David still dealing with provocation
hoping for reading comprehension

1) If someone were to jump through my truck window in an attempt to harm me or mine that someone should feel lucky to be only shot in the arm. The gun in this case was used as intended: self-defense.

2) The best gun control would be to enforce the laws already on the books not make new ones or ban those “scary black assault” rifles. We already HAVE background checks to obtain a CCW permit or to purchase a firearm. Without a CCW there is already a waiting period to get take possession of the handgun you purchased.
What most gun owners object to is a permanent register of gun owners.

I shall try, but can not promise, based on my previous failure.

First, notice the quotation marks. They mean someone else said it.

Second, words like “CONSIDERING” and “REGARDING” mean I am responding to what that other person said. For example, the comment about idiots was not mine. I don’t call people idiots (despite the occasional provocation).

Thus, just because I quote something Kane said does not mean I agree with it any more than when you quote what I said.

If you understand that, you won’t worry about needing to say things like “Hey David green you might want to keep your mouth closed about gun control before you stick your foot in you mouth this could be self defense,” because you will realize:

I was not supporting governmental gun control exactly because it very well might be self-defense and even if it weren’t that doesn’t mean it is wise to disarm those who obey laws while leaving others unaffected. The very concept of violating the rights guaranteed by the Constitution proves you can’t trust the government to obey its own laws. Even if I am being paranoid, this reminds us paranoiacs walk among us — along with the criminals.

Any enlightenment yet?

Oh well, I tried.

David for patient effort

And how would that change what I said?

David for literacy