(01-02-2020 01:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  There's a word for what you just did, Lad... It's something like fire-bombing, but that's not it. Yes, I'm serious... I can't remember the phrase.

The Constitutionally protected right for an ordinary, untrained non-felon citizen to posses a hand-gun, hunting rifle or shotgun has existed in this country ALMOST without challenge for over 200 years. Politics only fairly recently came into the equation, and it certainly didn't start with this event.

I'm honestly struggling to understand how defending very clear Constitutional rights is remotely political. Are you saying that one party or the other doesn't support the Constitution?

Even most of those on the left seeking to change gun laws support the Constitution. They just think this portion is no longer necessary

I think what you're noting is that the left can only use this example to take guns away from criminals, not ordinary law abiding citizens... and this doesn't fit with your political agenda so you're going to turn around and claim that those who are supporting the existing laws regarding hand guns etc, which on paper includes a fair number of democrats... are acting politically

To believe that had there been no security forces there and this person shot and killed say 5 people with shotguns, that the left wouldn't include it in their list of reasons to ignore the Constitution is laughable. They won't point it out, but I'm confident that they'll even include the dead assailant so that they can call this a mass shooting (3) and why banning automatic weapons (which have killed shockingly few) isn't enough.

Huh? Lots going on in this post that doesn't make sense to me.

1) Did I ever try and suggest that a constitutional right to bare arms hasn't existed?
2) Did I suggest that politics entered the arena with this event?
3) What a nice, loaded question with respect to "are you saying one party...doesn't support the Constitution?" I'm honestly not sure where you were going with that one.
4) I honestly don't know where you're going with the following paragraphs - what is my political agenda in this case? You seem to think that those championing the GGG are not doing so as a way to politicize this and advocate for gun rights.
5) Did I ever say anything about what the left would have done had the security forces not been there? Seems like you think I did...

As I said earlier, the point of my posts was to emphasize how prepared this individual was to act, and to not use that as a strong argument for needing more GGGs, because we shouldn't assume that all legal gun owners could act in the same way. I pretty broadly support hand gun ownership for personal protection, and have no issue, whatsoever, with the Texas law that allowed hand guns to be carried in church.

I have not been arguing for a restriction on gun ownership, or what the left would have done had the security forces not been present. Sorry to disappoint.