Quote:
|
That's a good argument for banning firearms in general, given the plethora of airsoft and other replica firearms.
|
How is it a good argument for banning firearms in general? And I don't understand the reference to airsoft and replicas. They are not, in fact firearms, so proper gun safety protocol, while advisable, doesn't bear the same consequences if not followed. My post was about items that are guns, but look like something else, an already prohibited category of firearms.
Quote:
|
One problem with this whole argument is that we are working hard to come up with how to concede the ultimate argument, which is the right to bear arms. The "we'll give this up if you agree to not go after the rest" is an inherently losing argument. Basically, we are debating how to lose best.
|
No, I am saying that all small arms ought to be protected. The SCOTUS has already indicated that 2A protection won't exist for dangerous and unusual weapons. My position that no commonly used small arm is dangerous and unusual. A zip gun, etc. is not in common use, nor has it ever been.
These types of firearms are already prohibited, so that
loss has already happened. The debate is on what gets protected from here forward. This thread is an attempt to brainstorm, if you will, what dangerous and unusual means. Or could be argued to mean in court. As a 2A proponent, I want that as broadly defined as possible.