am I wrong about guns?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yeah, you could be attacked by a whole mob.
AS regular  Chuck Norris, sirs is.

You never know when some nefarious agent of the Evil Dr Fu Manchu might try to take you out with a throwing star.

[sirs]

Exactly. .... you never know.  And since we never know, better to have and never need to use, then need one, and not have one.  Or worse, prevented to have because some anti constitutional moron deemed we don't need it

[Christians4LessGvt]

There is no reason why a person would need a weapons that could fire 30 bullets in rapid succession to defend himself

Are you kidding?
The first 2nd Amendment is just as much about defending against tyrannical government.
Rapid fire guns are needed in war.
As the country accelerates towards extreme polarization there is no doubt war is coming.
And that is exactly the reason Obama/Left want to disarm "the people".

[sirs]

When an armed Government claims you don't need to be armed, that's precisely why we need to be armed.

So, redirecting to Kimba, what exactly do we compromise on such a vital constitutional right, that we've already compromised so much on?

[Christians4LessGvt]

[kimba1]

i know several example which if one allowances is made it actually it started a floodgate that over runsthings.on rights issue I can understand the fear. but that does not mean a dialog should not be bother with . both sides may eternally fail an never ever get a resolution but to not make an effort.

[sirs]

But see Kimba, the effort is consistently being made.  The problem hits a wall when one side solution is to start demanding that someone(s) be made to compromise on a Constitutional right.  You yourself couldn't answer to how much you'd be willing to compromise your 1st amendment right...to a point of hating it, no less.  And their apparent version of "compromise" is that they aren't pushing that all guns be banned.  Merely those that are presently politically incorrect.

I grasp the dilemma.....all the other Constitutional Rights are merely parameters or specific guidelines.  There's nothing tangible.  The 2nd Amendment has a physical manifestation, in the form of a firearm, that can be held, and used.  As such, people focus on that and forget what its part of....a Constitutional Right, just as integral to this country's freedoms, as the 1st amendment is

[Plane]

yes a  compromise but something that bothsides will hate.

We are deep in that territory now.

Note XO observing that we can't get automatic weapons and rpgs?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The first 2nd Amendment is just as much about defending against tyrannical government.
Rapid fire guns are needed in war.

UTTERLY STOOPID!
When Washington led the army against Shea's Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion, it became clear that even a bunch of armed hicks could not defeat the national army.

There were exactly ZERO rapid fire guns in existence when the second amendment was written.

As a "good man wit6h a gun" you are the rest of the NRA Idiots are total, abysmal failures. You have allowed an increasing number of mass murders.

You are the shittiest excuse for a militia ever.

[sirs]

There were exactly ZERO rapid fire guns in existence when the second amendment was written.

Nor were their modern printing presses or the internet, when the 1st amendment was written.  Irrelevant, as we all grew in technology & modernization

And what lives are taken in murders, 10+fold lives are saved....a staggering success

[Xavier_Onassis]

A staggering LIE from sirs.

[sirs]

You apparently flunked math

[kimba1]

A friend just brought it up. The group who defend the 1st amendment get way less public support than the supporters of the 2nd amendment .

I can't really deny that

[sirs]

can't deny that.  Probably because the left's war on the 1st amendment is far more subtle than what they wage on the 2nd

[kimba1]

Actually ACLU gets very little support from anyone but NRA has serious backing