4 ms·

Yeah, I'm not "misunderstanding" anything. We're not living in the past. "Fundamental to very existence of the nation" is simpleton claptrap. Eradicating Nativ

Yeah, I'm not "misunderstanding" anything. We're not living in the past. "Fundamental to very existence of the nation" is simpleton claptrap. Eradicating Native Americans was also fundamental to the very existence of the nation. It has no bearing on the present, no matter how much your kind would like to obfuscate the matter with jingoist bombast. > which is as useless here as it is in similar debates over other dangers like drugs and alcohol Not talking about drugs or alcohol, but sure, change the subject. "But what about...?" > "But Sandy Hook!!!" reflex That's not a reflex. That's a shrug: there's simply no event terrible enough that will evoke change. Apparently this actually is what you want. It's sad for the children, because they never got the chance to vote, but for the rest of you: just stay afraid, wave that flag, and polish the caskets.

nate_meurer 8y ago
I know this topic attracts emotional debate, but you're so emotional that you're inventing enemies. I personally am very much in favor of sensible, even strict, gun control. If you insist that everyone who disagrees with you is a blood-lusting gun-nut, then I think it is you who will appear crazed in the end. I think your language bears that out here. > "Fundamental to very existence of the nation" is simpleton claptrap. This is a bit ironic coming from someone who then says, "Apparently this actually is what you want", and, "wave that flag, and polish the caskets." You're not really interested in hearing or saying anything that's not claptrap, are you? Be honest. > Eradicating Native Americans was also fundamental to the very existence of the nation. I agree! However this is a strawman. No one would argue that genocide should be continued for the good of America. However you will find many, like myself, that say the Bill of Rights was and continues to be critical for democracy in the U.S. Would you disagree? Would you say that fighting for freedom of expression (1st amendment) is "living in the past"? If not, how do you justify treating it so differently from the 2nd amendment? The parallels between firearms and other highly dangerous substances such as drugs and alcohol are highly instructive. Or at least they could be if you were willing to consider them rationally. Again, by any measure you care to take, alcohol is a greater danger than civilian gun ownership. Why should we not criminalize alcohol? Why not consider criminalizing every dangerous substance or activity? You appear to think this thought process is irrelevant, but you're unable to articulate why. I really think you haven't thought this through very well.

nate_meurer 8y ago

I know this topic attracts emotional debate, but you're so emotional that you're inventing enemies. I personally am very much in favor of sensible, even strict, gun control. If you insist that everyone who disagrees with you is a blood-lusting gun-nut, then I think it is you who will appear crazed in the end. I think your language bears that out here. > "Fundamental to very existence of the nation" is simpleton claptrap. This is a bit ironic coming from someone who then says, "Apparently this actually is what you want", and, "wave that flag, and polish the caskets." You're not really interested in hearing or saying anything that's not claptrap, are you? Be honest. > Eradicating Native Americans was also fundamental to the very existence of the nation. I agree! However this is a strawman. No one would argue that genocide should be continued for the good of America. However you will find many, like myself, that say the Bill of Rights was and continues to be critical for democracy in the U.S. Would you disagree? Would you say that fighting for freedom of expression (1st amendment) is "living in the past"? If not, how do you justify treating it so differently from the 2nd amendment? The parallels between firearms and other highly dangerous substances such as drugs and alcohol are highly instructive. Or at least they could be if you were willing to consider them rationally. Again, by any measure you care to take, alcohol is a greater danger than civilian gun ownership. Why should we not criminalize alcohol? Why not consider criminalizing every dangerous substance or activity? You appear to think this thought process is irrelevant, but you're unable to articulate why. I really think you haven't thought this through very well.