You mean up to the same quality as your crazy hypothetical question last night about what we should do if Obama, a constitutional lawyer and law abiding citizen, suddenly refused to step down from the presidency?
I mean, I think democracy's value is worth discussing. The question of whether we value democracy in itself, or because of its effectiveness, is kind of implicit in a lot of political discussion recently (for example, it comes up a lot when talking about Brexit). I am always interested to see people's perspectives on that topic, so I wanted to raise some questions related to it. I think it's worth asking whether, if our democratic system elected a leader who would explicitly destroy most of its values, people would prioritize the democracy or the values.
Frankly, this seems like the kind of topic you should be interested in, since you are one of the most prominent people on the "democracy sucks" side of the argument.
If people think that discussion is boring or stupid they should come out and say so. I found the topic interesting.
Okay Mr. "you make zero effort to read the posts other people make", let me give you a rundown of the posts from the last five hours which prove you are 100% wrong.
None of those posts prove your argument at all. If your argument was "people are talking about gun control because of mass shootings," that would be somewhat more defensible. (Although still not great, because as noted below, the progressive push for gun control goes back to like the 80s.) But your claim was about race war narratives. That is stupid! None of the people in this thread, and approximately zero percent of the people in real life, who are discussing gun control are driven to gun control by race war narratives. PoliGAF has been talking about gun control regularly since like Sandy Hook (and sometimes before that, but Manos got banned). The liberal position on gun control has been steady for like forty years. So your post is not just wrong, it's bewilderingly, obviously wrong.
So yes, if you really don't think the only reason we're talking about gun control right now is because cops got killed and the media is on full blast with its latest tragedy porn primetime performance, you live on another planet entirely.
I mean, if your new position is "sometimes PoliGAF talks about policy responses to current events," then sure. You did not make that position particularly clear in your first post.
You're annoyed all of the time. I can't help that.
I am not annoyed all the time, but the fact that you think that I'm annoyed all the time is worth considering!
Unlike many people in this thread, I don't think you are actively trolling. That's why I try to engage with your posts in general. Posts like the one I responded to make that harder.
Besides the fact that I just pointed out you are wrong, I want to state that I was making a broader argument in response to a cultural leftist obsession with gun control, and elaborating on my personal sense of dissatisfaction with the media and its priorities that I have stated in here a few times over the past week, not necessarily responding to anyone in this thread.
Your argument is actually way worse in the general case. The Brady Bill was passed in 1993! Leftists have been fighting for gun control for literally decades because of the epidemic of gun deaths, not because of the mass shootings that only became common in this millenium. A large part of my first post is devoted to explaining exactly why the traditional progressive concerns about and goals for gun control are focused on issues that are very different from the ones you would be interested in to prevent mass shootings.
