Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: I think this paragraph from The New Yorker really sums up the gun control debate here on DU [View all]krispos42
(49,445 posts)Clowns.
You know what else is funny?
[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]I am interested to hear how this interacts with your comment above, since the qualities that have been used to legally define an "assault weapon" are the ones you both a) think should cause a weapon to be banned and yet b) you simultaneously oppose useless, pandering laws like "assault weapon bans".
It's funny because I never said item "a" on your list. Your belief that I did also creates a fictional paradox.
I pointed out a fundamental truth that we have to live with, that any gun that is optimized for self-defense is also effective for offense. I pointed out a second fundamental truth; namely, that other countries the gun-control proponents look to for inspiration and as examples have removed self-defense, and thus guns more optimal for self-defense, as a legitimate reason for being allowed to own a gun.
You seem to be of the belief that because I understand the reasoning of, say, Australia's Parliament I also support their actions.
That is incorrect. Sorry to burst your bubble.
This deflates your "first" argument, your "second" argument, your "third" argument, and your "fourth" argument, as they all flow from an opinion that I did not state but that you assigned to me due to a moderately understandable confusion about my stance on the relevant issues.
Your "last" paragraph follows in a similar vein, except you manage to throw in a few more aggressive insults to me than in your previous paragraphs.
Is there anything else I can clarify for you?