"unrestricted manufacturering and sale of guns" most are just for reasonable restrictions. Controllers seem to be fo unreasonable restrictions that will do little like cosmetic bans and magazine limit sizes without touching the billions already in public ownership. So how have the "gun safety" organizations promoted gun safety.

he spends the first half of his column calling people "hardliners" and "fundamentalists;" terms often reserved for terrorists and repressive regimes, but then goes on to say --

Really? Common sense says the fewer criminals there are the fewer crimes there will be and non-criminals don't commit crimes regardless of what they might own.

To wit --


If they're decent, responsible people what does it matter what they own? Guilt is not transferrable.



Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. The author started out talking about misperception. Well, this would be an example of a misperception on the author's part.

The author's other errors have been dealt with at length in this group.

I like the use of the loaded term "stockpile," which people might connote with preppers or those otherwise afraid of government authority. What exactly is a "stockpile" of "high capacity clips and magazines" anyway?

My husband is a vet and he says 30-round magazines were standard issue. So I'm guessing "high capacity" would be anything substantially higher than 30.

i.e. right-wingers.

those tiny dicked, gun fucking, Second Amendment terrorist ammosexual cowards need to man up and start supporting gun bans.

It is the patriotic thing to do.



P.S. if you support strict background checks, training mandates, safe storage laws or any of the myriad of other proposals put forth while opposing bans, just know you are a fundamentalist Second Amendment hardliner. You need to stop demanding the unrestricted manufacturing and sale of guns and learn to quit being a racist gun humper and accept your guilt for each and every gun related death in our epidemic murder rate. {any general downward trend in gun deaths derived from FBI data is simply NRA propaganda}

Is the best summary of anything I've read in a long time.

"If those opposed to gun control would simply realize that the other side includes a lot of patriots, they would score a major victory for political moderation..."

Yep - if only.

"hardliners seem to believe that opposing the unrestricted manufacturing and sale of guns is suspect",

Please, keep reminding those "hardliners", AND the rest of us, how even though "the right to keep and bear arms must not be ignored or infringed", it is VERY MUCH OK the right to keep and bear arms should be ignored and infringed.

Despite the fact "Decent, responsible people from coast to coast own guns...and they use their guns legally and safely", it is just common sense there should be:
- fewer privately owned guns
- a complete ban on "assault weapons"; and
- restrictions on "stockpiling" high capacity magazines.

Because...well..."need".


Quite imperative (and sensible) we should all get along - after all it is simply gun control proponents' lack of clarity and their misunderstanding of the Second Amendment which leads them to believe that {owning guns, Semi Autos, and hi-cap mags} is not a constitutionally protected right.
Respect!!


"The position of this column is that legislation at the municipal, county, state and federal levels will tackle the dangers of assault weapons"

Or not. But at least NOW we are talking some common sense - legislation, by the representatives of the people; and not - for example - lawsuits targeting manufacturers and dealers for producing legal products and advertising.

The hardliners are the ones who intend to see the word "arms" interpreted as "Some guns, the ones which we approve of", and the nice thing about this article, is that they admit it:



I rest my case.



Spoken like a true hardliner.



AKA: Anyone that disagrees with me is not valid.

The symbolism is a little bulk-rate: that "Assault Weapon" thing again, and the comfort-level notion of "need."

....since their approach is prohibitionist-centric, and gives short shrift to efforts and policies designed to reduce the causes of violence. Bloomberg and Brady Center don't impress me as activist progressives.

"Decent, responsible people from coast to coast own guns. Whether for self-defense or sport shooting, they use their guns legally and safely.

In what civil society, though, is the private possession of assault weapons necessary?"

"Decent, responsible people from coast to coast own rifles with handgrips that stick out. Whether for self-defense or sport shooting, they use their rifles legally and safely.

In what civil society, then, is putting people in cages for owning protruding rifle handgrips necessary?"

FWIW, all rifles combined account for less than 270 murders annually, out of ~12,000. That's around five murders per year, per state. Many states have zero rifle homicides annually. And yet you want to outlaw the most popular non-automatic civilian rifles in U.S. homes. Just who is the fundamentalist, again?

By providing one OP after another that receives a thorough slap-down while receiving zero cogent support, you've done the cause of gun rights an enormous service!

Thank you amigo!