It has long been a policy to not release any information on the part of myself is any discussion, as such details are not relevant to the discussion. Race, age, gender, continent of birth, continent of residency, and numerous other identifying details are not shared in any discussion, as then the discussion would ultimately come to pertain to myself rather than the subject of discussion that is at hand. Once a discussion becomes about the individuals participating, the subject at hand is easily dismissed through attempting to discrediting the ones carrying on the discussion. That matter aside, certain information is in need of being shared for clarification. The second amendment of the united states constitution, and private firearms ownership as it currently exists within the united states, is not something that is supported on the part of myself. Not out of agreement with it, at the very least. The matter goes far deeper than such. An extensive amount of time and effort has been invested on the part of myself to logically discredit the matter in its entirety, on the basic of basic logic and factual citations. It is no exaggeration that years have been invested towards that single, solitary cause of presenting an irrefutable argument that would be impossible to discredit. In those years of effort every significant piece of legislation pertaining to firearm-related restrictions, across numerous counties, was analyzed in-depth to find the evidence that would be necessary to present that argument. But what was uncovered during that and subsequent research efforts revealed discrepancies that could not be rationalized away from a purely logical standpoint. Without exception, every single piece of legislation pertaining to firearm-related restrictions contained glaring logical errors and absences of basic critical thinking skills. Errors, absences, and shortcomings that suggest and even outright demonstrate that those who have drafted the legislation in question do not even have a basic understanding of what they are attempting to address. Every piece of legislation reviewed, from the united states, the nation of Germany, the nation of England, the nation of Japan and countless others, demonstrate crippling over-specifications and undermining vague general languages that are easily misinterpreted and poorly understood even by law enforcement officers and legal experts. The above facts are exacerbated when coupled with analysis of real-world enforcement results, strongly suggesting and in some cases even outright demonstrating that the restrictions were not designed in a manner that allows for success outside of a vacuum, where they will be tested and met with developments that were never considered by those proposing the regulations in the first place. Every firearm-related restriction, regardless of their nation of origin, are too easily defeated by someone who simply decides that they will not comply with the restrictions, and will simply do whatever they wish. The lack of actual enforcement of firearm-related restrictions simply served to further complicate the matter to a degree where rational thought and basic logic could not explain anything. In the end, the only logical conclusion that could be reached in light of all available information, was to support those that support firearm-related freedoms. Not out of agreeing with their position or beliefs, but simply by default as they and their position was the only other one that was available. If nothing else they at least make the most effort of getting the terminology right, unlike those who deliberately use vague, generalized terms that are easily misunderstood by the ill-informed, and who have advocated exploited the ill-informed nature of the public to exploit fears for building support for their political ideology. The second amendment of the united states constitution, and legal firearms ownership by the public at large is not supported on the part of myself due to an alignment of ideology. It is simply out of necessity through the simple matter of default. If supporters of firearm-related restrictions relied purely on logic, ceased engaging in deliberate falsehoods that are easily discredited, and ceased using derogatory dismissive terms when addressing their political opponents because of simple disagreements, they would instead have the support on the part of myself.
can you explain what he is saying? I don't want to be mistaken but it seems as if he doesn't like the second amendment and our RKBA but he finds the Anti Rights Coalition arguments to be so bad, he ends up being on our side?
Darn, he about bloviated me to death with his high capacity, military grade, extended length opinion. Jeeze o' pete........
I sympathize with OP. Im no fan of marijuana, but all the arguments made to restrict it similarly lack any basis of logic or fact or enforcibility, and entirely stem from 'I don't like it, I don't like people that use it, I don't know anything about it, but I want it banned so I can feel better.' Which of course play right into the authoritarians path toward monopoly. Just like the GC's do.
