When guns are outlawed....

[TurtleDude]

U
What is the 2A equivelant to Liber/slander?

assaulting, menancing or injuring someone wrongly with a firearm. THe "limitations on free speech" involve harming someone with the speech, not "possessing" the means to speak

 

[TurtleDude]

It is not a sudden problem. Intentional and accidental (including suicide) shotings would exist a lot less if guns were outlawed 400 years ago and presently.

really? Japan did and they have a higher rate of suicides than we do and Japanese-americans have a lower rater of gun violence than Japanese do.

Less people would die of cancer if we found a cure for it too. We can speculate all we want but the fact is-not a single credible study exists that can come close to proving that gun bans or draconian limitations on gun ownership actually decreases violent crime in the USA

 

[Inuyasha]

Psycho sez:
"Guns are not the problem, irresponsible and/or violent people are."

That is half the problem.. guns are a problem when they get into the hands of irresponsible and/or violent people.

Banning guns is not the answer and banning irresponsible and/ or violent people is not possible. So how do you keep guns out of their hands?

 

[Psychoclown]

Psycho sez:
"Guns are not the problem, irresponsible and/or violent people are."

That is half the problem.. guns are a problem when they get into the hands of irresponsible and/or violent people.

Banning guns is not the answer and banning irresponsible and/ or violent people is not possible. So how do you keep guns out of their hands?

Some would say reasonable regulation would help keep it out of the hands of violent/irresponsible people. Things like background checks, waiting periods, prohibiting gun ownership by convicted felons, and gun registration can reduce the chances or at least make it more difficult for a nut job to get a gun.

Others would say its the price of freedom. We have free speech, and that means we have to tolerate the bile that the KKK and Neo-Nazis spew forth. We have the right to bear arms and if the some irresponsible sap blows his own head off by mistake, its not our fault.

Banning guns entirely because a small percentage of the population cannot be trusted to properly use and maintain them is not a valid argument though. Thousands of people are killed by irresponsible drivers - ala drunk drivers and/or reckless drivers. Is the solution to ban automobiles?

There are a lot of things a small percentage of the population cannot handle or cope with - violent media, pornography, weapons, cars, and alcohol would be just a few things that some folks can't handle. Should we ban all of these things too for our own safety? If we ban everything that can potentially be misused, there won't be much left that we can use.

 

[Inuyasha]

Some would say reasonable regulation would help keep it out of the hands of violent/irresponsible people. Things like background checks, waiting periods, prohibiting gun ownership by convicted felons, and gun registration can reduce the chances or at least make it more difficult for a nut job to get a gun.

Others would say its the price of freedom. We have free speech, and that means we have to tolerate the bile that the KKK and Neo-Nazis spew forth. We have the right to bear arms and if the some irresponsible sap blows his own head off by mistake, its not our fault.

Banning guns entirely because a small percentage of the population cannot be trusted to properly use and maintain them is not a valid argument though. Thousands of people are killed by irresponsible drivers - ala drunk drivers and/or reckless drivers. Is the solution to ban automobiles?

There are a lot of things a small percentage of the population cannot handle or cope with - violent media, pornography, weapons, cars, and alcohol would be just a few things that some folks can't handle. Should we ban all of these things too for our own safety? If we ban everything that can potentially be misused, there won't be much left that we can use.

The first solution would seem to be the best and perhaps the only. The second point is not a good idea because you would have a few irresponsibles putting fear into the many and by doing so their freedom is in jeopardy. Even with the first solution you will have some slipping through the cracks which is bad enough but to say well that is the price of freedom and then have people worried isn't freedom for all. Enforce the laws that are on the books and the problem will be reduced. It will never go away and neither will traffic accidents but we will have done enough to reduce the number of death and injury in both cases IMO.

 

[TurtleDude]

Psycho sez:

Banning guns is not the answer and banning irresponsible and/ or violent people is not possible. So how do you keep guns out of their hands?

Easy answer-jail them or kill them when they are caught using guns improperly

 

[Psychoclown]

The first solution would seem to be the best and perhaps the only. The second point is not a good idea because you would have a few irresponsibles putting fear into the many and by doing so their freedom is in jeopardy. Even with the first solution you will have some slipping through the cracks which is bad enough but to say well that is the price of freedom and then have people worried isn't freedom for all. Enforce the laws that are on the books and the problem will be reduced. It will never go away and neither will traffic accidents but we will have done enough to reduce the number of death and injury in both cases IMO.

