Tired of asking

[Shandris]

13. No, we won't remove that from the discussion.

If people are calling for confiscation -- and there are PLENTY who do -- then yes, the 'taking of guns' is a legitimate concern. It also removes the ability of a person to DEFEND themselves against someone who has created, built, obtained, or otherwise spontaneously generated a firearm of their own.

Now, if you can take care of those points, the conversation can progress. Until then, it's a stalemate. Now, if you want to demonstrate more of my 'specious reasoning', go right ahead. Otherwise, why not work on getting a workable answer that FORCIBLY, IRREVOCABLY prevents full disarmament OF ANY KIND, spelled out in clear, unambiguous words. If you can't say you're for that (and I suspect you can say you would indeed be for that, being a gun owner), then I question your commitment to a solution instead of a control fetish. I'm completely sympathetic to removing the ones like Dear, but not at the cost of leaving everyone unable to defend themselves outside of nice, wealthy areas with fast police response times.

By the way, in case you're unaware, I am NOT a gun owner, do not desire to be, nor do I find it an enjoyable pastime or recreation. I am a person who understands the way the world works, and although I am at peace with it myself, I can not stand by and allow one group of people to attempt to unilaterally disarm another, less defended, group of people. That is tyranny and totalitarianism no matter what rubric of compassion it is trumpeted with.