Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on background

[liberty]

I think almost everyone both liberal, conservative and moderate would like to keep weapons out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally incompetent. The problem is a matter of trust. Any law written could be a stepping stone to greater restrictions, just a way to get the camels nose under the tent so to speak.

How about this as a suggestion: let the proponents of second amendment rights write a bill that would be passed without amendments that could achieve the above mentioned goal and see what happens.

I believe that if a bill had enough protections in it for gun rights it would pass.

[Scooter]

I think almost everyone both liberal, conservative and moderate would like to keep weapons out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally incompetent.

There is a difference between saying you want to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill and actually believing it. By their actions the gun nuts have proven that their commitment to this principle is nothing but lipservice.

Any law written could be a stepping stone to greater restrictions, just a way to get the camels nose under the tent so to speak.

Demonstrate how the bill in question could have been a stepping stone to any greater restrictions. Did you even bother to read it, or are you just flapping your gums, as usual?

How about this as a suggestion: let the proponents of second amendment rights write a bill that would be passed without amendments that could achieve the above mentioned goal and see what happens.

They have refused. So what's your next plan, dumbass?

I believe that if a bill had enough protections in it for gun rights it would pass.

This one had every protection in the world and was defeated regardless. So what now, moron?

[Lord Jim]

Some comments on recent posts...

Which brings me back to my current hobby horse:

On public policy grounds (i.e., not just "because the NRA is a powerful lobby"), why shouldn't the Second Amendment be repealed and gun ownership made a restricted and heavily regulated privilege? What justification is there for a "right" of gun ownership?

Actually Sue, at this point I think "dead horse" might be more appropriate....

We've flogged that particular filly into a fine mist....

You seem to be implying that the only reason there's broad and deep support for the 2nd amendment is because of the NRA; this is simply inaccurate. The overwhelming public opposition to repeal of the 2nd Amendment doesn't spring from some sentiment manufactured by the NRA; it springs from the fact that the right to defend one's self, one's home and one's loved ones is a deeply held and cherished American value. (Not by you apparently, but by the overwhelming majority of the American people.)

From a pure numerical standpoint, as the polls over background check expansion show, the NRA leadership is not particularly persuasive or effective. Despite the most cynical and dishonest propaganda campaign since the California Teacher's Association ran ads claiming that school vouchers would result in witches covens running schools, the NRA leadership completely failed in terms of reducing public support for the modest compromise background check bill. Support for the bill was 80% plus for every single sub group polled (Democrats, Republicans, independents, gun owners, even rank and file NRA members...overall, the numbers were in the 85-90 percent range) at the beginning of the discussion about this, and those numbers never dropped.

What they did succeed in doing is ginning up the paranoia of that hardcore 10-15 percent with a fear mongering disinformation campaign to the point that they had those folks ringing the phones off the hook on Capitol Hill.

This is where the difference in voter intensity that Long Run mentioned plays an important role. If 90% of the people favor something but you know they're not likely to vote against you based on that issue alone, but the other 10% will vote against you based on that one issue, that 10% is going to have political clout far greater than the number alone would indicate. Particularly if you think you're going to be facing a serious primary challenger or a close general election race.

It takes political courage to oppose that 10% in that situation; a commodity which, (as I pointed out earlier) was in shamefully short supply on this issue.

The whole paranoid delusion that the government is about to take people's guns away is just stupid.

Sadly.
* * *
why shouldn't the Second Amendment be repealed and gun ownership made a restricted and heavily regulated privilege?

This contradiction is why federal gun regulations proposals go nowhere. Those who favor an expansive reading of the 2nd Amendment know that the bill that was just "shot down" was one of the first steps of many to get to where those who want to make gun ownership "restricted and heavily regulated" want to move the laws (like the laws in low crime cities like Washington D.C.).

Long Run, this is a completely unjustified fear. It doesn't matter what Sue or other advocates of repealing the 2nd Amendment want; their position has very little public support and adding that to the nature of the Amendment process, there is a zero percent chance of it happening within the living memory of anyone currently on this planet. (And of course, now that the Supreme Court has correctly recognized the right to bear arms as an individual right and the principle justification for the right as being self defense, repealing the 2nd Amendment is the only way that the "restricted and heavily regulated" crowd could get their way.)

It's silly for folks to oppose modest, commonsense measures to reduce the lethality level in this country because of a fear of something that as a practical matter is never going to happen. People should not be frightened by the words of those who would repeal the 2nd amendment, when their capabilities to achieve this are nil.

Even what they call the bill "common sense gun legislation" is kinda demeaning to those who are pro-gun. A slight, saying the pro-gun have no common sense.