Well, there is a reasonable argument against the first solution. I'm not sure I support it, but I can see the reasoning and find it to have a certain degree of logic. The ability to own firearms is a right, no different from freedom of speech or religion or assembly or petition. The government cannot be allowed to infringe upon that right or any other right arbitrarily because it opens the door to more infringement and perhaps, ultimately one day, revocation.

With freedom comes responsibility, but unfortunately we can't effectively or morally legislate responsibility.

This is an issue where I understand both the moderate gun control advocates and the hard core no control ever movement. Both have a valid point. In my heart, I think the hard core free gun guys have the better Constitutional and philosophical argument. In my head, I worry about the ramifications of putting such a policy into place and its affect on the greater good.

 

[TurtleDude]

This is an issue where I understand both the moderate gun control advocates and the hard core no control ever movement. Both have a valid point. In my heart, I think the hard core free gun guys have the better Constitutional and philosophical argument. In my head, I worry about the ramifications of putting such a policy into place and its affect on the greater good.

which is why so many judges betray the constitution on this issue

 

[Mr. D]

Same goes for the ones who demand, "Why do you NEED such-and-such a gun?"

Rather than jumping on the slippery slope of believing the government wants to enslave us by taking our guns, why don't you answer the question why we need weapons designed solely as WMD! I've been a gun nut and a hunter all my life and I don't need 30 shot clips or 50 caliber machine guns. Although I'm willing to admit military weapons can be fun, I'm willing to restrict my fun so a nut in a high school has to reload after ever six people he kills! I also don't need to be able to make bombs that would be fun to explode in the desert or drive my hot rod at 150 MPH. It's called restricting my "complete" freedom for the safety of others. The statistics of gun accidents tell the story! That's why I quit the NRA! They care more about the gun hobbies more than people's lives and hide behind the Second Amendment to do it!

 

[TurtleDude]

Rather than jumping on the slippery slope of believing the government wants to enslave us by taking our guns, why don't you answer the question why we need weapons designed solely as WMD! I've been a gun nut and a hunter all my life and I don't need 30 shot clips or 50 caliber machine guns. Although I'm willing to admit military weapons can be fun, I'm willing to restrict my fun so a nut in a high school has to reload after ever six people he kills! I also don't need to be able to make bombs that would be fun to explode in the desert or drive my hot rod at 150 MPH. It's called restricting my "complete" freedom for the safety of others. The statistics of gun accidents tell the story! That's why I quit the NRA! They care more about the gun hobbies more than people's lives and hide behind the Second Amendment to do it!

Lets see-why should you give up your rights when doing so has absolutely no chance of actually stopping the evil you seem to think is somewhat supported by your rights. I don't believe you really support gun rights if you think those rights actually hurt others. Since when should my rights be infringed because criminals violate laws including laws against MURDER>

When you can prove others safety is actually objectively furthered by infringing on rights you at least have an argument though I would argue that abolishing "innocent until proven guilty" and other rights would actually be more useful for "protecting society" BUT such abdications of rights ARE NOT WORTH IT. Since you CANNOT even meet that threshhold test, your position has no merit whatsoever.

I also don't believe you ever were in the NRA. Why should that organization capitulate to people who want to ban guns? are you so dim as to think that people who want to ban 30 round magazines are going to stop there? did you realize within an hour after passage of the 10 round limit imposed in 1994, one of its main sponsors (UpChuck Scummer from NY) was bloviating about a SIX ROUND limit next year (until his party lost control of both houses-in great part due to his moronic gun bans)

 

[rathi]

Why should that organization capitulate to people who want to ban guns? are you so dim as to think that people who want to ban 30 round magazines are going to stop there? did you realize within an hour after passage of the 10 round limit imposed in 1994, one of its main sponsors (UpChuck Scummer from NY) was bloviating about a SIX ROUND limit next year (until his party lost control of both houses-in great part due to his moronic gun bans)

This is why you need to ally with people like me. Refusing to compromise with people who simply want reasonable regulation means that scumbags who try and ban guns get to create the legislation. That is how pathetic things like the AWB ban come up. Your gun rights will ultimately be better protected if you work with reasonable people to create reasonable legislation, rather than forcing them out so the extremists get to decide what to do with your guns.

