorities if Gore had been president? With Al in the white house, the 2002 election could easily have given the Dems back at least one if not both houses.
************************************************************
"But to use the relative judgements to justify a choice of president is to further the problem that led us where we are."
************************************************************
This is the sophistic part of your argument....in what reality does your justification of choice of president dwell?
************************************************************
"I'm talking totality & they're talking degrees."
************************************************************
Perhaps another way of stating that sentiment is that you are talking hypothetical and they are talking pragmatic?
************************************************************
"I don't see how I'm being deceptive when I say Bush isn't pro-gun, or good for gun owners."
************************************************************
Simply put, because the alternative to Bush was indeed a worse choice for gun-owners than Bush.
Bush is a better choice of what was on offer for gun owners.
In the real world of what was possible.
Unfortunatley not what we'd most like to happen.
************************************************************
"Neither do I see how it's invalid to bring it up. You may disagree with me, or feel that a relative judgement is all that matters & thus think I'm incorrect, but I don't see how you describe it as bordering on sophistry.
************************************************************
It is not invalid to bring up "Dubyas" failings in relation to Second Amendment issues.
The fact remains that Bush is the better choice of what was actually available to us at the election. He appears to me to remain so for the current election cycle.
We do have to work within the possible if we expect to achieve any progress, don't you agree?
"Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary": sophism: an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid.
I believe that be drawing attention away from the reality of our current situation, in search of some hypothetical ideal, you are in fact constructing an invalid argument...at least as far as realistic attainment of our goals is concerned.
************************************************************
Now the Ashcroft statement about the 2nd amendment protecting individual rights subject to reasonable government restriction - that's sophistry.
************************************************************
I disagree, at least in the sense that Ashcroft's statement represents the courage and conviction to make a declaration of support for a concept that has been "kept in the closet" since the days of 'Roosevelt the Red'.
************************************************************
It intends to make people think that he supports an individual right, but most skim over the part about reasonable government restrictions which, subject to interpretation, could mean 1994 British style gun control laws.
************************************************************
And yet, it is undeniably more support for the Second Amendment than has been voices by any A.G. at least 75 years. It is up to us, those who are aware of the importance of the Second Amendment, to build on this support, however imperfect it may seem.
Keep waiting on that perfection, and fail to build on the positive actions, and you'll have nothing left in the way of Second Amendment freedoms before 'perfection' arrives.
It's POLITICS, for goodness sakes, not theology.
