No. Why do you ask?geoff said:
False as always - no name calling in the second post, or on the first page. ("Clueless" is an adjective, and not only completely in tune with the language of the posts it responds to, but accurate and exactly necessary for the argument being made. The trashing of the gun control issue in the US has not been accomplished by the reason and sanity and informed discussion on either side.bells said:
And not only false, but no excuse for your seven pages of posting here if it had been true. You've been a nasty piece of work here for an entire thread.
And assumed the answer to your rhetorical and bad faith "question", in typical fashion.bells said:
My answer, had I bothered for some reason, would have been "a lot of them", distributed among the various and overlapping types of gun owners I illustrated in that casual and imprudent manner - never assume honest, good faith readers in a thread with gun control advocates, would be the lesson still imperfectly learned by me.
The timelines of your bullshit delusions are not an area of expertise for me.bells said:
Once again into the sewer - - - what I explicitly and clearly and repeatedly and in short, simple phrases using ordinary English words said, throughout, is that the gun control extremists's rhetorical employment of statistics and studies and so forth is continually and typically and often flagrantly misuse: abusive, dishonest, misleading, in bad faith, and apparently without regard for reason or reality. It's lies and propaganda.bells said:
It's the nature, not the fact, of your "referring". And I think you know that.
And this means something, has consequences for the gun control issue in the US. Because in most issues influencing US politics this kind of propaganda and abuse of data and stats and so forth, by a visible faction, is typical of only "one side" or one approach or one take on an issue. "One side" features amplified visible wingnuttery; the "other side" features a variety of approaches all pretty much controlled by sanity and facts, that reasonable people can sign on to, any of whose prevailing would be an improvement and a good thing. But the gun control "debate" is dominated - actually taken over, pretty much - by the crazy on "both sides".#
This is doubly frustrating to me, because it tangles progress in two major (but not equal) concerns of mine: reducing gun violence in the US, and somehow getting some purchase on the current corporate-degraded media framing of every political issue as a "both sides" conflict - in particular the shitshow that the Republican Party has put on since Reagan, as the malfunctioning of "both sides".
It's your only excuse, yes. But you refuse to accept correction of your foreign and uninformed misconceptions from those who are, so that excuse is wearing thin.bells said:
That's false, unfortunately.bells said:
Nobody is. You're a guy who refuses to read or think, and keeps saying crazy stuff. And the plethora of you guys has trashed gun control in the US.magical said:
You can't transform the modern National Guard into a militia in that way. See "legal personhood", "en loco parentis", and so forth.magical said:
And immediately to the point: A formal, official, government established and trained and equipped and enlisted and paid and commanded, uniformed and UCMJ controlled, reserve force of the US Army, is not a militia, by definition.
edit in#
{Yesterday's paper: Seven letters to the editor in response to an opinion piece Wednesday in which the author declared he was "scared" and "disgusted" by guns - by the objects themselves, which he described as "cruel and lethal" - in the course of laying out (with actual and relevant insight; he mentions racial conflict, etc, and ignores the NRA) some of the roots and consequences of what is undeniably a serious mental pathology in the US: fascination with guns as objects.
The author wants us to do something about this pathology, namely rid America ("the streets of America") of guns by Federal force. The opinion piece recommends starting - starting incremental progress toward ridding America of guns - by making it illegal to own handguns and "semiautomatics" (his term, not sure what he meant) in the US, and prohibiting their manufacture. Those who demur at this obvious first step in this obviously sensible agenda would have the blood of murdered children on their hands, he says. Explicitly: " - - the blood is on your hands" is the closing phrase.
The seven letters were split about half: three objecting, four agreeing.
The three that objected offered: 1) that guns "used responsibly" were no more a threat of harm than a case of beer "used responsibly", and "gun free zone" signs were an attraction to homicidal maniacs. 2) that Sam Colt made all men equal in America 3) suggested that calling something "gun violence" was equivalent to calling 9/11 "airplane violence".
The four that agreed offered: 1) that the NRA was bad, failing to prevent massacres and murders was insane, and so the author was right 2) That a list of mass shootings could be printed, and so the author was right 3) that the NRA was bad, that the author exhibited unusual courage in "finally" talking about "the problem with guns", and so the author was right 4) that the NRA was bad, and that one could kill a lot more people with an "automatic rifle" than with a butcher knife. }
Last edited:
