Why are you for or against gun control

[SMorganMacKay]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Article II, US Constitution

Infringe (verb):
1 the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of; disregard, ignore, neglect; go beyond, overstep, exceed; Law infract. ANTONYMS obey, comply with.

2 the surveillance infringed on his rights: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise. ANTONYMS preserve.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do people not understand?
View media item 54058

 

[razzelflabben]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Article II, US Constitution

Infringe (verb):
1 the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of; disregard, ignore, neglect; go beyond, overstep, exceed; Law infract. ANTONYMS obey, comply with.

2 the surveillance infringed on his rights: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise. ANTONYMS preserve.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do people not understand?
View media item 54058

again, the constitutionality part is the one part I simply cannot get my brain to see any other way no matter what. Some of the other arguments, I can force myself to see both sides, when it comes to my constitutional rights, I can't seem to see the other side of the coin...thanks for your comments.

 

[aieyiamfu]

Engaging in a debate and pointing out the flaws in your arguments is not trolling.

Edited to add: Here's a definition of the slippery slope fallacy from Wikipedia,

"A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a consequentialist logical device in which a party asserts that a particular result will probably (or even must inevitably) follow from a given decision or circumstance, without necessarily providing any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the likelihood of the assumed consequence. A slippery slope argument proposes that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fear mongering, in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In a non-fallacious sense, including use as a legal principle, a middle-ground possibility is acknowledged, and reasoning is provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome."

Asserting that background checks, requiring gun training, and licensing will inevitably lead to the government taking away all civilians' firearms is a prime example of slipper slope.

Instead of accusing me of trolling, don't you think it would be more substantial to provide a coherent argument or rebuttal, or at point out the flaw in my reasoning? Something other than a near ad hominem?

-CryptoLutheran

I believe he pointed out Britain and Australia, and as far as examples go there are probably none better as the have been nearly stripped of weapons. It's not like governments are a whole lot different, they seek power then the concentration of that power in the hands of a few.