I wrote, "
If we model our laws after established, superior examples that abound in other Western Industrial Democracies, we can share something else with them: a nation made safer from gun violence.
Or we can keep doing what we're doing and adding to the body count."
It's not a false dichotomy. If we don't change our approach we will, prima facie, continue with the body count. The Western Industrial Democracies (WID) noted "examples" cover a number of differing approaches/responses to the problem that have demonstrated success over generations. So in themselves, the WID constitute multiple alternatives to doing the same thing as we have done up to this point.
You don't have any real excuse for not understanding that because I've noted there are stronger and weaker models among those choices, citing Switzerland as an example of the weakest and least effective among them, while being dramatically better even so than our status quo.
Heck, you're not even saying that a third option is not possible by arguing with JF over what the law should be.
That alone should have given you reason to recognize your error. Well, if you'd been as invested in argument as you were apparently desperate for any semblance of a rhetorical "win."
Sounds delusional. There is no recent example I can think of where a nation has gone from Godlessness to Godly with respect to a major piece of legislation.
Given that doesn't actually respond to the quote you might want to consider a colon after "delusional."
Notice how JR did not advocate installing a religion, but actually the law, which you know not.
I write along as I go and his rhetoric wasn't clear on the point until a bit further on. At that point I left what had preceded it as a means of expounding on those larger changes, though installing a law only works within the system that allows for it. Some laws will necessarily find themselves altering the nature of that system.
And you want to erode that liberty further.
It's a lovely declaration, but, as I've said before, "If that attempt at argument was a sandwich I'd still be looking for the bread to spread nothing on."
Notice how JR did not advocate installing a religion, but the law.
Sure, supra. And I noted that most great moral truths are reflected in law by people who respect them. They're in our laws, the laws you lack sufficient familiarity with to proffer much substantive debate, being a stranger to my land in terms of both its people and the laws we live under, the legal precedents we follow, etc.
The law says: Do not murder. It says do not steal. It seems that you want those left out.
Many an imaginary garment was rent down that "seem." Or, if that confuses, no.
Those great moral truths are being rapidly eroded and you don't want them installed as you pretend we are talking about religion.
That doesn't really follow anything I've said on the subject, so at least you're being consistent.
Re:
vocal opposition and an industry with enormous power and dedication
Alphabet, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter.
Oh, you meant the NRA?
No, the NRA is a mouthpiece, potent as they are, for the thing that escapes you, which is hilarious: the gun manufacturing and sales industries. So if it helps you to sleep I should have pluralized industry.
