Debate about Gun Control

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-28-2016, 05:08 PM)playwrite Wrote: Pssss, the other side already has their military  grade gun platform; what  do they want to win more of, bazookas, tanks, ICBM???
Reasonable people, including gun owners like myself, want these high velocity, large mag guns out of civilIan hands and, of course,  we're  going to get angry every time these f'n things are used in mass shootings because that exactly why we want them gone.

You know what the vast majority of them want, but continue to spew pseudo psychological highly emotional sexually tainted verbiage with heavy doses of lies and strawman.  Many think a right to own and carry weapons for self defense a right that ought to be continued.  So long as blue politicians propose more restrictions whenever spree shooters cut loose where there are already absolute prohibitions there will be the sort of stubborn rejection you'd expect in a world view conflict.

I know your fantasy laden daydreams.  If writing a law could make prohibitions work I'd have more sympathy.  I'm in favor within reason of closing loopholes and enforcing what is on the books.  The 'within reason' part is looking at diminishing returns.  Prohibition is expensive and doesn't work.  So long as you don't throw too much money away, put your fingers in the dike until you run out of fingers.  I just think your dyke has too many holes.

As I've said many a time, a reasonable compromise that might give both sides most of what they want is a rewritten 2nd that firmly establishes a right to own and carry in self defense, but allows regulation of magazine size and rate of fire.  Neither side is in a mood for reasonable, though.  Discussing which side is more stubborn and immovable seems fairly pointless.  Either faction can be compared to Gibraltar.