rangerx

That's not a fair assessment either. My comment (a suggestion and a question) were spun into something else entirely. Raider raised the issue, speaking from the standpoint of corruption detracting gun safety laws by his state legislature by thwarting or straying from gun safety measures. He even went as far to suggest his state does it because "they believe the feds are corrupt". I suggested and asked if they agreed upon taking legal (no less social) measures to nip it in the bud, but responded as no, being solely reliant on SCOTUS to sort it out. To me, that read as maintaining the status quo, not pro-activity as they claim to be, because controversial laws can take years to resolve or may not be resolved at all and in the meantime, people may die. I also prefixed the comment, that state and local police still make arrests and detain suspects, irrespective of which level of laws were broken. It's not as though anyone has to give up protection from law enforcement and It's not as though they turn a blind eye, in anticipation of maybe the feds figuring it out. In opening their response, they had the audacity to insult my intelligence by suggesting I don't understand American law, thus perpetuating their pretense my opinion has no bearing in this or any discussion. Even going as far as claiming to have taken some so-called 9 month course, making them the legal authority in the this discussion. Subsequently, proven themselves as a wrongfully accusatory and needlessly hyberbolic. I fought a long, acrimonious class action in an American court to infer negligence and maintain standing, not for the money. They tried every underhanded tactic and procedural obstacle they could present and spared no expense trying, yet I prevailed. That's considerably more experience with the American legal system than probably the greater part of this forum and certainly the average American would ever endure. Their assertion (not the only one on this board) that I am anti-American is patently false.

A fair point, however that very small subset can do an inordinate amount of damage, so long as military style weapons are readily available to them.

I totally agree. One bad investment, an unfaithful partner, a terrible accident, an unfair decision etc. are but a few of several reasons an otherwise law abiding and rational person can crack at any time.

First you you said the states have the ability to place their own laws if they think the federal laws are corrupt. Then said the states can't because the supreme court will over-rule them. Then I suggested and asked if you supported proactive measures to prevent your state from doing that in the first place. You responded with a no, by putting reliance on the federal courts to correct it instead. Meanwhile, kids die waiting for the status quo to be maintained, rather than dealing with the underpinnings of the problem. THAT is what I'M saying. And who said I downvoted your comment? That's an outright lie and a personal attack.

By your own admission to this thread, you've very clearly said your state government was complicit in thwarting federal laws. Corrupt was the exact word. So invoking any measures (legal, moral, education or otherwise) to prevent your state legislatures from even attempting to thwart the law is off the table then? You seem to be upholding the status quo, not a catalyst for change is how that reads.

That's not my opinion or what I said at all, quit putting words in my mouth. I said DID (in the past tense) NOT DOES in the present and future. FFS.

That what I said, FFS. How does that suggest anything other than the feds over-ruling state laws when they are wrong? Arguing over something we agree on. For shame. Quite obviously, your comment was driven by the narrow-mindedness that because I'm a Canadian I have no idea about your legal system, even as far as throwing the odd anti-American epithet (from the other thread) into the mix for no other than to disqualify me from the discussion. This is a science forum, fallacies fall flat on this board.

We could substitute the word school for uterus, so they'll advocate for whats inside them.

Of course. I was suggesting local and state police still make arrests and detain offenders pending escalation to the feds for charges. Not necessarily for ongoing investigations, but certainly in cases that rear themselves on the spot.

Cut with the false narrative. I understand the US legal system more than you think. I represented a class action against an oil company in the 9th Circuit and Appellate Court for more than 10 years. And prevailed.

The good guy with a gun thing has been debunked long ago. SWAT sees a teacher with a gun amid dead bodies, dead teacher. Even most strong gun advocates point out that issue as problematic.

If the court over ruled it, then the state laws did thwart the feds. Meanwhile people die. So your state is corrupt, but that's acceptable, so long as the feds might step in later then? Doesn't sound like a solution to me. It sounds more like maintaining the status quo.

You've identified a problem. Would you agree, that removing the states legislative ability to thwart federal laws on safety is a workable solution? After all, the states still have the power to enforce and to charge for federal crimes in any case, not just guns.

I'm certain you an I'd agree Mexico isn't particularly well-regulated, which also serves to suggest numerous other underlying social-economic issues. The same is also true in the USA. Mental health is a healthcare issue, which is also under siege. Likewise, the states often thwart federal laws. Technically, everyone has a right to guns in any regulated country. The greater part of those who lost that right, did so by their own undoing not by the influence of politicians as many would have everyone believe. Gun safety, not the right to them, should be at the forefront of federal legislation, while state laws should have the discretion to their usefulness by restricting other things in the public interest. Limiting rounds for hunting and conservation, for example. The "sides" thing is too polarized, because it misses a broader point. In America, there basically two kinds of guns (or at least that's the way the narrative goes). Legal guns and banned guns. In Canada, there are three... legal guns, banned guns and restricted guns (semi-auto and hand guns). The latter requires strict licensing and affirmed accountability, irrespective of the purpose for owning them.

In countries with well-regulated gun laws, there are no "sides". So long as that is a term of reference, any discussion or action will always be self-defeating.

Triggering fails too, btw.

Now you're just being obtuse.

IT is not a person FFS. So quit framing it as though I can't see the difference. Now you've spun it to imply I'm a bigot. Yet again, my point is proven.

I do realize that and you know it. Now you're just gaslighting by causing me to question my judgement about something both of us already know to be true. Which yet again, stipulates to my point.

Excellent example. Thank you.

American exceptionalism The myth that indoctrinates one's citizens that there's no room for improvement when they already believe they're superior in every way. If normal, rational folks can't even find a consensus in a non-formal, inconsequential setting, the outlook for any real change is grim. Like I've said before, America needs to get over itself.

Because it's dead?

Fair enough. I will dispense with assertion as it applied to the election. It's was a rhetorical point. My point about double standards and dismissive antics stand though, especially when it comes to dealing with serious issue, like guns. That still lays at the heart of the matter, to invoke obstructionism.

Agreed, but it undoubtedly was an underlying issue, especially in light of the degree they defend Trump for his complete disregard for PC, to this very day.

You are right. I'm not angry. I'm aghast. And then resorted to sarcasm to paint another false narrative about my state of mind. Thanks again for making my case for me.