That post I quoted is concise in completely dismantling the idea that "his positions are generally at least sane when it comes to guns", hence its repeitition. You may follow the link for the more in-depth arguments.
No, it isn't -- it does nothing of the sort. Once again, your positions are not as self-evident as you seem to think. If you wish to completely dismantle the idea that his positions are sane, you must explain why the idea that a gun's sole purpose is not to cause "devastating harm" is fundamentally insane. I suggest that this is a difficult task, since the words "sole purpose" and "devastating harm" provide pretty big warrens to run around in. I'm not saying it's the best argument in the world, but your response is lacking.
I remember the Sikh thread because it was the one in which I responded to your fundamentally silly argument that gun control prevented suicides in Japan, completely ignoring the fact that suicide methods are highly variable from country to country and dependent far more on cultural perspectives and availability than anything else -- which ignores both the fact that the number of lives potentially saved would be extremely small in any case and that suicidal people are in immediate need of mental care and that the marginal gain from preventing their suicide not by providing care and support but by denying them access to their preferred strategy is at the very least difficult to measure. I note that you ignored my response! I also want to make clear that at the time of this thread I thought Manos was a cynical jackwagon and I STILL disagreed with your argument.
Neither of those threads provides any evidence that Manos is a troll. In fact, one of them is a thread he started in which people aggressively attack him -- if anything, he's being trolled. Primarily the takeaway, I think, is that gun control debates on GAF are intensely emotional for many parties, which is not surprising but also not really a useful point to make. I actually credit Manos with providing me with the impetus to consider the question more carefully, since I previously had relatively little interest in the topic. And, frankly, I think that he's, if not necessarily completely right, correct about some flaws in the gun control legislation that exists, and correct to suggest that it is not, in the end, a higher priority for the American left than continuing the advancement of social justice and economic support, which themselves will have great and lingering effects on urban violence. (Which is already trending downwards for, I suspect, much those reasons.)