Currently guns are fairly regulated and its been that way for a long time. The choice that you have to make, is if the guys writing the regulations believe in "Cop killer bullets" or not.

Although I'm willing to admit military weapons can be fun, I'm willing to restrict my fun so a nut in a high school has to reload after ever six people he kills!

6 rounds is unreasonable as a magazine ban. Almost every single full-sized magazine fed handgun has more shots that than. Anything under 20 is pretty unreasonable as you need to include common weapons like Glock's or CZ-75s.
Personally I'd go with a 30 round magazine cap. The only magazines that can hold more rounds are drum/helical magazines, or extended ones for light machine guns. None of those are commonly possessed by civilians, and are not practical for them either.

 

[TurtleDude]

This is why you need to ally with people like me. Refusing to compromise with people who simply want reasonable regulation means that scumbags who try and ban guns get to create the legislation. That is how pathetic things like the AWB ban come up. Your gun rights will ultimately be better protected if you work with reasonable people to create reasonable legislation, rather than forcing them out so the extremists get to decide what to do with your guns.

Currently guns are fairly regulated and its been that way for a long time. The choice that you have to make, is if the guys writing the regulations believe in "Cop killer bullets" or not.



6 rounds is unreasonable as a magazine ban. Almost every single full-sized magazine fed handgun has more shots that than. Anything under 20 is pretty unreasonable as you need to include common weapons like Glock's or CZ-75s.
Personally I'd go with a 30 round magazine cap. The only magazines that can hold more rounds are drum/helical magazines, or extended ones for light machine guns. None of those are commonly possessed by civilians, and are not practical for them either.

The problem is a decisional choice pattern-that being if you think there is some reason to limit magazine size, it is really not hard to get you to agree with additional round limitations down the road. There is absolutely no rational reason to limit magazine capacity. Once you think 30 is a good limit, you can go to 20-15-10-5

reasonable legislation has to meet TWO tests

1) It must not unreasonably interfere on my rights

2)) IT must have a reasonable relationship to the promotion of public safety

your proposal fails to even remotely meet #2

 

[IMGR8]

Why should someone be allowed to buy enough alcohol to get drunk and then go run someone over and kill them?

Why should someone be able to buy an automobile which will exceed the maximum highway speeed limits of 75?

Why should I be able to own a knife, hammer, axe, saw, baseball bat, or any other instrument regularly used in the commision of murder or maiming?

AHHH, but its for the children they say...........OK, what is the most common way children are killed or injured these days? I'll garauntee you it is not gun related.

Anyway, I support gun rights 100%. When there is sucess in passing laws regarding disarming the general public I am certain it will spark the next revolution in our country. The question is, will the government listen to its people or will it command its military to kill its people? It will be an interesting time.


My favorite gun statement is

Would you rather have a gun in your hand

 

[Mr. D]

When you can prove others safety is actually objectively furthered by infringing on rights you at least have an argument . . . . .

All you have to do is read the newspapers and you see evidence that supports the deaths caused by weapons designed to fire large numbers of rounds without reloading. Ask any policeman fired at by an semi auto weapon with a 30 shot clip. I am not in any way supporting taking away any weapons that have hunting, recreation or self defense use. I just care more about my fellow citizen than my machine gun or 30 shot clip. They do get into the hands of he wrong people by theft, etc.

I also don't believe you ever were in the NRA.

I guess we are even then, because I also don't believe you've ever had an open mind!

To you it is "Ownership of all weapons no matter how dangerous in the hands of a nut, or we are being enslaved by the government!" Typical NRA fear mongering postion! The problem is the NRA and it's sheep will not allow any reasonable gun control. Contrary to the NRA postion, most Americans don't think we need to have guns with the potential of killing two dozen children in a school cafeteria without a reload. Hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns, muskets, or anything else without WMD killing power should be protected, but you might have to give up your 50 caliber machine gun! Arresting a nut after another Columbine doesn't help those who were killed! There have been scores of cases where a nut was tackled while he was reloading to shoot some more people! How about caring about something other than you gun hobby! It's called citzenship! I'm pro gun, but not pro selfish stupidity!

 

[Goobieman]

It is not a sudden problem. Intentional and accidental (including suicide) shotings would exist a lot less if guns were outlawed 400 years ago and presently.

