Dennis Henigan seems pleased that Sestak got Pat Toomey to dance around the gun issue a bit. Joe Sestak is all in favor of denying people fundamental constitutional rights based on people’s name being on a secret government list. Doesn’t sound too great when you frame it that way does it? Of course, in Joe Sestak’s mind, you don’t even have a right to own a gun, so why not?
The problem is that people don’t understand the issue. The Bradys are experts at exploiting ignorance to their advantage, and framing the debate in terms that people think they agree. I mean, who wants terrorists getting guns? Who wants people to have weapons that are used for assaulting people? Who wants wife beaters armed?
Toomey had to dance because he’s not going to come out and say he favors guns for terrorists. The moderators were only too happy to frame the issue the Brady way. But that’s not really the issue. The issue is how I framed it. They can only win through deception.
UPDATE: Think about it. What does it say that Henigan is proud that the Brady misrepresentation of the issue is working the way they want it to? What other constitutional rights does Dennis think is OK to deny Americans without any due process whatsoever? Inquiring minds want to know.
Joe Sestak earned his stripes – I think he has rather profoundly higher standing to talk about defending the country from radical international terrorists than some derivatives dealer for Chemical Bank.
I think it’s the gun rights folks who have mischaracterized this issue all along. There just doesn’t seem to be anyone you guys don’t want to be able to get a gun. Just admit it, already…
Looks like you’ve hooked another troll, Sebastian!
Know your liars by their methods.
I know your just echoing their rhetoric. FYI: that is called bandwagon and one of the 7 techniques used in propaganda messages. It’s also negative messaging
technique 2.
http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Propaganda%20Techniques.html
A good site explaining the methods and how they get applied.
As to the political figure taking the dive.. Well if he answers yes to them hes not lying, or telling what he really stands for.
Eck!
Peter,
Let me quote from the Bill of Rights briefly:
No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …
The Second Amendment is where the first bolded part comes in. It’s a constitutional liberty. The second bolded part is where the fifth amendment comes in. This is the issue.
I think we can agree that, as a general rule, we don’t take away people’s constitutional rights without due process. Why is the Second Amendment exempt from this? The Supreme Court has said it’s a fundamental liberty. What other fundamental liberty can you take away without any due process at all?
Taking them away from felons is different… there’s due process there. Taking them away from people who have been convicted or indicted for terrorists acts? Sure. Due process there too. How much process you need is something we could argue over, but having a faceless bureaucrat add you to a list is not any kind of due process at all.
No one want terrorists to get guns. No one wants terrorists out roaming the streets either. But we have a certain way of doing things in this country that doesn’t allow us to just arbitrarily punish people.
How is that mischaracterizing the issue?
The way Peter Hamm thinks about SUSPECTS who aren’t CONVICTED of ANYTHING is pretty much the same kind of thinking that the Texan Village Idiot carried out with Gitmo and the Patriot Act.
Peter Hamm is nothing but a totalitarian fool. But don’t worry, I can see through your “compassion” and need for “safety.”
The Founding Fathers wanted CITIZENS to participate in all aspects of democracy.
A convicted felon, a minor, and the mentally incompetent have one thing in common – they cannot recognize what it means to be a citizen, and have been judged as such.
Peter Hamm has a fundamental reading incomprehension with “suspect” and “convict.” To him, “peace at any price” is worth it, even if it means controlling the rest of us (through force) who wish him no harm.
Peter, just out of curiosity: What is your position on detaining people who are suspected terrorists, even if they are American citizens (not that it should make a difference), indefinitely and without even a hint of due process?
Now, I admit that there is just a tiny bit of difference between detention and the denial of gun sales. But what is to stop someone like you (Joe Sestak, for example) from using the no-fly list in an abusive manner, if there is no way to know who is on that list, and the reason for placing them there?
And why is it always assumed that a career in the military is the most important qualification for office? All I want from a Senator is for him to vote my way when the bill comes up on the floor. Everything else is just fluff.
Hennigan: (n) A commodity, person, place or thing, once tangible but now disappearing, dissipating, dissolving into irrelevance, used in the same manner as “Mulligan.”