You definitely don't. You can't make sense on the topic of my responses, at the simplest levels.
Your responses has been to defend and then switch completely and attempt to say that you were arguing something else altogether.
I mean, you parrot the NRA's talking points for years, then declare that you have provided lists, when you actually haven't. Your record on this site stands, iceaura. There's a reason why no one who has gone through the rounds with you over the years on this subject, is buying this latest version.
And that is the first step toward acquiring trust - making sense about simple things well known to one's reader.
That's the thing. You are well known to all of us who have discussed the issue of gun control with you, over the years. And yes, it has been years.
Trust is earned. You haven't earned trust when it comes to this subject, certainly not to the point where we are expected to buy this sudden about face and claims that you have posted lists and argued for gun control, when all we have seen you post is argue against gun control and abuse anyone who holds a position for gun control, over a matter of years.
Followed by a list of posts on various tangent matters, none of them slanders, with a total addressed population of I think two? (You overlooked a couple of posters ready to hand, not on "my side": Vociferous, for example. Any idea why?)
Now you can't tell slander from objecting to it, or from accurate description of a posting.
Now you have failed to comprehend the subjects of posts. Again.
And now, once again, you can't count. One, two, -> "anyone"?
Right, so your insults and slanders, weren't that at all...
As I said, no one's buying your bullshit on this subject matter. Your sudden turn around about being pro-gun control doesn't wash.
Yes, I was. And you are illustrating.
You still don't see it, do you?
Exactly.
That is one of its points - that your position on actual, specific gun control measures is all but invisible here, especially compared with (say) my active and repeated promotion of them.
My views on gun control is well known here. I have never hidden it, in any discussion that I have participated in on the subject.
What is invisible, however, is your "list" and your arguments for gun control, you keep claiming you made such a list and arguments, we ask you what they are, you say you have posted it... It's your claim, back it up.
For example, look at your zero accidental shooting tolerance. One of the biggest issues with that is the way in which it is currently implemented and the racial disparity, as linked previously, that is currently in play. In other words, a black child accidentally finds a gun in his or her home and shoots another child, their parents are far more likely to face jail time than if the parents of the child were white. Would you seek to ensure all parents of children who find an unlocked gun in the home and shoots another, face time for that crime? Would it only apply to guns? Does that mean you support legislation that would have gun safe's in the home, to ensure firearms are not accessible to children or others who might use them or play with them and accidentally kill another? Do you support legislation that would require all firearms to be registered to their owners in a national gun registry, as another example? Do you support stricter background checks and a waiting period and thorough checks of the person's mental health, domestic violence records (if they have one), criminal record, to determine if they are to be allowed to own any firearm? Do you support mandatory training on firearm safety for people who wish to purchase firearms and yearly safety courses and storage facilities that are under lock and key for when the firearm is to remain in the home? Do you think semi-automatics should be more strictly regulated in the US in regards to their sales, storage and usage? Do you think bullets should be equally regulated in regards to how and where they are sold?
Aside from removing the accident clause when it comes to firearm ownership, what other forms of gun control do you support?
You continue to demonstrate an inability to comprehend posts,
invariably followed by disparagements and slanders of the imaginary posters you have created to have posted the bizarre crap you have imagined they posted,
so that the patterns in your bs about other people and the posts you can't follow and the aspects of reality you deny is pretty much all there is to go on.
And that's your "side", exemplified. That's how it operates in the political arena.
You need to quit confusing yourself with the general public, or the fraction of those capable of reason in this matter. Your fraction of the American public is not yet large enough to acquire legitimate political power - and for that I for one am grateful - but it has been loud enough to do significant political damage, and part of that stems from its lack of self-awareness.
I am not confusing myself with the general public. You seem to confuse me with everyone else though. Why is that?
And you are still to actually qualify your stance on this issue, instead referring to vague 'this is what I argue' without actually telling us what it is you actually support, just what you don't support and then telling us how wrong we are, how illiterate we are, etc.. And yeah, when you spend so much of your time slandering others, and don't try and pull the 'it wasn't slander' crap, not buying it, you don't get to complain about you facing the same kind of crap you say to us.
Something something about glass houses apply here.
The accusation, against not only you but the demarcated fraction of political obstacles I have been specifying throughout as your "side", complete with quotes and descriptions and specifications and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, has been a central feature of my gun control posting for years on this forum. What you claim to be "waiting" for has been posted to you dozens of times.
What "side" is this, again? Is this another type of vague 'your faction' rubbish again?
You just touted yourself as *chortle!* "he predominant forum poster of suggestions for effective and popular legislation and enforcement that would reduce gun killings in America", without actually providing "suggestions for effective and popular legislation and enforcement that would reduce gun killings in America"..
For example, we all know your views of statistics when it comes to gun violence:
Anyone who brings in suicide stats, domestic violence stats, the public health perspective, accidents involving children, and the like, is talking about making guns unavailable in private homes.
So how does that work?
So I'll put it this way.. When you talk about accidental shootings not getting a pass as an 'accidental shooting', are you diverging from your previous opinion? That quote was from 2014. When
you talk about accidental shooting, are you talking about making guns unavailable in private homes? Switched opinions?
Your continued demonstration of your inability to comprehend these matters, to follow these quite simple arguments and observations,
and then, on top of it, to slander and rant about the moral failings of those who can comprehend them, as if the mere observation of physical reality and ability to reason from it were a moral failing,
is part of why you - your "side" - is deeply mistrusted by a very large fraction of the reasonable, gun control favoring, sensible American citizenry. The good guys don't trust you - to the point of viewing your endorsement of a cause as a reason to be wary of it, and cooperation with you as a risk to be weighed heavily.
I think your biggest problem is that you are taken at face value.
I have argued - reasoned from evidence - that rapid fire weapons can and should be severely restricted regardless of whether such restrictions would reduce gun deaths substantially or not. I have agreed and argued that legislated accountability for accidents would have a wide range of benefits short and long term. I have argued that various gun and ammunition restrictions would have significant long term benefits beyond the immediate lives saved - that the relatively small number of lives immediately saved, the base of the "criminals can still get them and people will murder anyway" type arguments however sound, are only a fraction of the lives saved and other benefits gained in the long run - and therefore a higher price in money, time, trouble, and risk, is justified. I have argued that plain and correct reading of the 2nd Amendment does not exclude significant restrictions on firearms, especially military grade weapons designed to abet mass murder and indiscriminate assault - that the conflict between the Constitution and gun control is an illusion, largely created by propaganda. I have posted extensive lists of soundly based and beneficial laws and regulatory restrictions that can be enacted almost immediately, with the voting majority and legal framework already in place.
Huzzah!
The list!
