... Bipartisan legislation which has already been amended so that it won't even accomplish the extremely limited goals that Paul wanted to accomplish with an

But he couldn't say anything like that, because he was too busy listening to the little Republican strategist in his head, yelling "Quick! Spend some more time telling her that you're personally disgusted by racism! Mention again that you oppose government-imposed segregation laws and you would have marched with Martin Luther King if you were old enough at the time! Now hit her with a gotcha-argument about restaurateurs banning guns from their restaurants. Ha ha, take that, liberal!"

But he couldn't say anything like that, because he was too busy listening to the little Republican strategist in his head, yelling "Quick! Spend some more time telling her that you're personally disgusted by racism! Mention again that you oppose government-imposed segregation laws and you would have marched with Martin Luther King if you were old enough at the time! Now hit her with a gotcha-argument about restaurateurs banning guns from their restaurants. Ha ha, take that, liberal!"

Yeah; I think that Paul's obvious evasiveness and non sequiturs are a perfect example of how political strategery actually obliterates anything like sensible communication. If he had his head screwed on straight, it would have been obvious to him that the sit-in movement works in favor of the position that you don't need federal laws to win civil rights victories -- if it didn't occur to him spontaneously, it should at least have occurred to him when she repeatedly bashed him over the head with it. But of course, if he had his head screwed on straight, he wouldn't be running for United States Senator. So. We end up with this rigged conversation in which both sides play off of each other to obliterate the real issue.

Yeah; I think that Paul's obvious evasiveness and non sequiturs are a perfect example of how political strategery actually obliterates anything like sensible communication. If he had his head screwed on straight, it would have been obvious to him that the sit-in movement works in favor of the position that you don't need federal laws to win civil rights victories -- if it didn't occur to him spontaneously, it should at least have occurred to him when she repeatedly bashed him over the head with it. But of course, if he had his head screwed on straight, he wouldn't be running for United States Senator. So. We end up with this rigged conversation in which both sides play off of each other to obliterate the real issue.

... Oh, bollocks. I challenge you to produce even one single message, post, or article that I have ever written in which I said anything of the sort. In fact,

... Yes, he does, and I'm glad when he does so. Unfortunately the time when he mentioned his position most often was when it was a purely defensive move likely

... Well, in the past he has reacted with similarly intense hostility towards people who point out that chattel slavery and conscription are not libertarian.

... . . . Am I the only one who immediately imagined the song being belted out by [this guy][1]? [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsC0BCAwkb4

As far as I know, the NRA started out as a gun safety and hunter education outfit before it got more political.

Yes and no. It was originally a gun training outfit, but the NRA was originally founded by a gang of Army officers just out of the Civil War (Gen. Ambrose Burnside was its first president), and was founded with the express purpose of helping the U.S. government’s soldiers learn how to murder people more efficiently. So I’d argue it was a political outfit in a rather strong sense, although my understanding so far is that its political agenda had more to do with upholding the theo-nationalist civic religion broadly, more than with the day-to-day details of legislation.

I’d be curious whether anyone knows whether the NRA took any public stance, during the 1870s, on the efforts by Southern state governments and by the Klan to forcibly disarm Southern blacks. Cruikshank was in 1875, just 4 years after they were founded, and most of the men in charge were former Union soldiers who supported Reconstruction. But I don’t know whether or not the organization took any public stance at the time. Anyone here know?