Both examples of you believing your own hallucinations, confused by your own rhetoric.
Well, we can start with your (
ahem!) exhortation on behalf of stalkers in
#3204234/32↗, dated 1 July 2014:
The people advocating gun regulation are foul little gits with an authoritarian agenda - is that really the point you want to make? Well, you wouldn't be alone - it's been made, inadvertently to be sure, over and over, on TV and in the newspaper and right here, as we hear them tell us about the nature of those who do not agree that guns are useless and therefore should be removed from private hands by whatever means necessary and on whatever justification is available.
One reason the eminently sensible laws mentioned are opposed by so many, not just the NRA, is that they don't trust the source. Amy Klobuchar is not a terrible Senator, but if not watched she will make bicycle helmets mandatory, canoeing without actually wearing a lifejacket illegal, fireworks available only to licensed professionals, that kind of thing. The term "Nanny State" might have been coined for her utopia. And that poisons the well.
And it is a matter of record that on 28 December, 2017, in
#3495188/343↗, you tried to attribute your own post to another author.
Your assessments—
And illustrating why the behavior of your "side" is seen as a threat. You guys are not in the right, you are in the wrong, on a half dozen aspects of gun control. You have bought into irrational and deluded premises, from which any number of bad realities can spring. And you want power, power you think you can control, that you appear to think will obey your good intentions and unwritten rules. That's a threat.
—are unreliable; it would be helpful if you would please #startmakingsense
No, really, Iceaura, all you're saying is that holding a firearms advocate to his words is seen as threatening. And the thing about that outburst, what makes it relevant even today, is that it is a nexus of two issues about which you appear to fall back to an internal narrative that only makes sense to you. Additionally, you've
tried to blame someone else for your own post.
Many reasonable people will mistrust those who behave like that. So, yeah, your delineation of this or that "side" is unreliable. Your perception of threat is unreliable.
Name the first. Name the first reasonable and sound gun control regulation that actually and necessarily ran foul of the 2nd Amendment. Not via NRA agitprop - they're raving extremists in the service of amoral power, nuttier than a fruitcake, remember? - but in the sober assessment of people making sense.
And look at your proposition; it is designed to be unanswerable. I've already noted that people are pissed about
Heller. Secondly, I also noted that people are pissed off about hearing how the Second is some sacred cow and stumbling block, and normally I wouldn't worry about what one fails to include in a quote, but it also looks like exclusion when you're also trying to evade the point; and, honestly, it's an easy enough construction to speculate according to psychology, but that would get us nowhere as in the end the definitions you attend according to your priority are demonstrably unreliable.
Still, consider Florida, where the legislature could arm teachers—requiring elevenfold firearms training to diversity training—but needed another go at firearms safety, and still couldn't bring themselves to take a substantial chunk out of access to the semiautomatic, assault-style rifles used for mass killings. No wonder you want to exclude the "NRA agitprop" compelling lawmakers to abide the sacred cow and stumbling block; your point about the "both sides" problem orbits the facts of how people have responded to "NRA agitprop" over the years.
Then again, neither is the exclusion surprising; when it coumes to "reasonable and sound gun control regulation", your prior remarks on behalf of stalkers with guns really does remind you are an unreliable arbiter.
Your assessments on these issues aren't sober, and don't make sense.
Pretending some "mystery" about why people are considering the Second Amendment is actually rather quite silly.
It's like our neighbor on the point about CDC: Receiving firearms morbidity and mortality data in an epidemiological framework is problematic under the Dickey Amendment; Congress made its point at the time, as well, with concomitant appropriations reallocation.
The firearms lobby grift, at this point, is balbutive.
