CompanionCuuube

I guess you can agree with a meta-satire of your comment.

> he never made even a token effort at gun control.

That's not actually true, there are incidents like the ammo import ban to automatically prohibiting elderly people receiving financial assistance.

The fact that the gun control you were expecting didn't happen doesn't mean that none did.

Leave the crowd.

You picked a terrible example, as he did restrict guns on a number of occasions during the terms. The fact that the gun control lobby gave him an "F" rating is because the fact that they want too much and are never happy with just a little.

It certainly didn't make Democrats reconsider taking the rights of millions of Americans away after they lost the midterms following the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Yeah, coast supremacy is getting really tiresome.

Not really:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24969112

Why is it acceptable when police walk around with a handgun, but "disturbing the peace" when normal people do the same thing?

Why is it acceptable when police stop people for breaking traffic laws, but "false imprisonment" when other drivers do it?

The state divides aren't nearly as significant as the urban/rural divides. Practically every state red or blue has blue cities and red rural areas.

>Considering all the other rights in the bill of rights are individual, there does seem to be some consistency to that.

But it could be argued that we would be a safer country if all of the rights in the bill of rights were collective rather than individual.

So would this university take down a mural of the 442nd Infantry Regiment too, for not being diverse enough?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(Unite...

"The unit earned more than 18,000 awards in less than two years, including 9,486 Purple Hearts and 4,000 Bronze Star Medals. The unit was awarded eight Presidential Unit Citations (five earned in one month).[6] Twenty-one of its members were awarded Medals of Honor.[3] In 2010, Congress approved the granting of the Congressional Gold Medal to the 442nd Regimental Combat Team and associated units who served during World War II,[7] and in 2012, all surviving members were made chevaliers of the French Légion d'Honneur for their actions contributing to the liberation of France and their heroic rescue of the Lost Battalion.[8]"

> both for ethical and commercial reasons

But primarily commercial reasons related to having a completely different distribution model.

> So maybe do something less violent, like kneel during a football game. People will definitely unilaterally support that, right?

Yeah, get one of those famous players like Roger Federer. Or maybe the whole Detroit Redskins team.

That's a very interesting perspective that would explain a lot of behavior.

> Elections still happened during the U.S. Civil War and both World Wars.

Did they close down schools for that? Did they hold elections during the 1918 Pandemic?

Let's have an honest comparison here.

It'll take more tries, but eventually the fourth one will stay up.

You need to think about it a little more.

In the story, the admiral is conceited about his position so much so that he believes that he has the right not to understand the situation. Which is exactly why the commenter is in the stated position about the "righteousness" of their argument.

Well, they are throwing unspecified bottles of liquid at them, so they're not peaceful protesters either.

“This is a lighthouse. Your call.”

So you would be okay with a term like "avant-garde"?

“This is a lighthouse. Your call.”

> Also, one loud rioter was calling out individual officers promising them that they would find out where they live and kill them and their families.

And then people are surprised at the news articles about officers covering up their badge numbers(which are public record)?

Which use of the LVNR caused "1 month of protest and billions of dollars lost"?

Telling of what? That they reuse a term?

> I was making the point and deleted it because of the kind of misrepresentation that you just made.

Convenient, rather than modify it to clarify the vagueness you instead deleted it. Now no one can see for themselves what the evidence was, only take your word for it.

As was mentioned in another comment, memexy is in Phase 1 - mischaracterize

Not to all people, and not necessarily to the commenter you are responding to.

> So then you weren't asking the question in good faith.

Yes, I was.

> When I asked you to clarify you dodged the question. I wouldn't ask if I knew, I asked because I didn't know what you were referring to.

If you didn't know what I was referring to, then you didn't know who you were referring to when you said the following: >> andrewprock already found an example and I agree with his assessment.

> If you want me to talk to you

I have no desire for you to talk to me: that was exactly why I asked you to respond to the other person and not me.

You apparently know which one it was, and can look up the response. It isn't a very long response either.

I'm not going to quote it here, because it gives you a chance to talk about it at me rather than with the original person who brought up the counterpoint.