perhaps, my lean is to freedom meaning I won't find convincing even arguments that can prove we can gain more safety by decreasing freedom. However, the anti gun scum in office has not come close to even proving their schemes make us safer. I also tend to me completely truthful when it comes to facts
Unconstrained freedom leads to anarchy, no wait, Libertarianism wants state 'protection' but little else. Often, to simply protect those that
have . Facts that suit your dogma, yes. On that note, what facts are we discussing?
such as noting that the stuff scumbags call "assault weapons" are rarely used in crime (which really doesn't matter-criminal misuse does not proffer a strong argument against prohibiting lawful ownership or use)
I'm not for any total ban (on most weaponry), for most people. But I am for a challenge on the 'right to bear arms' on many levels.
Since most anti gunners' positions are based on dishonesty (pretending crime control rather than harassing lawful ownership is their motivation), the rest of their arguments tend to be easily destroyed.
I think most arguments are for finding a reason why America keeps suffering these 'mass shootings'. That's got to be something we can agree on, surly?
Paul