""So, IF I were to say "I HAVE said that Free Speech advocates have had the laws their way for a long time, and I don't like the results... and it's time to see if stronger, ENFORCED restrictions will help."

will be answered with pretty strong language. It is NOT relevant to the topic, and it is NOT something I would have said, and it is NOT a proper refutation of anything!"

So, if YOUR rights under the Bill of Rights are endangered, THAT would be cause to complain, BUT wqhen the rights of Gun owners under the Bill of Rights are talked about, you will go along if you think it might make you safer.

Well, ** I ** think that under those condiotions, I will have to support laws that restrict YOUR freedoms, since I can certainly come up with reasons that someone would be safer if you could not have free speech, or freedom of religion, or the other rights.


It most certainly IS relevant, since the only reason YOU have those rights is the fact they are in the Bill of Rights: If you weaken the Constitution to get at something YOU consider a danger, you will have NO defense when others weaken it about something you consider to be good.