It IS all of a sudden -- talk of outlawing guns in the US is less than 40 years old. If you are to be believed, the "problem" you describe existed LONG before that, but thge ta;k did not? Why the sudden change?

And if more guns = more gun deaths, why does the number of guns increase every year, but the number of gun deaths remains steady?

 

[Goobieman]

The problem is the NRA and it's sheep will not allow any reasonable gun control.

Thats because all "reasonable" gun control has two things in common:

-It doesnt keep criminals from getting guns
-It infringes on the rights of the law abiding.

Given that, how can any such gun control be considered "reasonable"?

 

[TurtleDude]

All you have to do is read the newspapers and you see evidence that supports the deaths caused by weapons designed to fire large numbers of rounds without reloading. Ask any policeman fired at by an semi auto weapon with a 30 shot clip. I am not in any way supporting taking away any weapons that have hunting, recreation or self defense use. I just care more about my fellow citizen than my machine gun or 30 shot clip. They do get into the hands of he wrong people by theft, etc.

actually you are demonstrating profound ignorance-there are no such stories. You also appear not to understand the difference between machine guns and semi-autos-a frequent mistake among those who emote on this issue. There have been dozens of murders in Cincinnati and yet in no case was thirty rounds expended. Maybe you can find some newspapers but study after study PROVED that the AWB did not do anything to promote safety

I guess we are even then, because I also don't believe you've ever had an open mind!

To you it is "Ownership of all weapons no matter how dangerous in the hands of a nut, or we are being enslaved by the government!" Typical NRA fear mongering postion! The problem is the NRA and it's sheep will not allow any reasonable gun control. Contrary to the NRA postion, most Americans don't think we need to have guns with the potential of killing two dozen children in a school cafeteria without a reload. Hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns, muskets, or anything else without WMD killing power should be protected, but you might have to give up your 50 caliber machine gun! Arresting a nut after another Columbine doesn't help those who were killed! There have been scores of cases where a nut was tackled while he was reloading to shoot some more people! How about caring about something other than you gun hobby! It's called citzenship! I'm pro gun, but not pro selfish stupidity!

gun control is only reasonable if it has a reasonable expectation of increasing public safety without infringing on the rights of the law abiding. Thus laws that give increase sentences to criminals using guns are reasonable. THe stuff you want is unreasonable twice over because bans on magazines or semiautos infringe on law abiding gun owners' rights while doing nothing to penalize or control criminals. Your infantile babbling about machine guns is pathetic-name one crime in the USA perpetrated with a 50 Caliber (heavy) machine gun

 

[Goobieman]

This is why you need to ally with people like me. Refusing to compromise with people who simply want reasonable regulation means that scumbags who try and ban guns get to create the legislation.

Reasonable gun control does two things:

-Guarantees criminals will not get guns
-Does not infringe on my right to arms

When you find/think of an example of one of these laws, let me know -- and I will support it 110%.

 

[Goobieman]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say libel and slander are not "free speech". Freedom on speech means we have the right to speak freely. However, that is not an absolute right. Certain types of speech are not protected by the first amendment - like libel and slander - because of the harmful to others

Correct. These are examples of "speech" that do not fall under the definition of "free speech" and therefore do not fall under the protection of the 1st.

However, any speech that DOES fall under the definition of "free speech" IS absolutely protected -- therefore your right to "free speech" IS absolute.

You cannot argue that your right to "free speech" isnt abolute because you can't yell "fire!!" in a theater, because yelling "fire!!" in a theater isnt free speech.

Put otherwise:
"Free speech" covers A B abd C. It doesnt cover D E and F.
Your right to A B and C are absolute, regardless as to your right to D E and F.

And so, in a similar vein, you have to look at what the 2nd protects, and what the terms used in that protection cover.

Whose right? The People.
Right to what? Keep and Bear.
Keep and bear what? Arms.

So, as long as you are of The people, and so ling as you are "keeping" and/or "bearing" whatever quakifies as an "arm", your right to do so is absolute. Similarly, if you are not of "the people", what you are doing is not "keeping" and/or "bearing" something that does not qualify as an 'arm", then your right to do so is NOT protected by the 2nd.

