marc9000 writes:
I guess it depends on who is reading what I wrote. I really avoided responding to much of your off-topic comments in both
Message 1060 and
Message 1062.
All my off-topic comments were responses to your off-topic comments. I introduced no new off-topic subjects. They all originated with you.
You're right about the dependency on who is reading what you wrote. Everyone but you can see your errors quite clearly. Even while cleaning up your messes you create yet more messes.
What you see as "free association mode", comes from two distinct things; 1) As usual here, I'm facing a frantic gang, who pulls me in different directions, trying to shout down free speech.
You're justifying your illogic with more illogic. What you see as a "frantic gang" is simply what happens when one writes something wrong. The more wrong the more attention it draws. And it seems like you're having trouble with the "respond to the comment you just quoted" part of composing messages.
And 2), gun control is something that can have projections and repercussions that start an unlimited array of changes in a once free society.
What does this have to do with the incredible difficulty you have staying on-topic and avoiding free association mode?
I'll comment on the substance now. Here's the rest of your comment:
It has in past societies. Have you noticed, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, how in the news media (even the places where you get YOUR news) that the cries are "WHAT'S NEXT? Will abortion be outlawed nationwide? Will gay marriage be outlawed? How many more of our rights will this Supreme Court deny us?" But in the news, when it comes to gun control, there NEVER is question of WHAT'S NEXT? That should be an advantage to a forum like this, to discuss drifts into relevant, side discussions. But no, I guess not.
People are asking what's next about abortion, birth control, consensual sexual relations (gay sex and sodomy) and gay rights because conservative lawmakers are talking about it, as well as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as expressed in his concurring opinion on Dobbs (
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization - Wikipedia). Gun control supporters feel very fortunate that the recent legislation passed. The likelihood of getting anything more in any practical sense for the foreseeable future seems slim, so no one who isn't delusional is talking about it.
I don't usually watch videos (which I've told you at least several times now), so no, of course I didn't. A quick scan of your posts to this thread reveals a single video about Matthew McConaughey, so I assume that's not the one you mean.
No it's not, your quick scan must have been lightening quick, because it was very plain. It wasn't embedded, but the link was very clear.
Message 1057
Are you daft? Of course a scan for your videos can be lightning quick. They're videos. You click on "marc9000 posts only", hit Cmd-- a few times, and all videos just pop off the page. There was just that one.
And you
*did* explicitly say you'd posted a video: "What did you think of the vid I showed above..."
If the video you referenced wasn't actually a video but just a link to a webpage with a video you should have said so, in which case I would have replied that I wasn't going to scan through all your posts checking every link to see if it might be to a page with a video. What you were requesting I do was just a tiny bit better than saying, "I posted a relevant link somewhere, go find it." You continue to find new ways to behave rudely.
But there was no need to watch your video. Since I knew the topic it was easy to find articles about it that could be read in much less time than watching the video. If you think the bulldozing of one batch of illegal ATVs, dirt bikes and motorcycles in NYC is representative of a growing and concerning national trend then please explain how?
It very much does feel like there should be much better ways of dealing with these illegal confiscated vehicles, but when you think about it you realize it's not that simple. They can't just be sold at auction to the public - they're illegal. One could designate a department to convert the vehicles to legal, but would that cost be recouped at auction? And wouldn't these once illegal vehicles be easy platforms for conversion back to illegal? Perhaps destruction was the most cost effective and overall effective way of dealing with the problem.
I hope these vehicles weren't seized and destroyed after just a single incident. I hope the destruction of these vehicles was a result of several citations and seizures with no effort to make the vehicles compliant. If not then I'm against the seizure and destruction of these vehicles.
This is a good time to point out the nasty habit you have of repeatedly finding something bad or negative and accusing the people here of advocating it.
And how is this relevant to gun control?
This should be an indicator to you that the 2022 U.S. government isn't a brand new, caring institution that we can blindly entrust all our freedoms to, without worrying the way tyrants in the past have operated. There are videos and instances from the past of government representatives destroying useful property. And that was before climate change was invented.
If that's what you see happening in this country, so far you've been unable to support that with evidence. And again, how is this relevant to gun control? The true goal of those who advocate gun control is reduced firearm injury and death with the accompanying greater freedom from the fear of guns and greater safety in our homes and in public. If there's a better approach than gun control of achieving that goal then this is the right thread for you to talk about it.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
