NorCalRepub said:
"In fact, it is exactly the non compartmentalized and random badgering that proves my point.......just have a nice day and know that you won the arguement and you now are better and smarter and than I.........OK?" It is not "random badgering" to ask someone to clarify what they are saying. Such clarification revealed that you approve the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms in the case of full-auto weapons and so-called Saturday Night Specials.
I further asked you whether you would consider it reasonable to infringe other rights protected by the Bill of Rights or whether the Second Amendment for some reason is deserving of less protection. Does your three-sigma argument apply to firearms but not newspapers? Why are you unwilling to explain why you think there should be exceptions to some rights and not others? How do you decide?
The federal government had virtually NO firearms laws prior to 1934. Even the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed as a revenue act to avoid the obvious challenge that would have been expected at that time because it infringes the right to keep and bear arms.
The battles of Lexington and Concord, which initiated the warfare which eventually resulted in the establishment of our union, were a response to confiscation of arms. The resulting Constitution and Bill of Rights were to prevent the government from once again tyrannizing the people. The enemy during the American Revolution was not "the British", it was "the government".
good lord man....my diagnosis confirmed.......go look at my post #32 which you first wrote me.....the guy I wrote back knew what I was talking about......in that post I wrote that any AWB would be frivolous.......did you read that?.. of course not cause you focused in on one semantic difference and kept drilling into that....."badg·er ( ..tr.v., -ered, -er·ing, -ers. To harass or pester persistently.".....yes I think you are doing it....where in my original post did I say I wanted to infringe on something....again, anyone can pick apart semantics. To me it is analagous to driving 100 mph. Who decides the speed limit?...well I have to leave it to the govt....and of course some rights are limited. We have the right to kill in defense generally don't we. In you logic you are saying there should be no exceptions but there are exceptions to most things in life....why can't children buy liqour if their parents say it is OK?..We all know the answers to these questions but for some reason you want some detailed and specific answer....well that is the best you are gonna get.