Did you? Because your second paragraph says basically "words are unimportant" - a weird position on the law where people can actually go to jail - and then the 5th paragraph complains about "buzzword frenzy". May I ask for a little bit of self-reflection on the intellectual honesty of this?

I think that I did. Please start with a more honest reading of what I said because you even began your whole argument on that front with an strawman quote and a failure to read my explanation to your latter claim. I'll provide some notes to help you.

​

Second paragraph says basically "words are unimportant"

I'll try and rephrase, sorry it was expansive and apparently confusing when initially written to lead you to that conclusion.

The word is defined within the legislation for local use within the legislation in order to accomplish its intent. The press release concerns itself with the difference between that local definition and an external one instead of meaningful criticisms of the legislation's intent.

​

5th paragraph complains about "buzzword frenzy".

It's subjective but I think fair criticism to their concluding paragraph. Their content does not support a position on how enforceable I-1639 is. The inclusion of "unenforceable" and "feel good" is a shameless shirking of responsible criticism in this case, and in general I've found them to be common lightning rods for arguments against gun legislation. They qualify as buzz words to me, especially when used without rationale. Clearly they have some expertise to expand on that front, why did they wait until their concluding paragraph to throw out the idea of enforceability?

​

No, we actually don't agree on this.... nothing is EXACTLY what should be done about it

I'm sorry to hear that. For me, that's a really low bar and I don't expect to see eye-to-eye on the issue of gun control with that canyon of premise between us.

​