Why the NRA hates smart guns

Post by schismsubv » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:30 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #310

schismsubv wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point (indeed, long ago) your behavior has simply become illustrative of how to poorly carry out an argument, much less a constructive conversation. In an amusing irony, your behavior is an extreme parody of the exact inflexibility you claim to be so incensed about. You are lost in a childish authoritarian fantasy, and I regret that for you. I expect this is casting pearls before swine, but your proposal is n…

Your comments in this argument became increasingly uncivil. I know that's the nature of flamewars, but please don't let it happen here. HN is aiming for a civil, substantive discourse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

Post by gozur88 » Fri, May 06, 2016, 6:38 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #162

schismsubv wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have missed the GP's point - go scan through the admittedly silly but illustrative cartoon linked. Gun rights have been repeatedly nibbled, sliced, and cut away over the past century, all in the name of "reasonable compromises". Said "reasonable" "compromises" have progressively eliminated a large swath of gun ownership rights and put the average owner in constant risk of felony. Example: an individual ma…

Gun owners have given up rights time and again, to zero gain of their own. My question is simply: what is the thing they would like to gain ? The NRA's modern reinterpretation of the Second Amendment (and make no mistake: they are pushing a modern invention, not a historical understanding) does not appear to allow the possibility that any compromise would be reasonable. Hence anything which is not a complete and utte…

Post by gozur88 » Fri, May 06, 2016, 6:52 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #242

schismsubv wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You presume I must agree with your selective interpretation of historical writings as viewed by you through your own personal filter, because for you, your interpretation is the only logical conclusion. Since that is so firmly settled in your mind I see no use in further arguing that point. The problem is that you keep talking about compromise and an all-or-nothing attitude, but ignore the fact that gun owners have b…

your interpretation is the only logical conclusion My interpretation of the Second Amendment is the only logical conclusion one can reach following a review of commentaries on it, and on the general view toward and position of firearms in the United States at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. Since that doesn't match the interpretation preferred by the NRA and its fans in the present day, the onus is on t…