TXnMA, you need to check your own tagline. You are telling lies about me.
Lets start from the top. “Friend, one for every two is more than enough.”, is met with the response “First of all, with an attitude like that, you are no real American’s “friend””
Why is that? What attitude? I am arguing numbers, not rights, or constitutional matters. The point of my argument, which is quite clear, is that if there is one gun for every second person, that means most people are going to be armed, because approx half the population will not be able to have or use guns, for the reasons outlined. Why is that so hard to understand? It’s not illogical.
Then what is it with this list of armaments? Do you expect me to be cowed into thinking that I have neglected my duties as a citizen if I cannot put a tick on everything there? And by the way, you missed off Bazooka, claymore mine, armoured personel carrier and small tactical nuclear device.
“After that, they should be free to begin “collecting” firearms — just because they enjoy owning them — and because the Second Amendment says that our right to do so “shall not be infringed”.”
Why do you feel the need to bolster your argument with this passage? I haven’t said anything denying any of this. In fact I support all of it. Do you think that by stating it, while I havent, that it will invalidate anything else I say, by some process of pseudo-conservative blame osmosis?
“”Friend”, if you choose to be a non-owner, don’t come whining to the rest of us for protection when the need arises...”
And again. Have I told you I am a non-owner? Is there anything in my statement that says I am?
You know what, the suspicion arises that you have been so sensitised by the anti-gun lobby and their arguments that anything, anything at all, that even remotely sounds like it, no matter how distant, is immediately pounced upon.
I tell you the truth, “friend”. With hair-trigger reactions like this I’m not sure I’d let YOU near a gun.
Au contraire. You were arguing limiting numbers.
That is precisely how the anti-gunners operate: limit ownership -- then eliminate the limited number.
You enumerated; I enumerated. My numbers reflect reality for the region in which I live.
"You know what, the suspicion arises that you have been so sensitised by the anti-gun lobby and their arguments that anything, anything at all, that even remotely sounds like it, no matter how distant, is immediately pounced upon."
That statement is, essentially, correct. And I have our Constitution versus a long history of attempted infringements to validate my sensitivity.
You obviously sought a reaction with your "more than enough" edict. Clearly, you got more than one. What is it about "shall not be infringed" that causes you to believe that positing an infringement (limitation ) is acceptable? Incremental infringement is still infringement.
Squirm around all you like; your original statement speaks for itself. No amount of "but I didn't say" crawfishing erases what you did say...
fin.
Or, if you do, be prepared to make payment in silver or gold. :)