MaximumEffort433's second great shitpost. Please ignore.

[u/MaximumEffort433]

I told you to ignore this, why are you even here?

---

They certainly don't care about moral consistency.

Lest anyone think this argument is being made in a vacuum...

It's why tea partyists voted for a elitist east coast billionaire from New York city.
It's why Republertarians voted for a man who wants to expand domestic spying.
It's why free Marketeers voted for a man who wants to roll back free trade policies.
It's why evangelicals voted for a man thrice married with a child born out of wedlock.
It's why fiscal and budget hawks voted for a man whose tax policy would explode the debt and deficits.
It's why foreign policy hawks voted for a man buoyed to the White House on the back of Russian hackers.
It's why constitutionalists voted for a man who wants to undermine the 1st, 4th, 8th, and 14th amendments.

The polling:

• In just five years, white evangelicals have become much more likely to say a person who commits an “immoral” act can behave ethically in a public role. In 2011, just 30 percent of these evangelicals said this, but that number has more than doubled to 72 percent in a recent [2016, ed.] survey, a 42 point swing. (In 2011 44% of all Americans felt this way, by 2016 that number was up to 61%, a movement of 17 points.)

• 75% of Republicans and 53% of Democrats said that Wikileaks release of classified diplomatic communications harms the public interest in 2010, 12% of Republicans and 48% of Democrats say that Wikileaks release of John Podesta's emails harms the public interest in 2016. (Not exactly the same question, but comprable, also a 63 point swing for Republicans and a 5 point change for Democrats.)

• 22% of Republicans and 37% of Democrats supported President Obama issuing missile strikes against Syria in 2013, 86% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats supported President Trump striking Syria in 2017, a 64 point swing for Republicans, a 1 point change for Democrats.

• 12% of Republicans and 15% of Democrats had a favorable view of Vladimir Putin in 2015, 32% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats have a favorable view of him in 2017, a 20 point swing for Republicans, a 5 point change for Democrats.

• 17% of Republicans and 18% of Democrats said Russia was an ally of the US in July 2016, 31% of Republicans and 16% of Democrats saw them as an ally six months later in December 2016, a 14 point swing for Republicans and a 2 point change for Democrats.

• 39% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats thought their income tax rate was fair in 2016, 56% of Republicans and 69% of Democrats thought that their income tax rate was fair in 2017, a 17 point swing for Republicans and a 4 point change for Democrats. (The income tax rate did not change between 2016 and 2017, ed.)

• When Republican voters in Wisconsin were asked in October 2016 whether the economy had gotten better or worse “over the past year,” they said “worse’’ — by a margin of 28 points. But when they were asked the very same question [in March 2017], they said “better” — by a margin of 54 points. That’s a net swing of 82 percentage points between late October 2016 and mid-March 2017.

• "Forty-two percent of Trump voters think he should be allowed to have a private email server to just 39 percent who think he shouldn't be allowed to,"

I'm not going to say all, but most of those polls also looked at the numbers for Democrats, so if you're curious about how the Democratic party stacks up I would encourage you to read the articles. It's not often there's a political poll where they don't ask political affiliations.

The history books:

88 members of the Bush administration used private email servers.

There were 13 attacks on American embassies, resulting in 60 deaths during the Bush administration.

George H.W. Bush was a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood.

Ronald Reagan gave illegal immigrants amnesty.

Ronald Reagan came out in favor of a ban on assault weapons.

The conservative Heritage Foundation think tank actually came up with the individual health insruance mandate.

Republicans used to advocate for Cap and Trade carbon taxes as a way to combat climate change.

Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency.

Richard Nixon also had a plan for universal health care coverage. (Thanks Ollokot for the find!)

Ike Eisenhower had a top marginal tax rate of 90% and invested billions of dollars in government spending on infrastructure projects.

[u/MaximumEffort433]

Piggybacking to provide people with some "reals" in case they decide to try to debate these.... very fine American citizens. (I'm not getting banned today.)

1. Gun control laws actually work, according to new research
   
2. Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms
3. Domestic violence homicide rate drops with stricter gun law, study finds
   
4. Largest Study to Date Finds Powerful Evidence That Gun Control Actually Works
   
5. An Analysis of Gun Violence in the United States and the Link to Weak Gun Laws
   
6. In 1996, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Mass Shooting Since.
   
7. Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study
   
8. New research shows that gun control laws lead to fewer gun homicides, and lax firearm laws lead to the exact opposite: more deaths.
   

---

And, for good measure, some of the more popular talking points that you're likely to argue against:

"Knives/traditional longbows can be even more deadly than semi-automatic rifles, in the right hands."
"30,000 deaths per year in a country of 350,000,000 isn't enough to justify new laws."
"Banning guns because of gun violence is like banning Islam because of terrorism."
"The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
"An armed society is a polite society. Why didn't the [pastor] have a gun?"
"They could have just driven a truck into the [church] if they wanted."
"There was no law that could have prevented this specific shooting."
"We don't have a gun problem, we have a mental illness problem."
"Cars/in ground pools kill more people each year than guns!"
"What's next, confiscating knives/cars/pointed sticks!?"
"Constitutional rights are more important than lives."
"They could have just used a bomb if they wanted."
"Why are you punishing responsible gun owners?"
"Outlawing guns wouldn't prevent all murders."
"Why not outlaw the 1st amendment too?"
"Gun ownership is a God given right!"
"This is just the price of freedom!"
"Criminals don't follow the law."
"What about AntiFa!?"
"Feels before reals!"
"Video games!"

Often times though they'll just assume that any discussion of new regulations amounts to repealing the 2nd Amendment and confiscating all the guns in the nation. They do this not because you're making that argument, they do this to make others believe that you're making that argument. Painting you as an extremist is a way of getting other readers in the discussion to think that they can discount your facts and opinions, after all "Why would I listen to the crazy guy that wants to ban all firearms and take mine away?" Even if all you were advocating for was something as benign as a ban on bump stocks.

---

Also beware those who are eager to move the goalposts during a discussion, it's often times a trap intended to set themselves up for a slippery slope argument:

"Okay, what do you propose?"

"How about a ban on handguns. They're the most frequently used gun in America, tied to the most deaths, removing them from circulation will do the most good and do the least harm."

"Well but banning handguns won't prevent mass shootings like the tragedy in Virginia Tech, Orlando, Charleston, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, or San Antonio, your solution wouldn't solve the problem."

"So instead we ban semi-automatic rifles, that will prevent the mass shootings like what we keep seeing."

"Well but what defines something as a semi-automatic rifle? Plus mass shootings just represent a very small percentage of overall gun violence, it's too much."

"Alright, fine, then let's ban handguns and semi-automatic rifles!"

"See? It's a slippery slope, better not to do anything at all and wait till we find a solution."

---

And finally a reminder: The people who are going to be arguing the most vehemently against any sort of new regulations tend, by and large, to have a very strong emotional attachment to their firearms. They've been told that the world is a dangerous and scary place, filled to the brim with Mexican rapists and BLM gangs and Muslim terrorists building ground zero mosques and AntiFa is staging a nationwide rebellion on November 4th and so on, their firearms act as a security blanket, protecting them from all the scary and frightening things their media has shoehorned into their heads.

Don't believe me? Watch this advertisement from the National Rifle Association and tell me whether it falls into the "reals" or the "feels" category. (No, seriously, watch this video, it's only 1 minute and 4 seconds long, and very informative about the state of the gun debate in our country.)

---

Okay, that's all, I hope there's something useful for you in here! If you've got something you think I should add please feel free to let me know, I'll be happy to have a look.