No I did not follow the debate at the time and its an area I can learn from.
And my point is proven, sneer at someone rather than inform and then you expect to prevail.
Regardless, it is the 2nd and even if it had wound up the 4th its valid that it was high on the list and that it was even there proves that it was uppermost in the rights the founders felt was needed to ensure it was a viable basis for this country.
What I will tell you is you can engage someone in a discussion and when you do, a surprising number will then at least give credence and think about what you think and feel.
Or you can call someone scum and make sure there is no discussion.
I know what works. Sticking to stupid cast in concrete talking points gets us gridlock ala Le Piere. A discussion can get us someplace.
Get enough people ****** off and the Constitution can be amended in a direction you do not care for, but as the process is fully legal and part of the basis for it, you will have to live with it.
I prefer not to see that. But keep in mind, they are citizens of the United States and they have every much a right to not only say what they think but to change and act on it and if you truly believe in the Constitution then you have to not only respect that but support it.
While its heresy by many, I have no issue with magazine limitations. No, I do not think it is a full answer, but I think it would help if a nut case had to switch magazines and I think its beyond disingenuous for LaPierre to say it would make no difference that a magazine switch is not big deal. That in turn defies logic that we then don't need large magazines and we are dealing with nut cases who in many instances do not even practice and can't do a fast magazine change (or fu bar it up and benefit the situation and save lives ).
Where you draw the lines is worth discussion. There is no reason for a 30 round magazine aka glock. Is a 20 or 10 magazine limit worth discussion for an AR? I think it is.
Would it stop it, no, would it be true in all cases where 30 rounders can be had, again no. But it might in some cases and it might sway enough people that a compromise that losses gun owners nothing and we are willing to be reached and that would in turn help convince people that other avenues are more viable.
We do live in an age where minds change. I saw the gay rights issue go from total disgust and persecution to where most people think they should be allowed to be married.
The 2nd amendment unless rationally defended can go the same way. Not tomorrow, but over time.