james said:
I am wondering which of these measures you would support, if any.
Almost all of them. As would almost all Americans, including most NRA members. You can probably find most of them recommended by me in earlier posts here and elsewhere on this forum - such as my mentioning of domestic abuse handling improvements as a way to reduce gun violence in the post immediately above. And I fully expect to be asked again, over and over, with the same condescending tone, whether I support a few of them in the future as well, regardless of how many times I post declarative sentences of support for them right in front of your face.
james said:
Really? Are you serious? This a side of you I am moderately surprised at, though I have seen you lose it in a similar way in previous gun control discussions.
You mean you've lost all comprehension of my posts before? Yeah, you have. You guys have a serious thinking disorder in this matter. It's not simply an inability to read, it's deeper.
Steinbeck, in one of his novels - Cannery Row? not sure - writes an elderly Chinese man living as a family housekeeper for a white landowner in California, who always speaks in stereotypical broken English to whites. The landowner knows him to be a scholar and gentleman, and in one scene asks him why in all the years he never learned better English; the man pauses, and then in perfect upper class college educated vernacular English replies that when he speaks good English white people don't understand what he says - they can't hear it, from a Chinaman. He illustrates the phenomenon later in the book.
I thought that to be an improbable invention of Steinbeck's, but after posting on these forums here I'm beginning to think he drew that example from life. You guys have a truly remarkable, almost hallucinatory, ability to read nothing but what you for whatever reason expect to read in my posts: nothing else registers as sense to you.
magical said:
Mass incarceration of black men? Is that before or after we become a fascist white supremacist police state?
Seems to be before, one would assume, looking around.
Look, guys, think a sec: why was I posting there? What's my argument? I was posting about avenues of action, issues that could be addressed by those wishing to reduce gun violence in the US that have not been pretrashed by this garbage fight between extremist camps on - uniquely - both sides of the gun control issue. First a little paragraph observing the gun control issue is ruined, then an intro sentence on how there is hope, there are issues that have not been pretrashed by the loonies and offer opportunity for reason and cooperation and negotiation and coherent action widely supported by Americans, that also bid fair to enable significant gains in gun violence reduction. Then I listed a few. It's not a subtle point. I was asked for suggestions on reducing gun violence in the US, and my suggestion was to abandon gun control for a while and focus on these other areas where there is hope of significant progress.
Do you have an argument against that? Do you object to some of the issues I claim can be addressed in ways that would reduce gun violence in the US significantly - you think addressing them properly wouldn't work to reduce gun violence?
bells said:
I said, clearly, that you view anyone saying anything about gun control as being panic driven and irrational and you have done so repeatedly in this thread.
And I said, clearly, that nothing you have said about me - which would include describing my views, eh? - is anything but various kinds of slander and bs and bad behavior and so forth. You are completely full of shit in every single post you have addressed to me here.
Like this: "Your whining when this was brought up earlier in the thread kind of says that you are not." No integrity at all - just vile.
bells said:
Ah, so it's everyone else that is wrong in reading the word at its actual meaning
It's not everyone else. It's just you and the lunatic fringe of flailers, who want to deny the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
Experience recommends repetition:
A militia is not a standing force of any kind, regularly training, or even organized in advance. It can be, but that's not usual. Militias in American history have normally been raised at need, trained at need, etc, from the general population of a community facing a specific threat. Until the need arises, they are just folks - in some early American communities the militia was formally defined as the entire grown male population, all of whom were expected to keep a firearm in good working order so they could be called up on short notice, none of whom were expected to take time off from hard lives to "train".
