Majority in U.S. poll support gun ownership rights

A general problem I've seen lately here at FreeRepublic is that people are having these wonderful debates in their own minds, and then just posting their conclusions.

Unfortunately, that leaves the rest of us in the dark without a clue as to what you are talking about.

If you have an argument that convinces you that I'm anti-2nd-amendment, it does us no good if you keep it to yourself.

A debate requires that you actually espouse your point of view, rather than simply asserting your conclusion.

So, just what is it about my post that leads you to conclude that I am "anti-2nd-amendment". Since you came to a conclusion, I have to believe you have a sound basis and can express that to us. So go ahead, convince me.

If you don't, and it's just a random opinion, Here's a link you might be interested in before jumping to conclusions.

A Tale of Two Shootings

Never let understanding be mistaken for acquiescence.

The 2nd Amendment’s clear, original intent is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms of utility in armed conflict, i.e. any personal weapon, including automatic weapons. Your boy from Mass does not see it that way and has a track record of supporting assaults on the 2nd Amendment, as clearly originally intended. You do not see that as proof that he is a gun-grabber. We disagree on that point, and I see your support of him as proof that you either do not understand the 2nd or that you choose to ignore it in re “assault weapons”.

I figured from your posts that you were intelligent and informed enough to understand my position. Your insults aside, I thought you were worth conversing with. If you cannot see the link between support of egregious attacks on the 2nd and the label gun-grabber, then perhaps my impression of you was wrong.

I just think english is an easy enough language that we could all use it properly.

AWB is obviously something that is at odds with a strict reading of the 2nd amendment. But it’s not a “gun-grabber” bill.

You apparently want to use the term “gun-grabber” to mean anybody who isn’t perfect on the 2nd amendment. But that was not it’s meaning, and your use dilutes it’s effectiveness for what it really means, someone who wants to “take our guns away”.

In the list of hundreds of things that could be done to restrict our 2nd amendment rights, an assault weapons ban is a very small infringement, considering that there are already other weapons that are banned even before you ban the few weapons in the AWB.

There are many weapons we can’t buy. Some at least we SHOULD be able to buy. an AWB adds a small percentage to that list, which makes it a small change in the anti-2nd-amendment laws of our country.

And EVERY viable candidate we have has supported some current restrictions on our rights under the 2nd amendment. Which candidate is looking to lift the “gun-free-schools” ban? Which candidate will let me own a true assault weapon? Which candidate is against the instant background check?

Who is speaking out against the ban on gun purchase related to “receiving mental health treatment”?

It’s like we are sitting now at some percentage of “full 2nd amendment rights”, maybe 90%, maybe 50%, I don’t want to make up a number.

Fred Thompson may well leave us right where we are. Mitt Romney might drop us a half a percentage point. I just don’t see that as a serious enough assault to call him a “gun-grabber”.

When the NRA gives him a “B” (and that’s before he was Governor, when he spoke a much more liberal tone on the issue), it’s clear they don’t see him as being as bad as those who get C, D, and F ratings, the guys that really ARE “gun-grabbers”.

If your position is that every one of our candidates is a “gun-grabber” because none of them will let me have an assault weapon, I have to say I agree with your desire, but not the label you are using.

You seem to be the one with a tenuous grip on the proper use of the English language. Someone who has a PROVEN TRACK RECORD of supporting prohibitions on what were previously lawfully held firearms (including the full spectrum of automatic weapons) is a Gun-grabber.

Your tedious, pedantic and sophistic arguments will not change that fact. As I said, enjoy your yoke.

Here's an old thread that shows what a real "gun-grabber" is:

I realise that it has become chic to apply the term "grabber" to anybody who advocates the slightest gun control law.

Unfortunately, by that definition, Fred Thompson is a gun-grabber, because he is not advocating revoking existing gun laws like the brady bill, and he is on record supporting the "rights" of states to deny individuals their right to carry guns for protection on public college campuses.

Surely a person who wants to deny me my right to self-defense with ANY weapon is more of a "gun-grabber" than someone who simply wants to deny me my right to by a NEW weapon of a specific kind that I can most likely replace with some other weapon.

So my point remains -- your use of the term in this instance makes the term nearly useless.

Bookmark for reference