Oh. Wait. Maybe that's a bad idea too. Maybe respecting all of our inalienable rights is the sensible way to go. No infringement, OK?
Mr. Norman....we already have rational limits on gun ownership....
Many including myself think almost any limit except preventing criminals and mentally ill from owning guns is over the rational line. ...
A simple explanation is that “Mr. Norman and all of his monkey relatives”, cannot understand, nor find the dictionary to explain, “shall not be infringed”.
Because anyone with common sense knows that, to communists, “rational limits” is just another way of saying, “the camel’s nose”. Take a hike Tony boy.
How much pistol ammunition was it again that DHS ordered?
Because lying phonies like YOU, Tony, play with the meaning od words like, well, ‘rational’.
Which “rational” limits? The ones which began being inflicted upon us in defiance of the Second Amendment from decades ago, or the latest ones they are trying to inflict upon us, with the end goal of total confiscation, using registration to make it easier to find us? Where and when do these “rational” limits end?
Why can’t hoplophobes make arguments without calling the opposition irrational?
Why can't Tony tolerate just a few rats in his home, just a few fleas in his carpet, just some lice in his children's hair, and a couple of bedbugs for each of 'em?
Re: Why can’t gun lovers handle rational limits?
There are already 22,000 laws. What makes this clown think law 22,001 will do anything more to stop crime?
No, the real question is why don’t gun haters accept rational limits. THey ask for one restriction, then another, then another, then a ban. They NEVER stick to rational limits.
If Mr Norman really thinks his ideas are rational, then he should support a constitutional amendment to amend the 2nd Amendment, so his ideas would then not be a violation of the Constitution.
The standard for an idea to not violate the Constitution is not whether the idea is rational or popular, but rather, whether is is allowed by the Constitution.
The only gun control that is rational is the control we practice at the range, when hunting and, when shooting the enemys of freedom.
The only acceptable gun control IMHO is deterance created by the fear of being shot.
Yep, I am the one they fear the most.
One of the commenters at the Post-Gazette site epitomizes the pure Fudd mentality when he says,
“I have a safe full of guns and use mine for hunting and target shooting. ALTHOUGH I DO NOT USE THEM FOR SELF DEFENSE (emphasis) I understand the motivations of those who do.”
He supports `universal background checks’, BTW.
Because all of their, “Rational,” limits involve punishing the innocent, and crime going up.
Hey, Mr. Norman, how about we set “rational limits” to your free speech rights - and, oh, by the way, I get to define “rational”.
To the author: Define infringe for me, and then we can talk. Moron.
Rational limits, defined and enforced by collectivists. What could possibly go wrong?
Oh come on, guys. They’re ‘rational’ limits, and who else is better qualified to determine ‘rational’ limits on firearms ownership than a bunch of city dwelling liberal nimrods who don’t know a damn thing about firearms or the people who legally own them. What could possibly go wrong?
Freedom cannot be rationed.