No sir ... I've said you are attempting to legislate a fix to the bad behavior. Correcting the behavior is the goal, right? Or am I wrong?
Seems clear to me ... but evidently it's not clear to all. Limits via passive legislation ... legislation which applies AFTER the action/fact. "fire in theater" is only executed AFTER the perpetrator YELLS.
Your proposed solution would seek to prevent the act with insufficient consideration for the consequences, I might add.
And we already have "permits" ... literally ... ask first, then permit ... vice arrest and prosecute after the fact. Something about innocent until proven guilty is a statement I've read somewhere relating to our Founding. But with firearms ... citizens are presumed guilty until the government certifies them innocent. What kind of "right" is that ... let alone a Constitutionally Enumerated right.
As I said above ... legislative fix for bad behavior.
doesn't matter what I think ... but just understand that seeking to preemptively limit a right enumerated in the Constitution because of misbehavior will neither fix the behavior nor maintain the integrity upon which this nation was Founded.
Again, it doesn't matter what I think. Nor what I feel. The reality is that there is risk involved when honoring a the precepts/tenets/whatever $5 word you want to use ... of a FREE nation. As the saying goes, freedom isn't free ... kicker is ... you wouldn't stipulate that there'd be FEWER casualties from the refrain of 2A infringement ... but I expect that'll make your noggin explode.
No ... we're not "talking" at all because you won't define "assault rifle" You've said you'd support a ban on assault rifles. I'm curious as to what you think that is.
you don't seem to be because you continue to ask questions with presumption rather than sincere seeking of information/understanding (not that I can or would presume myself to be able to completely answer all your questions, but you're not even giving me the opportunity with your own presumption) Hence ... I took your skewed query as a reason to dabble in the "illustrate absurdity with absurdity" (though I clearly didn't illustrate very well, did I?)
My solution? Again ... presumption and the tactic of "place the other party in a defensive position"
I urge honoring the Constitution. Allow the cops to do their job, too. I think this part of the pendulum is swinging back to where it belongs ... but the results won't be realized quite overnight.
I just found this little diddy regarding Chicago's arrest/murder stats over the last 7 years. Curious....
-
- File size:
- 36.3 KB
- Views:
- 234
Last edited: Nov 13, 2017