"A solution looking for a problem" - don't dignify them with that

Jim12 said:

There are a lot of "prophylactic," Second Amendment-infringing bills proposed this MGA session that are promoted by sponsors as "common sense" (as if our and their predecessors for over 200 years didn't have any, and they are the Enlightened Ones).

We sometimes identify their proposals as a "solution looking for a problem."

When giving testimony and communicating with Members, do we unnecessarily dignify their increasingly hair-brained schemes by even using the word "solution"? These proposed bills aren't "solutions" for crime, accidents, or suicides by gun; they're emotion-driven assaults on what too many in the MGA deem to be an outdated relic in the Bill of Rights -- the Second Amendment itself.

Is there some other way we could refer to stupid, nonsensical, illogical and sometimes idiotic legislation such as the terror watch list bill, the toy firearms bill, the antique firearms bill, and others, besides calling them a "solution looking for a problem"? They are solutions to nothing. All those legislative proposals do is provide false hope, and worse, when they fail it gives rise to calls for even more gun control.

How about calling them what they are, e.g., "nonsensical" or something similar, even "idiotic" to their sponsors' faces and colleagues? Why not call it what it really is?

Alinsky, Democrats, and Trump know what works: Mockery and ridicule of ridiculous ideas. Otherwise, we're legitimizing them.

Click to expand...

Nnztg8r said:

I get what you are suggesting. I concur.

These multiple, seemingly harmless bills/legislation are absolutely the "camel's nose IN the tent."

They are absolutely the first step IN chiseling away at the Second Amendment rights.

It's their foot IN the liberal progressive values door. It's their way IN to the average citizen's psyche.

It's your collective slide IN to the legal logic sewer.

They are what's INside the Trojan Horse. They are what's going to draw lots of attention and time and energy away from what's already a Constitutionally unacceptable situation. They're swarming you with multiple targets to reduce the limited resources you might bring to bear on the original problem.

It's not an illogical strategy for them...

Click to expand...

Jim12 said:

There are a lot of "prophylactic," Second Amendment-infringing bills proposed this MGA session that are promoted by sponsors as "common sense" (as if our and their predecessors for over 200 years didn't have any, and they are the Enlightened Ones).

We sometimes identify their proposals as a "solution looking for a problem."

When giving testimony and communicating with Members, do we unnecessarily dignify their increasingly hair-brained schemes by even using the word "solution"? These proposed bills aren't "solutions" for crime, accidents, or suicides by gun; they're emotion-driven assaults on what too many in the MGA deem to be an outdated relic in the Bill of Rights -- the Second Amendment itself.

Is there some other way we could refer to stupid, nonsensical, illogical and sometimes idiotic legislation such as the terror watch list bill, the toy firearms bill, the antique firearms bill, and others, besides calling them a "solution looking for a problem"? They are solutions to nothing. All those legislative proposals do is provide false hope, and worse, when they fail it gives rise to calls for even more gun control.

How about calling them what they are, e.g., "nonsensical" or something similar, even "idiotic" to their sponsors' faces and colleagues? Why not call it what it really is?

Alinsky, Democrats, and Trump know what works: Mockery and ridicule of ridiculous ideas. Otherwise, we're legitimizing them.

Click to expand...

Jim12 said:

We shouldn't even let them associate these bills with "common sense." There's nothing common sense about them. Respecting and protecting the Bill of Rights, all of it, is common sense.

Edit: Moreover, there's no "common sense" test of Constitutionality that any court has devised, that I'm aware of. Anything that's "common sense" ought to be able to pass "strict scrutiny", and Frosh shouldn't complain if strict scrutiny is applied to anything that's passed based on "common sense," right?

Click to expand...

Gryphon said:

Excellent post OP and I generally concur. Debatable ideas are one thing, but stupid and moronic, and likely disingenuous pretext, are altogether different.

The 2A FB page posted up regarding the toy gun ban. I called it like it is, anyone that sponsored or supported it is a special kind of stupid period. No nice way to say it. Later someone posted that Steve Waugh had withdrawn his support based on dialogue from several members here, and while I appreciate his change, Waugh can't get passed the fact he supported one of the dumbest damn pieces of legislation I have ever read. We need to hold everyone of these people accountable or they will be right back at the anti 2A well next session.

Click to expand...

JohnnyE said:

The way I see it, the phrase "common sense" is usually applied to things that are so simple to understand that thinking is not required. For instance, it's common sense that you shouldn't stick your hand in a fire. Everyone understands it, and if you question it, you must be stupid.

When an opponent insists his position is "common sense," he is really calling his challengers stupid. Folks sitting on the fence on an issue may tend not to push back because they don't want to appear to be stupid for questioning something that is clear, that is common sense.

Well, Constitutional issues are important issues, often complex issues, and thought, even deep thought, is required. Claiming they are common sense matters, and thus simple and universally understood, is not the case.

Click to expand...

dist1646 said:

Tar, meet Feathers!

Click to expand...

Jim12 said:

We shouldn't even let them associate these bills with "common sense." There's nothing common sense about them. Respecting and protecting the Bill of Rights, all of it, is common sense.

Edit: Moreover, there's no "common sense" test of Constitutionality that any court has devised, that I'm aware of. Anything that's "common sense" ought to be able to pass "strict scrutiny", and Frosh shouldn't complain if strict scrutiny is applied to anything that's passed based on "common sense," right?

Click to expand...

daggo66 said:

I don't think Frosh, Busch, and Miller are stupid. I think they are fairly intelligent men. I do think some members of the GA have severely limited mental capacity. I believe the leadership knows some of these bills are just plain stupid, but don't care as long as there are anti-gun. I believe that's why they label them as "common sense". They don't want the average person to read or pay attention to what's in them. By saying they are "common sense" they are being condescending to anyone who may object, therefore the masses will just agree.

We need to take away this "tool" of there's every chance we get. Turn "common sense" into no sense.

Click to expand...

Nnztg8r said:

Did you maybe mean turn "common sense" into "nonsense"??????

Click to expand...