Unsure how this is relevant to my question.

The assassin could have made the shot with a bolt-action, which is considered "not a scary military-style weapon!" (yet).

Some of the deadliest attacks in history have used pistols and shotguns, which are also deemed "not scary military-style weapons!" (yet).

Your friends are right. Regulations infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, and criminals will do crazy things regardless. Seizing 20 million+ AR-15s that were never, and would never, be used to commit such atrocities does not seem like a plausible solution to this problem.

So, my question remains. Why don't we learn what prescriptions these lunatics are on?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

My friends are wrong. The fact that you don’t think there should be any regulations on firearms, but have no problem with regulations concerning, say, driving, tells me all I need to know.

BTW, the right is infringed on every day. There is nothing in the amendment about age restrictions on felonies, yet, here we are. Take care.

Drawing false equivalence to something I never argued and making assumptions about my beliefs.

This doesn’t seem serious or productive. Shame… because I enjoy having debates and believe the world needs more of it. However, it becomes impossible to move forward when one argues in bad faith and blatantly ignores the actual topic posed.

I will close by trying to understand your position, which seems to be “we already have our rights infringed on, so we may as well let the state infringe more?”

Agree to disagree. I wish you well regardless of your opinions and gleefulness of wishing death upon others.

I will defend your right to speak, regardless how heinous is is. ✌️