danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!
There was cyanide in the punch bowl. Someone arranged an automobile "accident." A "hooker" had a syringe in her purse and somebody died of a heroin overdose after "inviting" her into bed with him. Or a doctor performed unnecessary surgery on a vital organ, with fatal results.
Or someone was stabbed, doused with gasoline and set afire, or beaten to death by a mob. Or diagnosed with "cancer" and fatally treated with a miscalculated dose of radiation therapy.
Or stabbed with a knife, or garroted, or smothered to death with a pillow.
Banning guns prevents us from defending ourselves, but it does nothing to stop murder.
Wrong.
No one is advocating ‘banning’ guns.
And the thread premise is just as wrong now as it was last October.
A given firearm regulatory measure does not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right until the Supreme Court rules that it does.
The regulatory measures proposed by Democrats are perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, and have been consistently upheld by the courts.
If Democrats sought to enact firearm regulatory measures the Supreme Court has struck down as un-Constitutional, then and only then will they be attempting to ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.
Opposition to bans on semi-automatic rifles such as the AR 15 should be opposed because they won’t have the desired effect, having nothing to do with their constitutionality. For example, less than 2 percent of violent gun crimes are committed with long guns, even fewer with semi-automatic rifles.