I understand your point of where a debate must start in order to reach a certain desired outcome.
But my point is that the debate of my God given rights starts and stops with God.
There simply is no debate.
I am not going to accept, tolerate, listen to or obey anyone’s opinion, command or law on my right to bear arms except His.
Nor should anyone else, not for any reason.
Shall not be infringed means there is no debate, there is no right to a debate.
It is as if these politicians are debating whether or not they should allow the sun to rise tomorrow.
Such is beyond their reach.
You say thereis no debate....try carrying in Illinois...there is one hwlluva debate going in...there shouldn’t be, but you’ll end up in jail in a Chicago minute if you me state your God-given rights to a Chicago cop while he is handcuffing you. However you are making my point exactly. If they want to debate, then the negotiation from the right should be exactly your starting position, and should not waver. Prob is the people debating for our side are starting closer to the middle...”we’ll, maybe if we had a gun that was a different color...” Starting there, they have accepted the premise of gun control and the whole agenda moves left as a result. So all legislation from our side must start as far right as possible and stick to it as closely as the left sticks to their position. Problem is the right continues to “negotiate” and the result moves left. You say there is no negotiation...I agree with your point of view, but the cat is already out of the bag...again the Chicago example.