https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.9bf7b9f505e3

Not a good idea, but weakness begets weakness.

It’s just a compromise, right, what harm could it do…

These are our fellow countrymen, Loyal Patriots in this Exceptional America, what possible harm could come from this Loyal Opposition?

Valid points but I think there’s an even deeper issue here, in that advocating an end to the Second Amendment reveals not just misunderstanding but an individual’s antipathy toward the very concept of unalienable rights.

But first, a bit of context; a privilege can be rescinded. Plus, the basic premise and philosophical basis for our Constitution are the concepts contained in the words; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –”

Our Constitution is clearly an attempt to codify a government that protects those truths.

But “unalienable rights” cannot be said to exist, if they can be repealed. As, a ‘right’ subject to repeal is a privilege granted by the State to its citizens and subject to revocation.

The right to life is the most basic of rights, for without life all other rights are moot. Eliminating the means to defend our lives, effectively repeals the right to life.

Any American who advocates the ending of unalienable rights has forfeited all rightful claims to being an American.

A society that denies the right to life and the right to defend our lives is a tyranny.

Should Stephens and his leftist ilk achieve their desire, they shall discover that another unalienable right is the right to abolish a tyrannical government.

From the layout of the suite as given the entrance was at the end of the corridor, which would make the corridor a kill zone. Hence, I doubt they were in the corridor but checking it out instead.

Conspicuously absent from all the sanctimonious lectures on gun control this week was any grappling with America’s cultural meltdown, which is the most comprehensible explanation for a spike in mass shootings even as laws and restrictions multiply. Indeed, the loudest voices for gun control come from the degenerate cultural forces most responsible for that meltdown. They demand that America “get serious about gun control,” even as they get less and less serious about the values and institutions most essential to the preservation of civilization.

The Link to Maverick Philosopher (Bill Vallicella):

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/

The direct link to Neumayr:

https://spectator.org/the-unserious-serious-discussion-about-guns/

I agree with steve.c. This ban should be attached other “common sense” gun de-regulation. Steve mentions two interesting ones. I would be inclined to invoke the interstate commerce clause to undo state regs. like extra taxation or background checks on ammo purchases. Or get rid of NY’s (& others?) idiotic 7 round magazine limit. The industry has sort of coalesced around 10 round limited mags.

The average number of perps in a home invasion is 2.8, so 3 is the most likely occurrence. Try stopping that with 7 rounds.

I don’t recall anyone using the interstate commerce clause for its intended purpose of negating state regs. that hinder commerce, in my lifetime.

And I like Oldflyer’s appreciation that Dems will need their camera face-time, and compassionate posturing, so give it to them. The more stupid or ineffectual, the better.
_______

The sliding bump-fire stock creates slop in the positioning of the receiver and barrel and lost accuracy. The gun in the crime scene picture with a BF stock had a no-magnification optical sight (EOTech) only good enough to target a general area at that range.

Some TV expert claimed that he would have been more effective if he had used a scope in a semi-auto mode, estimating 5 sec. per shot. So 10 min. = 120 people shot. Another way to look at this is that 10 min. of firing reduced to 5 min. by his very slow mag. changes = about 2,000 rounds. So the vast majority of his rounds didn’t even splash bullet fragments into anyone.