Why do many pro 2ndA just default between all guns v no guns

Correct.
An admittedly ignorant opinion means nothing.

 

It's all there for you to read, which you fail to do.

 

Yes.
And it confirms you have no rational, reasoned or factual argument against my response.

 

Try again, and again, and again MShooter

 

There's no need for me to try at all, as you -continue - to confirm you have no rational, reasoned or factual argument against my response.

 

I joined as a life member when I started competiting-The NRA was the NGB for Olympic skeet shooting. I haven't given them anything in years. I am also a life member of ATA, NSSA. NSCA USPSA, IHMSA, and the NFAA. The last gun group I gave money to was the SAF

 

england had a collective bed wetting over Dunblane and lawful safe Brits with handguns had to turn them in.

 

on gun issues, the gun banners generally are factually deficient and invariably dishonest as to their motivations.

 

People have one right, to be responsible in a society. Everything else is Utopian.

 

We still have handguns, did you not know that???

Only the regulation on overall length changed, did you not know that???

 

There are pro gunners, gun regulators, and gun banners. I don't know if there are any gun banners on this forum.

 

Mindless nonsense.

 

Right.
The UK only banned handguns with less than a 12" barrel, and an overall length of under 24".

 

Britain bans 95% of the Handguns Americans can own
citizens cannot carry concealed handguns
Most people cannot own any

 

anyone who supports any law that prevents citizens with clean records from owning any type of firearm that their civilian police may use is a gun banner.

 

It is akin to saying you can own any car you want as long as it cannot go more than 20 MPH and can carry no more than one passenger

 

The words of the 2A are hardly my opinion.
I thought you said you were a lawyer. You don't know this?

 

Turtledude Esq at your service. what do you need to learn?

 

That's not how that works, and if that's what you're saying its not wonder you get the push back you describe.

You want to basically divest humanity of any right but a nebulous right to do as you say.

 

Again: You're offering an interpretation and opinion on constitutional law without reading the cases.
I am a lawyer, which is why I'm telling you this is how it is. Poor benighted little lay person, fret not: I'm here to help you.

 

Yes, and crime soared in the UK after the ban -- especially gun crime.
A rational UK government would have repealed the ban and encouraged the people to start carrying concealed handguns.

 

What opinion was that?
I offered a couple.

You're not capable of helping.

 

ah contraire. We lawyers are here to help.

 

I think because the human psyche has a tendency to think in terms of simple "yes or no", "black and white".
That and typically the most extremist voices tend to be the loudest and drown out the rest of the debate.
Someone who has a more moderate nuanced opinion, for example, is less likely to take the time and effort to try to make their voice heard on an issue or effect policy change in that area.

 

gun banners generally are in favor of banning all guns even if they don't say it

Here is the mental path that anti gunners take

1) restricting what Honest People can own will decrease the ability of those who commit violent crimes with firearms from getting guns

2) the "Right" of the public to be safe from violent criminals is superior to the right of gun owners to own guns

Once they have made those two decisions, gun bans are easy for them to accept-especially since their incremental restrictions never reduce crime

of course-that is applicable to those who ACTUALLY believe gun control imposed on non-law breakers is crime control. For those who want to harass gun owners-of course they want to keep increasing the level of harassment