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.
“Au contraire. You were arguing limiting numbers.”
I wasn’t actually. I was just commenting that 1 gun for every second person probably means that just about everyone who could use a gun has one.
“That statement is, essentially, correct. And I have our Constitution versus a long history of attempted infringements to validate my sensitivity. “
Paranoia beckons.
“You obviously sought a reaction with your “more than enough” edict.”
It wasn’t an edict and no I did not.
“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...”
I’m not squirming. I stand EXACTLY by my original statmement (and that is the actual original statement, not the truncated one you used to jump onto your hobby horse, and then cudgel me into the ground with. Remember you ignored the caveat that explained it). Congratulations on stifling all debate. The framers of the constitution that you quote would be so proud.