Alan, you misunderstood entirely that portion of the post.
When I said
Quote:
|
Why on earth would we NOT allow for SOME slight restrictions to be placed, if it would result in saving lives?
|
I was stating that as a hypothetical question which is or may be posed by the other side. Talking to myself. Playing devil's advocate. As in:
"Why on earth would we NOT allow for SOME slight restrictions to be placed, if it would result in saving lives,
you might ask of me?"
Oh nevermind. I see that you understand that fact; that you're just pointing out that we've already gone down the road of significant restrictions ourselves. Yes, I know that of course, and excellent point. I was just keeping things simple for our foreign friend - and keeping a little bit theoretical/idealistic of how it SHOULD be, particularly in light of his undoubtedly skewed view of how the US of A is in its gun laws - I perceive Europeans to perceive us as basically wild west shootouts - no gun laws at all - nothing could be further from the truth of course, and most if not all of the 20,000 + federal, state, and local gun laws on the books are unconstitutionally violative of the 2A, but I was thinking hypothetically, in an ideal world, how the US WOULD BE, and hopefully WILL BE AGAIN someday, a TRUE beacon of the light of pretty much unfettered freedom vis a vis gun rights. I can be optimistic in light of the recent pendulum swinging back on gun issues it seems with things like CCW in 31 states - I attribute most of the pendulum swinging back in the US due to (1) the internet spreading truth about guns and gun rights, and (2) the overwhelming success of CCW laws, and the impeccable social science that shows that they save lives and reduce violent crimes across the board.
P.S. "Exposition" ===> Euphamism for "Rant" - I like it - thanks! 