I believe that most people want the right to keep and bear arms. They want this for personal protection, for home protection, for business protection, or for sport and recreational use. As such, they distinguish between firearms that are necessary to do that and powerful weapons often described by some as military or assault weapons. And please spare me and all of us a pedantic discussion about how to define such things.
i agree that most people want the right to keep and bear arms... but we we begin to part ways is where you decide that definition don't matter.
it's really not my problem that you find definition inconvenient or whatever....it is not my fault that factual information does not support your arguments.
a cure to a great many ills is education... factual and accurate information
you are correct that people tend to differentiate between military styled weapons and other "regular weapons.... where you err is in propagating myths surrounding those .
for instance.. all this talk about "high powered assault rifles" and such... it sure sounds scary to claim such things are true.. but if we are being honest and truthful, we'll find that perceptions do not match reality.
for an example... most folks will not want to ban Remington 700 rifles.. it's the worlds most popular hunting rifle after all.... they also happen to be more powerful than any "assault weapon".
that is not perception speaking or political agenda.. it is simple physics.
anyways, now we know you are uninterested in factual and accurate information.. we can move along.
People will support reasonable things that protect the right and also do not simply allow technology to dictate our size and scope of weaponry.
yes, people will support reasonable things..... unfortunately, there is no universal standard of "reasonbale" and quite often, unreasonable things are sold as being reasonable or sensible.
I really do NOT think the average person has a firearm to aid them when they have to someday fight a totalitarian government house by house and block by block in the streets of America. Sorry. That is a delusional paranoid mental construct of those on the far right and their use of it to justify matching the military and police in weaponry is just BS of the worst sort.
you are entitled to this opinion... but you must acknowledge that it is not born from factual information...
history is rife with scenarios that shows your opinion to be quite ignorant.
The NRA and the gun lobby has falsely interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that any limit at all on arms is unconstitutional. Please look up the meaning of the word INFRINGED as it was used 200 years ago.
this is factually incorrect....
1st, you have been utterly unsuccessful in showing how the NRA's interpretation is in err....
2nd, the NRA does not oppose any or all limits, they have even authored and lobbied for gun control measures...ans they have supported measures authored by others
.3rd,I can find no corroboration to your claim that the definition of "infringed" has changed in 200 years.
you quite literary struck out 3 times in one at bat.
It DID NOT mean what the nra wants it to mean to them today. INFRINGED meant a destruction of the right...... not any incremental obligation it might place upon in regards to use of firearms.
you keep insisting the definition has undergone a radical change that is being ignored by the gun lobby, yet you never prove it.... your word is insufficient proof of ..well.. anything.
As long as the NRA insists on that erroneous and false interpretation of the term, the entire issue is hopelessly skewed in their favor. I do not think the average American accepts that false interpretation.
I have been utterly unsuccessful on corroborating your claim that the NRA erroneously or falsely interprets the 2nd amendment.. you have been unsuccessful in providing factual information to substantiate your claim..... your argument is riding on the thinnest of ice here, dude.