Well Ok then, I’m sure not allowing a minority to hold viewpoints will be very interesting.
Now obviously, this is the test run for a response that is part cautious and then part dog whistle, and Hillary doesn’t have it rolling off the tongue quite yet. She’s not going to overcommit on policy details, but she will play to unfavorable perceptions of the NRA, which the pollsters must feel are safe everywhere. Very bold, Hil.
Anyway…. Is the rule that, science and epidemiology are to be liberal trump cards except when science and epidemiology buttress the conservative argument? Where in that case, liberal whimsy trumping conservative epidemiology?
Thing is, It’s fair to acknowledge that public policy can be value driven rather than entirely epidemiologically driven. But the literal facts of the matter are, the very general population has no statistical reason to feel terrorized by the incidence of crime as it might be enabled by guns. Guns are up and crime is down, individual civilian risk is extraordinary low. Feeling terrorized is thus the problem of those who feel it, not something gun owners can ameliorate by ceding some of their rights.
Which is to say, a values argument here is not terribly or at all persuasive in trumping the epidemiological observation, and thus not a compelling justification for any law changes that would curtail rights from where they are now.
Mind you, that’s only a meaningful observation if you can assume liberals actually care about individual rights these days.