Specific examples:
-Felons arent of "the people". Their right to arms is not protected by the 2nd.
-Murder isnt part of "Keep and bear", and so doing so with a gun isnt protected by the 2nd.
-W-80 nuclear warheads are not "arms" under the 2nd, and so your right to keep and bear one is not protected by the 2nd.

So, like free speech, your 2A right is absolute.

Those who favor mild gun control may still believe that the 2nd amendment states our right to own firearms, but believe the government can regulate that to a reasonable degree. Of course, reasonable is in the eye of the beholder.

Interesting. When did "shall not be infringed" turn into "may be regulated to a 'reasonable' degree"?
Answer: It didn't. The protection is plenary and absolute BECAUSE "reasonable" is subjective.

The only ones without a leg to stand on are the "no guns whatsoever" nuts.

We agree on that.

 

[Mr. D]

As we should all know, you can't prove a negative. So saying you can't prove crimes are not commited due to reasonable gun control is obvious, but the more guns produced that have no other purpose other than killing people quickly the more chance they can get into the hands of criminals, wackos and unstable teens. Canada doesn't let Americans bring guns into their country because they think the owner is a criminal, but rather because they can be stolen out of our cars and RV's and used in crime in their country.

The statistics are crystal clear when you compare the U.S. with countries with reasonable gun control. As I've said repeatedly that our rights to handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns and recreational firearms should be protected PERIOD! Semi autos with 30 shot clips and heavy weaponry should at least be part of a discussion in terms of risk to the public versus pleasure derived just like everything else in our society. Of course criminals don't obey gun laws, but less guns designed for only killing people are around to be stolen and used by them. When those criminals are found with them in the trunk of their car the go to prison! I hate the idea of registration, but it does aid prosecution of stolen firearms tremendously!

Unfortunately the NRA types discuss nothing! Their rights are all that count to them! So we have a Columbine now and then, or police get shot at with military weapons! They'll just come up with another catchy slogan!

 

[TurtleDude]

As we should all know, you can't prove a negative. So saying you can't prove crimes are not commited due to reasonable gun control is obvious, but the more guns produced that have no other purpose other than killing people quickly the more chance they can get into the hands of criminals, wackos and unstable teens. Canada doesn't let Americans bring guns into their country because they think the owner is a criminal, but rather because they can be stolen out of our cars and RV's and used in crime in their country.

why do you continue to ignore facts and instead emote on what you think happens. Prove your claim that the guns (the ones you cannot define and you do not understand) you whine about have no legitimate use or are produced only to kill people quickly. Lots of people I know buy military style rifles because they are military history buffs or were in the service and enjoy shooting the weapons they carried in the infantry. Do you have some legislative history that confirms your assertions about Canada? The clinton Gun bans caused thousands upon thousands of people to buy "assault weapons" for no other reason than they didn't like smarmy pseudo-socialist psychobabblers telling them they couldn't own one. Companies making these weapons went to 24/7 production and the makers of normal capacity magazines for these guns quadrupled their output in the period between the congress drafting the law and Clinton signing it. In other words, millions upon millions of new magazines and thousands upon thousands of new "assault weapons" hit the american streets in 1994 yet crime with these weapons went DOWN.

The statistics are crystal clear when you compare the U.S. with countries with reasonable gun control. As I've said repeatedly that our rights to handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns and recreational firearms should be protected PERIOD! Semi autos with 30 shot clips and heavy weaponry should at least be part of a discussion in terms of risk to the public versus pleasure derived just like everything else in our society. Of course criminals don't obey gun laws, but less guns designed for only killing people are around to be stolen and used by them. When those criminals are found with them in the trunk of their car the go to prison! I hate the idea of registration, but it does aid prosecution of stolen firearms tremendously!

Unfortunately the NRA types discuss nothing! Their rights are all that count to them! So we have a Columbine now and then, or police get shot at with military weapons! They'll just come up with another catchy slogan!

More nonsense. The NRA wants to protect a right and has proven that protecting that right does not decrease public safety. The NRA supports strong sanctions against people who act in a criminal fashion and it is the NRA that pushed harsher penalties for felons using weapons to perpetrate crimes. Sadly, hoplophobes tend to have a soft spot for criminals and try to evade charges they are thug-coddlers by whining about gun ownership. People like you want to end that right and you cannot prove your desires increase public safety. Comparisons with other nations actually hurts your emoting given that as our gun numbers increase, our crime has decreased while countries with gun bans have not seen decreases in violence (look at Russia, Mexico, Scotland, Columbia etc). I guess you haven't figured out that people who shoot at police officers are sort of beyond caring about gun laws.

