gbaji wrote:
So let's hear a non Bullshi*t argument in support of a proposed piece of gun regulation. Not just broad (and meaningless) statements like "assault weapons aren't necessary for hunting", but an actual proposed set of restrictions and a justification for said restriction which meets the criteria I outlined. I want to hear how the proposed restrictions would affect both criminal uses of guns and legal uses of guns, and how those affects are both positive *and* in accordance with the 2nd amendment rights. When writing said proposal remember that rights should only be infringed if there's a significant and provable gain to be had. Preferably a gain which is itself a right (like life, property, etc). Anything even remotely close to an even choice or trade off should never be done if it involves infringing a right.
Waste of time if you're declaring yourself arbiter of what qualifies and what doesn't. You're too wrapped up in preserving the party line to ever say anything but "no, we need more guns for everyone!"
Now, if you're saying such a proposal should be put to the people and if they decide it's a worthy interpretation of our rights then you'll happily accede to the proposal, that's something else.