Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forum
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 2072 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Backrounnd Checks (Dem MO Senate race) (Original Post)
davepc
Oct 2016
OP
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)1. Nice!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)2. Good points
Knowledge of a topic is a prerequisite to useful discussion.
Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)5. Well I was just posting...
...another RW/NRA/Republican/gunhumping... talking point.
Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #5)
Name removed Message auto-removed
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)7. My answers
Why are knowledge, information and expertise esteemed in every other debate topic? Yet, when facts are introduced in 2A discussions they are "RW/NRA talking points?"
There are a few degrees of removal in the case of firearms. Many folks in the control spectrum between the 'universal registration and BGC' point and the 'muskets only' point don't own a gun, aren't familiar and don't have the right combination of interest and patience to learn. Some of our politicians and media pundits are relying on those realities simply gather followers. For the politician, followers equals supporters, donors and/or voters. For the media followers are readers, listeners or viewers.
An ardent progressive may disparage a religion by pointing out that a certain religious leader has said something unsupported or even completely disproven by science. That same progressive may then go on to make or repeat claims about guns with no scientific data.
When your feelings are echoed by a speaker with charisma and articulated with verve, most folks won't be bother to check the underlying facts. Hell, most will just grab a torch or pitchfork and join the growing mob.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)3. 538 gives him a 61% chance of winning by 2% popular vote. nt