 

[Goobieman]

As we should all know, you can't prove a negative. So saying you can't prove crimes are not commited due to reasonable gun control is obvious, but the more guns produced that have no other purpose other than killing people quickly the more chance they can get into the hands of criminals, wackos and unstable teens.

First of all, these two ideas are unrelated.
And which guns "have no other purpose than killing"?
What % of those guns "get into the hands of criminals, wackos and unstable teens"?

Canada doesn't let Americans bring guns into their country because they think the owner is a criminal, but rather because they can be stolen out of our cars and RV's and used in crime in their country.

Canada -does- let Americans bring guns into their country. I know. I've done it, and I know several other Americans that have as well.

The statistics are crystal clear when you compare the U.S. with countries with reasonable gun control.

Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation?

As I've said repeatedly that our rights to handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns and recreational firearms should be protected PERIOD!

I have several "recreational firearms" that can take a "30-rd clip".
And, given that the 2nd Amendment is all about retaining the ability to kill people, why are hunting and recreational weapons "OK" while guns that "have no other purpose than killing" are mot?

Semi autos with 30 shot clips and heavy weaponry should at least be part of a discussion in terms of risk to the public versus pleasure derived just like everything else in our society.

Given given that the 2nd Amendment is all about retaining the ability to kill people: why?

I hate the idea of registration, but it does aid prosecution of stolen firearms tremendously!

Show this to be true - what % of gun crimes are solved because a gun was registered?
How is registration not an infringement of my right to arms?

Unfortunately the NRA types discuss nothing!

Thats becaus we have everything to lose and nothng to gain.
Why should we agree to anything?

All "Reasonable" gun control has two things in common:

-It doesnt keep criminals from getting guns
-It infringes on the rights of the law abiding.

Given that, how can any such gun control be considered "reasonable"?
Why should anyone agree to it?

 

[rathi]

30 round magazines are relatively common and fit with many reasonable civilian weapons. Anything over that is almost certainly a rare piece of military equipment. Therefor setting the limit at nothing over 30 rounds per magazine makes sense.

Of course, we are still stuck in a system where the people proposing the legislation are uniformed and those against it refuse to even consider it. Reasonableness is rare unless people are wiling to have a logical discussion.

Bleating "assault weapon" and "second amendment" is a poor excuse for honest debate about weapon regulations.

 

[Voidwar]

30 round magazines are relatively common and fit with many reasonable civilian weapons. Anything over that is almost certainly a rare piece of military equipment. Therefor setting the limit at nothing over 30 rounds per magazine makes sense.

Of course, we are still stuck in a system where the people proposing the legislation are uniformed and those against it refuse to even consider it. Reasonableness is rare unless people are wiling to have a logical discussion.

Bleating "assault weapon" and "second amendment" is a poor excuse for honest debate about weapon regulations.

The "30" number is arbitrary. It is none of your business if I want to spend some of my time in a machine shop and make my own that holds 31, so its none of your business if Winchester does the same.

If you want an honest debate about weapon regulations, start off by admitting that the constitution does not allow any.

Cowardly city dwellers and fallible judges may have gotten away with passing their unconstitutional laws, but the proof that they are in the wrong; The Second Amendment, is beyond their power to edit.

I find your advocation of arbitrarily limits on law abiding citizens property purely unreasonable.

You want to sic your lawdogs on law abiding citizens over hypothetical projections of things that they have not yet done.

 

[Goobieman]

30 round magazines are relatively common and fit with many reasonable civilian weapons. Anything over that is almost certainly a rare piece of military equipment.

If a weapon can take a 30 rd mag, it can take a 100 rd mag. It certainly does NOT need to be a rare piece fo military equipment to do that.

Therefor setting the limit at nothing over 30 rounds per magazine makes sense.

No. It doesnt. No limitation makes sense, especially given that you accept 30rd mags.

Bleating "assault weapon" and "second amendment" is a poor excuse for honest debate about weapon regulations.

Yeah.
The fact that the Constitution protects us from the vast vast majority of those reulations is meaningless :roll: