We need to have a serious national debate about the 2nd Amendment

[beevul]

89. And you'd be fine with localities that want none?

Last edited Tue May 27, 2014, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Somehow I doubt it.

"Seems like you don't want a debate or discussion either"

That "debate or discussion" has been had time and time again, in CA.

See:

Waiting period in CA

Universal background checks in CA

Assault weapon ban in CA

Magazine capacity limits in CA

Those things I've listed above were sold to the general public based on what they were purported to do. People like me told people like you during those "discussions" that they wouldn't do the things they were purported to do, and we were mocked, insulted, shunned, and ostracized for it, hereabouts and elsewhere.

And now you want to have another discussion.

I think before you and others like you go blaming the nra, blaming and mocking gun rights supporters, there are things that need to be done first:


You and people like you shoulder equally as much of the blame as you want to attribute to the nra and gun rights supporters like me and others. CA has YOUR chosen gun control schemes, practically an anti-gun wish list:

Assault weapon ban (which we continue to tell people like you, is useless)


universal background checks (which undisputedly did not prevent the CA shooting)


waiting periods (which undisputedly did not prevent the CA shooting)


registration (which undisputedly did not prevent the CA shooting)


Magazine capacity laws


They failed. That's not my fault, and that's not the fault of the nra.

So acknowledgement that those gun control schemes are not anywhere near as effective as we were told when they were passed, would be a start.

Why should we have any discussion with you about this, if our rights re:firearms are not going to be a part of it?

That sort of discussion, is by definition, not a discussion, but a monologue.