Capacity ? Article

[GEM]

No, that's YOUR interpretation. We have First Amendment rights, too you know. We can debate anything we choose, and attacking people for their positions and trying to silence them is a left-wing tactic

Who is trying to silence anyone? I'm pointing out that your statements can be used against gun rights. Telling me that I cannot point out how these statements are counter productive is in fact actually what you are railing against.

Vern, your second statement is ridiculous - how is critiquing a position an attack on rights. Do you realize what you just said?

 

[Kleanbore]

The connection is that attacking people for their beliefs or positions is an attack on their rights. The Bill of Rights is a set -- violate one article and you violate them all.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...".

Suggesting that an argument can have unintended consequences has nothing to do with it.

 

[rust collector]

We seem to be just antagonizing one another at this point. The sticking point seems to be the frequency of victims reloading. That data isn't readily available but it is not essential to a discussion of the OP. The point is that multiple threats are more common than they once were, and higher capacity carry guns are now available that did not exist years ago. If you disagree with those premises, please include authority for your position.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...".

Suggesting that an argument can have unintended consequences has nothing to do with it.

So trying to silence debate is okay? Inquiry into reality ("Has anyone ever done a combat reload in a self-defense situation?) is forbidden?

 

[Kleanbore]

So trying to silence debate is okay? Inquiry into reality ("Has anyone ever done a combat reload in a self-defense situation?) is forbidden?

No, and no.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

No, and no.

So let us stop criticizing people and trying to shut them down just because we disagree with them. Let people express themselves freely.

 

[bearcreek]

The connection is that attacking people for their beliefs or positions is an attack on their rights. The Bill of Rights is a set -- violate one article and you violate them all.

The BOR is meant to limit the government, not the people. A civilian "attacking" (or strongly disagreeing with) someone verbally isn't a violation of that individual's rights.

 

[rust collector]

This isn't a constitutional law thread. Time to give it a rest.