I didn’t use the word imply so I’m not sure I understand your question. I thought I was pretty clear. I feel like “are usually” is a fair assessment. It’s hard to know for sure that someone is acting in bad faith, but it very often is likely the case in these instances.
Isn’t that the fundamental premise of your OP and your characterization of some people who engage in 2ndA/RKBA debate?
Not a syllable in reply to my #28? I specifically addressed your premise and points.
The rights to equal protection and due process are most certainly enumerated.
In a discussion about what we *should *do, that is not a useful argument.
There is widespread public support. The lack of congressional *votes *is due to perversion of democracy, not democracy.
But it’s the only one they thought needed to be mentioned. Why do you think that is?
Are we proceeding with you understanding that the militia clause is a reason, not a requirement?
A bolt action can be fired just as fast as as a full-auto? Now I can plink off rounds about as quickly with a bolt action Lee-Enfield as quickly as I can normally fire a semi-auto, and I can bumpfire a semi-auto as fast as a full-auto using nothing more fancy than my belt loop. But a bolt action fired as fast as a full-auto? I’ve got to see this.
The question was to you.
I made an attempt to keep this on track with post#68, but I think that may have been too fine a line to walk. Perhaps a more generalized debate tactic thread could be started without being encumbered by the umbrella of 2nd amendment discussions, but this isn’t it.
That being said, how many threads on general second amendment discussions shall we have at one time? One less as I’m closing this one. This other thread was active first so feel free to post there.
[/moderating]