[mikedmiked]

Finally somebody I can get behind; we need to get this guy into office.

Does anyone know of any other examples of if-by-whiskey being used today?

Is it useful for politicians or would it completely backfire, where any opposition would try to say "You are quoted as being pro-alcohol: calling it the philosophic wine" or "anti-alcohol, calling it the devil's brew" and pick the paragraph that suits their needs?

[jerf]

"Does anyone know of any other examples of if-by-whiskey being used today?"

The whole debt debate. If by spending you mean crippling debt being left to our children, interest paid to furreiners, etc etc, it's bad and everyone who supports it is bad. If by spending, you mean the concrete things that we are spending money on, of course this specific thing is so wonderful that it's worth it and anyone who says otherwise is bad, and in fact I may I just go out on a limb and say that we need more of this sort of spending.

(Lest you think I'm being partisan here, there's a very clear pattern in the last 20 years on which party in the US wants to spend, and which party wants to cut, and it's not D/R or liberal/conservative in either direction. The pattern is that the majority party wants to spend, and the minority party wants to cut. One can not help but cynically observe that what really bothers the minority party is majority's successful ladling out of the pork for patronage to the other guy's constituents, rather than any sort of real offense about spending. And thus, to be clear, the reason I chose this as my example is that you can find instances of the same individual giving both halves of this speech, playing both sides of the argument, separated by about a decade and one flip of the majority party.)

[twoodfin]

The minority party certainly did not want to cut from, say, 2002-2004. If anything, the dynamic was just the opposite: Stimulus bills didn't have enough "state aid". Medicare Part D had a miserly donut hole. Special education was being woefully shortchanged if the Federal government didn't honor its "promise" to pick up 100% of the cost. Oh, and don't forget that we weren't spending enough on body armor and the VA.

I think your theory needs tuning.

[jerf]

Pity Google doesn't have a "please just let me search in 2003" mode. Democrats got tons of mileage out of Bush-era deficit complaints, though. I'm pretty comfortable with my general thesis.

[prattmic]

Try the "Custom range..." under "Time".

https://www.google.com/search?q=special+education+spending&#...

[thisone]

You can find some of these types of arguments when reading opinions on the death penalty, gun control, and abortion.

The arguments aren't always doublespeak I'd say. You can very well be for something, given a set of circumstances, but against the same thing, given a different set of circumstances.

The political problem I'd say, is figuring out how to separate, or even if you can separate, the "bad circumstances" from the "good circumstances"

[cabinguy]

This exactly describes the gun debate going on today.

Is it a terrorist or a freedom fighter? = Is it an assault weapon or a rifle?

[chrisrhoden]

I don't think that's really a fair comparison. Assault weapon is a strictly legal term which refers to a specific subset of the category we refer to as rifles. The word rifle usually brings to mind a class of weapons that were specifically not covered by the assault weapons ban.

A more apt analogy would be

Religious Conservative : Taliban :: Rifle : Assault Rifle

My point being that, in this case, it's not simply a matter of perspective. Now, if the debate were much more polarized, one could see something like

Terrorist : Freedom Fighter :: Murder Machine : 2nd Amendment Rights

[cabinguy]

I think it is a fair comparison. If by guns we are talking about those used to kill animals... / If by guns we are talking about those used to kill people...

The only real difference between an "assault rifle" and a "regular" rifle is the color/design. One is painted black and looks scary. The other is usually wood tone. They are equally dangerous. You can find high capacity clips/magazines for virtually any brand or style semi-automatic rifle (and handgun) made.

[sageikosa]

Even more basic, I don't think I'm going to be jumped by ninja, but that doesn't stop me from practicing martial arts. I see no reason why someone who likes to shoot shouldn't be allowed to. In fact, I'd rather they learn to shoot safely then not.

[jamieb]

"If by guns we are talking about those used to kill people..."

Though the second amendment is strictly about protecting this latter use.

[JasonFruit]

One of the points of having your militia "well-regulated" is that it can now and then refrain from killing people.

[jff]

Most adults are, by law, part of the unorganized (inactive) militia.

[jff]

An assault weapon is a legal term concocted by lawmakers who wanted to ban scary-looking guns. An assault rifle is a rifle designed to shoot lower-power, lower-caliber ammunition for use in assaults, as compared to the fewer, larger shots from a typical bolt-action rifle (or, as we like to call them, "Fudd" rifles :)

[betterunix]

If I remember my history correctly, assault rifles replaced "battle rifles," which were similarly designed but fired much heavier and more powerful cartridges (and were necessarily larger and heavier). The way I learned it, armies discovered that typical infantry engagements were at distances of hundreds of yards, rather than the mile-long distances guns like the M1 Garand could fire at, and that the weight of the ammunition and recoil of the guns were making soldiers less effective.

[sp332]

Lately, "assault" weapons are (legally) characterized by the amount of ammo they can hold. For example this 30-round magazine is illegal no matter which gun you put it in, whereas the same gun with a different-sized magazine may well be legal. http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbcs-david-gregory-displays-3...

[AngryParsley]

Magazine restrictions are a separate law in most states. California has an assault weapon ban which restricts features such a pistol grips, collapsible stocks, and flash hiders. They have another law restricting the possession of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. Old magazines are grandfathered in, so you can use them in legal rifles.

It looks like the law is similar in DC. Possession of a magazine with >10 round capacity is a crime. Other firearm laws are irrelevant to the case you linked to.

[sp332]

OK, interesting. I know my home state of NH also has an "assault weapons ban" that just bans certain magazines, although we probably have other laws too that one bugged me.

[abuiles]

haha I was wondering about this too, I actually asked in quora http://www.quora.com/Fallacy/What-are-some-famous-examples-o...