Briefly, bullshit.

You and I have rights, irrespective of how well-strapped we are, not, *emphatically not* because either of us is armed. We enjoy those rights because of our shared respect for our rule of law.

Having a gun does not grant you any rights, it doesn't even protect your rights. Only that shared respect for law protects you and your rights. When you lose those rights, when they've been stolen from you by violence, the gun hasn't saved you, and if that violence came from the muzzle of a gun, it was the lack of respect for the rule of law that created the opening through which they were lost.

No amount of firepower "you yourself" can muster can "enforce" your rights. Somewhere, someone has a bigger gun and smaller scruples. Where is your puny <strike>gun</strike> god now? Your rights, and mine, are like the right of way at stop sign. You can't seize the right of way, you can only have it yielded to you. If you assert and I assert, only conflict results. I suppose this is where you draw and fire; win! Unless I draw first.

Maybe you really don't understand that such a dispute over rights is solvable, only solvable by laws. If so, hit the books, you have a lot of catching up to do. If you're really just pretending, then your willful ignorance is the problem you need to address first.

:corn:

@ Flint: Ikr?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ntent=20180423

Interview with James Shaw.

Excellent, Griff!!
I remember getting to the speedshop where I worked the counter after my day job. a wall to the right hid a half door where I'd turn to get behind the counter. Where I got there a black man in camos shoved a 1911 in my belly and growled.
It only took a few seconds to realize he was a friend, who worked for the Post Office, a DI in the Army Reserve, and was fucking with me. But those few seconds were a long long long time.

What bothers me now is the antigun crowd has become just as rabid as the hard core gun nuts. They've been recruited from the city kids who don't know guns from shinola. There is no reasonable discourse, just fer me or agin me on both sides.

If gun control people were as rabid as the NRA, quite a few gun control laws would be passed easily. There are plenty of gun control laws that are quite popular, but there are few single-issue (to use your term ,"rabid") gun control voters.

I think the antis are just as rabid, but not one issue.

If you're not willing to ignore all other issues in favor of it, you're not as rabid.

Seems that there could be equal; but, opposite rabidities on one issue independent of other issues and regardless of whether or not other issues exist.

YMMV.

Not even close. There was no need for gun laws until NRA, et al starting pushing bigger guns, big magazines, and hardware that has no purpose but to kill people. Only then the the majority finally realized how ridiculous all that gun fascination was.

If the resulting and necessary up-swell did not exist, then gun owners would be buying M79 grenade launchers and 155 millimeter howitzers. Since the NRA has only one purpose. Lobby to increase gun sales. The NRA is a lobbyist for the gun industry.

Why did the NRA get research into gun violence banned? Resulting knowledge would harm sales. Selling hype, myths, and fear further increases sales. We all need 100 round clips.

Even bump stocks were good for business - approved of by the NRA until Las Vegas happened. NRA remains on the fence for banning those. Fearing it might harm sales.

they may have to be more rabid, on account of that thing in the founding document of the government - remember

~ but with this shitty rabid mob versus rabid mob tribalist approach I'm sure the fucking Constitution will soon be on the outs anyway. ~

No, I said gun control. Not banning all guns. There's no right enumerated in the Constitution that has no regulation. Nor should there be.

i'm sorry but the bit in the founding document says "shall not be infringed" not "shall not be removed entirely"

infringed: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

Seeing as there is no numeric scale that scientifically measures how much you care about an issue, "willing to ignore all other issues in favor of it" is, in my view, the maximum amount you can care.

:::long, exhausted sigh:::
and what is it that shall not be infringed upon?
the right to..
to..

what was it..?

a well R E G U L A T E D militia ??

was that it?

different meaning of regulated, perhaps, mr. constitutions professor?