I'm not arguing it's a good law—I have no settled opinion on it. I'm just saying it's a law that could, if passed democratically, be implemented in the way that other laws have been in the past, without huge violent upheaval.
-
-
When you're talking about a popular firearm, with literally millions of them in circulation, then the best comparison to O'Rourke's proposal would be the bans on widely used drugs. And I don't think enforcement of those laws has gone very nonviolently.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
"An amount and intensity of violence similar to that seen during Prohibition" is a much more defensible prediction than the one Tracey offered.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
I took "end of the American Republic" as Twitter hyperbole. But point taken.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @notjessewalker @studentactivism and
Of course it was Twitter hyperbole -- he knew that I wasn't literally predicting the immediate collapse of the American Republic if Beto implemented his plan. Angry gun owners clearly don't have the capacity to overthrow the US government.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @mtracey @notjessewalker and
So what WERE you predicting? You said that such a law couldn't be implemented "peaceably." What's the level of backlash you're envisioning?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @studentactivism @notjessewalker and
You yourself just predicted "an amount and intensity of violence similar to that seen during Prohibition" which itself is a prediction that the law couldn't be implemented "peaceably."
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mtracey @notjessewalker and
Uh, no. I referred to that as a "more defensible" prediction than the one you offered. But if you don't want to explain what you meant, that's fine with me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @studentactivism @notjessewalker and
If you regard it as "defensible" to predict that there would be a substantial outbreak of violence as a result of the plan being implemented, that is sufficiently explanatory of what I meant.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @mtracey @notjessewalker and
Again, "more defensible" and "defensible" aren't the same thing. But why not just say what you meant instead of playing these games? You meant SOMETHING by the tweet, and you meant something when you doubled down on it and called those who took issue with it "insane." What?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I said exactly what I meant, which is that the law would likely not be implemented peaceably: a prediction you regard as "defensible." I can't predict the exact level of violence, but I agree with your prediction that imposing criminal penalties would conceivably beget violence.
-
-
Replying to @mtracey @notjessewalker and
So you're predicting that there would be violence somewhere between "absolutely none" and "an end to the American republic." Bold.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @studentactivism @notjessewalker and
I think the prediction that you described as defensible -- a substantial outbreak in violence akin to Prohibition -- roughly captures the level that seems plausible. But it's true that I won't boldly predict in precise quantitative terms what the violence would look like.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.