re: #60 Obdicut

“To answer what?”
That would be who not what. You, on case law. How did you miss that?

“I’m sure it may have made some positive differences. So would a law that allowed people to hunt down and shoot people. That’s not that relevant.”

That hunt thing looks like an absurd stretch, is that what they call an ad absurdum point? And if you propose dismissing positive outcomes you have departed what most would call a fair look at the subject.

“This is a perfectly reasonable position, and not some sort of crazy “I hate guns” position, and it’s getting really aggravating that it’s being treated as such.”

You must be referring to someone else there. I did not treat your position as you describe. If I did by accident I’ll retract and apologize fully. But I do not recall ever intending such. As much as we have disagreed today I respect you more than that. Both our positions are reasonable today.