DMac wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 8:33 pm
In all of your condescending post you have enlightened no one to anything, Waffle. Nothing you have said hasn't been seen on the long time running great gun debate thread. You and your like-minded are hell bent, heels dug in deep, ain't no one tellin' me what kind of gun I can't have. 2A and the militia is all I need to know. Your right, and the need for (you don't need an AR15), and wiseness in circulating these in big numbers are very different things, and I lean more to the need (not) and wiseness (not) side. 2A and the militia for justification of AR15s being circulated among the population is abuse of 2A, as is a lot of the gibberish coming from your like-minded, IMHO.
This is rich, coming from the class act who posted “I’m truly sorry the shooter missed the mark” in the “Trump Part II” thread the morning after the assassination attempt on a former president (which also killed an innocent and by all accounts decent family man). Please enlighten us as to how you spewing hate and vitriol moves the needle toward solutions. Hats off for achieving a rather impressive Daily Double: Heights of hypocrisy and a glaring lack of character.
Your post is still proudly sitting there, reflecting on Fanlax as a community, while fomenting the division so many folks here profess is the sole province of “right wing Maga militia gun nut extremists who are hiding behind every tree, bush, and blade of grass”, and form the majority of gun owners in America. Hint: they are a very small minority, and I ain’t one of them. I am, however, the one person on these forums who called out your post, and it didn’t so much as earn me a single “+1”.
Hey, I get it. There’s an easily understood and deep seated need for many here to define poster’s who dare to offer alternative ideas (and challenge rigid party line endorsed narratives regarding “America’s gun problem”) into low effort off the rack stereotypes. Fair enough.
What’s difficult to understand, however, is the lack of curiosity and interest here regarding criminal violence mitigation strategies which aren’t “anti-gun narrative approved” by the usual suspects, led by Mike “throw them up against the wall and frisk them” Bloomberg (and his merry band of prankster direct and ancillary money trough gorging organizations like JHU, Everytown, and Gifford), the Joyce Foundation, our opportunistic “do something” politicians, and the weaponized citizenry herd they have conditioned to reason with their emotions.
Any interloper having the audacity to cut through the crease here on Sensible ignites a pavlovian response from old dogs needing to yell “Check Sticks!” and lay down the wood one more time. My arrival here was inspired by an interest in sharing thoughts and ideas, and offering some insights into what I learned and came to believe when I asked myself the question “What is really going on with guns in America, and what practical/effective mitigation strategies (which don’t trample on the rights of the responsible and law abiding among us) can made a difference?”
The default reception to such idea sharing has in many cases been crickets, condescension, or an ad hominem/ stereotyping combo platter. So much for dialogue and discourse.
Recent example #1: I share that experts (tasked by Obama after Sandy Hook, and including Joe Biden) came up with policy recommendations which included a “Let’s identify tomorrow’s potential mass public shooters today” early warning system: a mass public shooter version of “see something, say something”. The response here: light disdain and incredulity.
It’s not like “see something, say something” would have prevented Sandy Hook, Uvalde, Parkland, Denver, Buffalo, Maine, Columbine, Virginia Tech, right? Oh, wait, according to qualified expert post event analysis every single one of those events (and the majority of others not listed) could/would/should have been averted utilizing that simple and powerful “leakage detection awareness” tool. But, yeah, roll your eyes at my suggestion we take the advice of experts who’ve developed a powerful prevention tool for averting future mass public shootings. PS: with the clearer picture slowly but steadily emerging on the July 13 shooter, we’ll likely be adding that event to the long list of “see something, say something” intervention opportunity failures. And I’m not referring to the failures of July 13 - but rather the failures in the days, weeks and months leading up to July 12.
Recent example #2: I pass along that many many health experts lament the difficulty of getting information regarding the role of powerful drugs in mass public shootings. 30% of America’s most horrific mass public shooters had clear mental health issues and were taking “Big Pharma” drugs with known side effects. Things like “may cause violent thoughts and fantasies, and suicidal ideation”. The other 70% of mass public shootings we don’t know if these drugs were present because of Hippa protections. Seems like it would be in the best interests of experts and the public to have this data, right? So where is the outcry for a bill to instantly revoke Hippa protections and make publicly known all mental health conditions and drugs prescribed for anyone, dead or alive, who perpetrates a mass public shooting? Plenty of folks here are calling for the 2A rights of 100mm of their fellow citizens to be taken away in the name of public good interest balancing, so revoking the Hippa protections of a handful or two of mass public shooters every year should be no big deal, correct? The response here to my introduction of statistical reality regarding the prevalence of “Big Pharma” in the brains of mass public shooters: light disdain and incredulity.
It’s clear that because 1) I reject modern era 2A “collectivist/militia only” interpretive revisionism, and 2) I oppose criminal gun violence solutions which are contingent upon non-criminal gun owners having their rights reduced to privileges, many here need to define me with stereotypes and labels. Do what you gotta do, and I'll do the same.
To those folks having fun twisting that pesky 2A into a pretzel, enjoy. To whoever figures out what an assault weapon is (and that isn’t in common usage like Justice Sotomayor and AOC recently stated), then by all means get AWB 2.0 rolling. In the meantime, I’ll be sticking to my keen interest in understanding other possibilities which could help lead the way in reducing America’s criminal violence problems, and continue to share my unenlightened gibberish here from time to time. Apologies in advance!
Finally, to quite a few posters (despite in many cases noticeable differences of opinion to my own), I really appreciate and respect what you bring to the table here on Sensible, and in other threads on Fanlax I visit less frequently. You've helped me learn a lot, and better understand both opposing and aligned positions. I enjoy having my beliefs, perceptions, and ideas challenged, and my mind changed. I'm trying to keep my gray matter dusted off, elastic, and open to new ideas.
Dmac, you stay classy now, okay?
Enjoy your weekend.