Gun control compromise

They occurred à long way from here but whencand where do you want a vidéo? Just the ones you find supportive of your own position?
I have never denied there is crime here. I have already said so.
What we don't have is the repeated slaughter of the lambs.

 

Unfortunately, art is art. It may be art you don't like, but it remains art.

I'm sorry it didn't help you learn a valuable lesson o child of collaborators some of whom's kin may be pictured above.

 

The link was simply a demonstrative. Even your police admit there are places they fear to tread and in fact won't..

What I would like you to do is roll through a no go zone with a camera streaming in your shirt pocket, unedited, and show us how no one threatens you or your security

 

I told you. I don't live in a city, and don't wear à shirt.
I repeat. I am quite happy to admit that crime occurs here.
But what does not occur is habitual mass murder of children

 

Well that's lovely for you dear, now get us that video tape so you can show how secure your nation is, since you bragged about it.

I'm not sure what not wearing a shirt has to do with anything. Try that in the no go area and let's see what happens to you

 

That's not a militia, that is an army. A militia, simply put, is 'the people'. Ordinary citizens that own firearms and join together in times of war to fight for a common cause. It is not, as you imply, a formally trained group of soldiers.

 

Well regulated militia implies training.

 

I suggest your best credentials are in infantile irrelevance and off topic nonsense.
Clearly your philosophy training does not include avoiding rambling in the undergrowth of discours.

 

Militias train. That is why they are called "well ordered".

 

I have no idea what you are repeatedly going on about here.
I already answered this twice.
And I have no shirt pocket.
You however have a tendancy to harass. I only answer à question once. If you don't get it, sharpen up.

 

Thank you. It is nice when people judge you by what you, yourself, say, and not by what other people say.

For me, ownership of a firearm is an enormous responsibility which must never be taken lightly. And, if this conveys anything to you, every single time I go out carrying a firearm, I also have a small cannister of pepper spray with me, too -- in the sincere hope that in any situation where I'm actually threatened by "man or beast", the issue can be resolved by nothing worse than a hefty spray of red dye and a very nasty skin-irritant. Fortunately, I have not had to use either the pepper spray or a firearm in many years. I don't hunt animals for food or sport (although I respect the rights of those who do), so my interest in firearms, per se, is entirely focused on self-defense.

Please do try to understand how profoundly different things are for you in rural areas of France. Over here, however, so much of what occurs in society, more and more, is UGLY, UNFAIR, UNDESIRABLE, IGNORANT, TASTELESS, and, UNCONSCIONABLE. Our 'culture' has become, to put it mildly, BESTIAL, CRASS, REPELLENT, and BORING. I don't know how long it's been since you were back in America, but if it has been more than about twenty years, you're in for something of a shock, and a disappointment.

. La haute culture américaine, 2022

 

Well regulated means 'in working order' it does not mean what you might think.

A militia to function must be able to turn out immediately when called, and show up armed and provisioned from their own homes.
To do that, the entire populace must have the opportunity to be armed and armed with the same sort of weapon a common soldier might use.

 

Its about you demonstrating that you absolutely will not go to a 'no go zone', after you waxed philosophic about how secure you were.
Odd that.

Well earlier you said you didn't have a shirt, which I thought was weird. You can always purchase a shirt with a pocket then, or come up with your own way to conceal the camera while also getting a POV shot so we see what you see.

Tendency o wisest of all teachers of the English language, and this is not harassment its a discussion forum. If you don't get it, harden up.

 

I'm with you on the first two for the most part. Here's my thoughts.

A bigger carve out should be made for hunting and sport shooting. I don't do either of those things, but I've lived in the country long enough to know they are pretty family oriented and I've seen nothing wrong with them for my entire life.

For number three, I think roping in anyone convicted of any crime is too much. How about just those who've committed any kind of crime that involved threats, violence, or use of a weapon of any kind even just for intimidation. For example, I don't think a guy who breaks into my garage to steal my lawnmower should lose his right to own guns, but if that guy punches me as he's trying to escape then absolutely.

 

Your views and mine are not far away from each other, and there is surely room for ethical compromise... but please remember, I only advocate those much longer prison terms and harsh conditions for those who commit crimes they commit while using firearms to carry them out!

 

Your constant asking the same question or posting the same reworded question I have already answered.
That is harassment.
Most people with à brain understand the answer the first time.
Now how many innocent people have been killed by a gun since last week?
I know of 5 in the news...the death toll just goes up and up while you make endless and groundless excuses.
Truly awful. And worse is your utter lack of recognition that they were all human beings.
Just numbers to be ignored.
What à mess.
Thankfully you are, it seems, in the minority. I cant imagine such lack of moral compass being the majority even in America.

 

For the militia.
Not the people, as a requirement for the exercise of their right to keep and bear arms.

 

In recent years, 3 people had the insane idea that if the used the 2nd Amendment to deliver dead people to prime time TV, they could strip law abiding citizens of their ability to defend themselves ,,, creating the chaos they need to sell their bunk to voters. Obama and Holder helped criminal aliens walk with firearms. Since they only managed to kill one American border agent, Obama and Holder teamed up with Arne Duncan to undermine the background check system by rewarding communities who didn't refer criminal students to the police. Nicolas Cruz was one success. He had 39 encounters with the police before passing a background check with no criminal record. Restorative justice was responsible for Parkland and other mass shootings in schools.

 

It's not harassment. Please stop clutching your pearls so tightly, you'll break the string.

Understand what answer? That you didn't have a shirt? Shirt is not shirt pocket. Please communicate more effectively.

I certainly recognize dead persons as having been human beings. I just don't agree with you that disarmament of the vast majority of law abiding persons (criminals who commit homicide with a firearm are something like 0.007% of gun owners going from past statistics. ) is the solution. I've offered a solution, letting the people who are disarmed at their place of work have the option to arm themselves so they can defend themselves, but you don't like that either. Somehow, you equate that to not recognizing the humanity of a victim or treating them all as statistics.
Its incredibly silly.

 

a parking citation is a misdemeanor. so is speeding. saying someone should lose a constitutional right for a speeding ticket is absolutely nuts. making stuff short of murder subject to LWOP almost guarantees a robber or kidnapper will kill any witnesses

 

You're right! I should have been more clear and said in a later post, "please remember, I only advocate those much longer prison terms and harsh conditions for those who commit crimes they commit while using firearms to carry them out!"

My thoughts were racing ahead of my fingers when I typed that post with 'thoughts' about the topic. So, no, I surely don't want ALL crimes, misdemeanors and/or felonies, to disqualify a person from owning a firearm -- only those who are convicted of crimes committed while using a firearm to commit those same crimes.

 

I am not prepared to repeat my arguments.
That you don't read it correctly is not a material difficulty for me.
There will always be some who refuse to look at anything other than what they think they know. Even when they don't know. And deliberately misread or don't engagé directly because it is difficult.
Further capabilities to murder increases the number of murders and not once have you expressed regret evev at the deaths of children.
I have no doubt that whatever argument you meet, you will make up à reply.
I cant discuss with someone like that.

 

Dude: You LITERALLY said you didn't have a shirt. When questioned as to what you meant, you THEN stated you MEANT shirt pocket. Come off it.
I read it correctly: You didn't WRITE IT correctly.

Further capabilities to defend oneself are the only effective counter measure to take.
Criminals commit crimes, and making a firearm is so stupid simple they even manage to do it in OZ.
I will not agree to disarmament of the law abiding because 0.007% of gun owners cause an issue IF we first assume that all such crimes are committed by otherwise law abiding gun owners which is ****ing silly but is the easiest way to pad the number in your favor to be kind.

Why should I express regret? I had no hand in the tragedy therefore I have no actions to regret taking. You were not harmed by it. To whom shall I express my sympathies then? There are no family or friends of victims here.
You understand that an expression of sympathy would not equate to an allowance of disarmament?
I realize that as someone who almost exclusively argues from pathos it can be difficult to grasp that one can feel sympathy without adopting the position of someone bleating repeatedly in an irrational fashion.

 

Utter driver.
ISTM you doont have the capacity to understand what I post.
Most of the above is répétitive waffle except an admission that you have no empathy for people your gun laws kill.
I am nor going to waste my time talking to à talking robot.

 

The word you're casting about for is "drivel". Not driver.

When you do not write what you mean and instead write an entirely different thing? Yes as stated that makes it impossible to know what you're meaning is, because you're not communicating effectively.

O? Quote where I said I have no empathy? Go on dear it's a short post it shouldn't be that difficult to find.

I'm not a robot dude, I'm a person. I just don't disregard a good logos argument for a shitty pathos argument. Particularly one made in so inept, annoying, and amateurish a fashion.