If all semi-autos magically disappeared the antis would be whining about 6 shot revolvers. Then, if the 6 shot revolvers magically disappeared they would be whining about 5 shot snubbie revolvers. Then, when they magically disappeared the antis would whine about double barrel shotguns, and then single shot rifles. This tale the OP tells about some guns being ok is a lie. The antis don’t like any guns and routinely attack the flavor of the day. Had the perp used a 5 shot snubbie the whine would be about how concealable they are. If someone chooses not to conceal but open carry the antis whine how OC frightens people. And so on and so on.
Arguing with an anti is like arguing with a housecat. They don’t have the intellect to understand what you’re saying and they couldn’t care less.
You’re opposed with such zeal because ‘gun grabbers’ (as you’re affectionately known, you don’t want to hear what you’re called behind closed doors :p) tend to distort facts (or outright lie), use emotional language, say that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is a murder, imply or outright states that we like seeing people die needlessly, use underhanded tactics to undermine the a constitutional amendment and don’t understand why that’s a bad thing. If you want to ban certain firearms, get the votes for an amendment. Don’t try to do it through ‘regulation.’ That’s a sneaky and underhanded tactic that circumvents the spirit of the constitution.
Keep in mind, I don’t refer to all ‘gun grabbers’ that way, I’m sure there are many that want to ban guns despite the fact that banning them hasn’t shown a benefit to society (why, on the other hand, I don’t know), or they genuinely believe banning them will benefit society (despite no evidence to back that up), and want to do it the legal and approved way – through a constitutional amendment.
However, most, in fact, almost all, want to skip the necessary majority in favor of expedience and convenience. That’s all well and good, except for the fact that some of us (read: most) want the Constitution intact, and don’t like the idea of a round-about circumvention of the document.
It’s a shame, in fact, to note that legal Selective Fire Firearms haven’t been used in a crime since the institution of the registry in the 1930’s…
… and they were banned anyway.
Gun registries, which are touted as “Alternatives to bans” tend to lead to Gun Bans, even when 0 (that is, none, zip, zlich, nadda, zero) guns in the registry are used in crimes for over 60 years. Same thing happened with “Assault Weapons” in California.
Banning any particular firearm does not take away your right to own weapons anymore than a law preventing your from being intimate with ten year olds prevents you from having sex. Nobody needs any amendment to regulate firearms or even ban some of them. You still have more than enough to chose from and your right can be satisfied.
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–verb (used without object)
to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don’t infringe on his privacy.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say you have a right to some firearms, it says the right to arms shall not be infringed. Infringed, meaning ‘transgressed,’ or ‘stepped upon,’ which means… you guesssssssssssed it…
Are you kidding? Yes, all the time. There are massive amounts of restrictions on guns on the books. Gun control is almost entirely moving in one direction - the only exception to this trend is the widespread adoption of concealed carry policies. The '34 NFA, '68 GCA, '94 AWB (sunsetted, not repealed), other measures of the 94 omnibus bill, etc. are major “compromises” that aren’t really compromises because they take without giving.
If you have a state of freedom, and there comes along a group that intends to restrict that freedom, and you continually “compromise” with them, further each time, you’ve gradually given up your freedoms.
Let’s say that absolute freedom has a value of 100 and total control has a value of 0. So you decide to compromise and meet in the middle, now you’re down from 100 to 50. And then they want another round of compromises, so you meet in the middle - between the statuos quo (50) and their goal (0), and now you’re at 25. You compromise in the middle again and now you’re at 12.5. You’ve now “compromised” away 87.5%.
Compromise, in dealing with antis, generally means we give something up forever so that they can feel good for a little while. Repeat as often as necessary until we have nothing.
Oh Bob - you really want to go back and forth about the exact language in the Second Amendment?
Maybe you can tell us what happened at your last formal militia meeting then?
There is no such thing as an absolute right without limits or borders. It just does not exist. Even the basic right to life can be legally taken away. The right to your children can be taken away.
Cling to your fears and paranoia then… it seems to comfort you along with your friends Smith & Wesson.
I don’t think people here would know true compromise if it hit you square upon the head. Tell me, what compromise did the victims at Ft. Hood make with you. What about the Columbine victims… what was their compromise with you folks? And the Virginia Tech victims… what did thy compromise with you folks so you can keep your precious weapons of death?
Your questions are nonsensical. You are not being logical now, but rather just trying to appeal to emotion. This has been your tact all along - you are unwilling to discuss actual factual details but rather repeatedly appeal to emotion while claiming only to want to discuss a reasonable middle ground, when your very OP accused us of celebrating murder. You have not been nor are you being reasonable.
It was somebody on your side who cried tears claiming they were already halfway toward compromise.
That position is so far beyond what is reasonable that it is downright scary that anyone could believe it.
Typical argument of the antigun crowd. Wrap the debate up in emotions and strawmen because in the end that’s all you have. How many kids in China suffered on an assembly line you could have your computer? How many animals were killed during the harvest of the vegetables that you will eat for dinner?
What a joke. How do you know about our ability to compromise when your astounding (and I mean astounding) ignorance prevents you from even knowing what compromise to seek?
From what I can tell, you wouldn’t know a pistol is it hit you square in the face.
Why thank you very much for deigning to allow me to continue to practice my individual Constitutional rights, even back when certain folks here said it wasn’t an individual right.
His efforts are base, unworthy, uninformed, and futile.
And the whole “muzzle tov” line was lame the first time you used it; it ain’t getting any more witty with repitition.
But keep telling yourself you’re not wrong often enough; that did bring a brief flicker of an almost-smile to my face.
There are plenty of things that gun owners have given up in the name of compromise. Of course I wouldn’t expect you to understand or accept that fact. Yet, for all of our compromise, we are asked to give up more, even though all that we have given up has had exactly no affect on crime or prevention of same. If that is what I have to look forward to with even more compromise, erosion of my rights for your emotional well being, no thanks.
We let antigun disallow military carry on army bases (see how well that worked, since the Ft. Hood killer wasn’t allowed to carry a… wait a minute! :smack: ), we don’t let teachers or licensed individuals carry on school grounds…