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.

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.

> 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.