The point of that statement is directed exactly at the kind of sentiment you posed in your statement here:
"Yeah, I would be puzzled how a comment containing, "Violence will solve somebody's problems in the end... The cop right now has the weaponry needed to make some things I would like to do enforceably illegal." could be misconstrued???"
Simply put, it was misconstrued. Plus I actually had already explained what I meant in my answer to you here:
"I was merely pointing out that he who has the big guns is the one who makes the law. It was true for the European settlers, and it's still true for our government today."
This was in response to your facetious statement that "it wasn't illegal because the Europeans weren't here yet." I am saying that violence solved the colonists' "problem" of the natives. Certainly you concur, correct? I mean you believe that this land was taken from the natives by force? By violence? Right? All I was doing was stating that that violence worked and continues to work in the current laws and how they are enforced. I can't break laws I might like to without some kind of violence coming down on me (incarceration, perhaps death if I choose to fight back etc.).
So in admitting that you don't see how my comments could be misconstrued you are revealing a prejudice in some way. You were expecting that I meant something that I did not, and it guided your interpretation of what I said. Bear in mind that I'm using the term "prejudice" in its strictest definition. Some prejudices can be good in fact (e.g. don't jump over the tiger's fence at the zoo, because you've learned to prejudge tigers as being wild animals that will may kill you). And as I said prejudices often stem from reactionary tendencies, even the good ones (e.g. I put my hand on the stove and it was hot and I had a reaction [pain], so later I carry that reactionary response to not touch a stove, but that doesn't mean that every stove I encounter will be hot).
Summing up, I want to be able to break the law and have those who support illegal immigrants support me as well. You say "illegal" means nothing because in your mind the colonists taking the land from the natives was "illegal." I'm saying that in the real world and in how history actually plays out, that what is "illegal" is determined by the one who has the power. So the power that enabled the Europeans to determine that what they were doing was not illegal, is the same power that today let's "the man" determine what is illegal. So the overall point to that is to say that it's futile to discuss what should or should not be considered illegal because it will always be determined by the power factor.
All I'm saying about illegal immigration is that if it's going to be illegal then why the hell are we not going to enforce it, when I can break another law and it will get enforced? Enforce them all, or forget them all and let anything go; undocumented border crossing, theft, polygamy, cannibalism, whatever. Let it all be fair game.
You don't read well do you.
I will rephrase the former post for you.
Simply put, you could have said I misunderstood you, but yet you start with all this bullshit about my prejudices predetermining my interpretation.
No that is not correct. I misinterpreted your post based on what I read, nothing more.
You saying that was not correct would have been sufficient. Really, what is the rest of your ranting worth, when it was a simple misunderstanding.
What's worse is YOUR reactionary and accusatory post, while pointing out hypocritically an individual's tendency to jump to conclusions.
If I need to rephrase this yet another time, just let me know.