That may be the rhetoric oldr, but it is clearly not the reality....

I own a gun and I strongly support the 2nd Amendment, and I have no problem calling the bill that was just defeated "commonsense legislation". 80% plus of all gun owners supported this bill; presumably they are not "anti-gun".

Any law written could be a stepping stone to greater restrictions, just a way to get the camels nose under the tent so to speak.

Lib, I have to say that doesn't show a very good understanding of how the legislative process works in general, and certainly not a good understanding of the legislative history on this issue....

The history of the success of gun legislation in this country, (good and bad) hasn't been a slippery slope; more like climbing the face of El Capitan....

One law does not automatically lead to another; each piece of legislation is considered separately and subject to the same fairly daunting process of becoming law on it's own merits. On top of that, as I pointed out earlier, we now have SC decisions in place that create an iron barrier against the usurpation of the right to keep and bear arms through the regular legislative process. Again, it is an unwarranted fear.

A couple of other things I'd like to say in closing here....

I am absolutely disgusted by the way LaPierre and Co have attempted to paint everyone who supported this bill as somehow "anti-gun" or as someone out to destroy the 2nd Amendment. Not only is that factually and demonstrably false (as so much of what the leadership of that organization has churned out about this is) based on the polling, I find it personally offensive. I don't need that slimey, amoral, lying sonuvabitch trying to tell me that I want to destroy the 2nd amendment.

In addition to their blatant and shameless lying about the content of the bill, one of the more despicable other moves the NRA pulled were their TV ads claiming that large percentages of police officers and police chiefs and sheriffs opposed the bill. What they didn't tell you were that these numbers didn't come from any scientific polling; they were drawn from opt-in pseudo polls on a website, where anyone could vote as often as they liked. (The fact is that most of the major police and sheriff organizations in the country endorsed the bill.)

Given the way LaPierre and his henchman have used it, it almost makes me feel that we ought to look at repealing the 1st Amendment....

[Big RR]

[quote]I own a gun and I strongly support the 2nd Amendment, and I have no problem calling the bill that was just defeated "commonsense legislation"./quote]

Jim--I don't own a gun, am probably less of a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment than you are (although I do think we must take it into account when considering any legislation in this area), and has no problem supporting most of the bill in question, but had a problem with the assault weapons ban. Since you characterize it as "common sense legislation", perhaps you could tell me how assault weapons differ from other weapons which would not be banned; so far as I can see (and I may well be wrong), it appears to be just a matter of appearance, not of firepower, ability to rapid fire, etc. If a weapon is being banned just because it "looks dangerous",that does not appear to be commonsense to me. Is there something I am missing?

Edited to add: Sorry, I just realized the final bill did not have the ban attached, although many democrats strongly favored its inclusion. It's still an issue that confounds me, but not in the final bill being discussed in this post (as I understand it).

[Lord Jim]

Big RR, in this case, to clarify, the bill I was referring to in that post was the one that was actually voted on; the compromise proposal to expand background checks.

Of the three proposals that were originally advanced; expanded background checks, magazine size restrictions and the assault weapons ban, though I was willing to support it, I have seen the assault weapons ban as the most problematic and also the part likely to have the least impact. (Personally, I felt the magazine size restriction would have been the most valuable)

ETA:

Edited to add: Sorry, I just realized the final bill did not have the ban attached, although many democrats strongly favored its inclusion. It's still an issue that confounds me, but not in the final bill being discussed in this post (as I understand it).

Gee Big RR, if you'd said that originally, you could have saved me all these key strokes...

[Lord Jim]

I've posted this before, but because it's really well written and I believe has relevance to our current discussion, I thought I would re-post it....

Here's an example of another guy that LaPierre apparently believes wants to "destroy the 2nd Amendment"....

Here's an article written by Larry Burns, (a Republican Judge, who presided at the Jared Loughner trial)

A conservative case for an assault weapons ban

Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.

Loughner deserved his punishment. But during the sentencing, I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The ban wasn't all that stringent — if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else — but at least it was something.

And it says something that half of the nation's deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. It also says something that it has not even been two years since Loughner's rampage, and already six mass shootings have been deadlier.

I am not a social scientist, and I know that very smart ones are divided on what to do about gun violence. But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them.

Bystanders got to Loughner and subdued him only after he emptied one 31-round magazine and was trying to load another. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, chose as his primary weapon a semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines. And we don't even bother to call the 100-rounder that James Holmes is accused of emptying in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater a magazine — it is a drum. How is this not an argument for regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire?

I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the "mass" out of "mass shooting," or at least make the perpetrator's job a bit harder.

To guarantee that there would never be another Tucson or Sandy Hook, we would probably have to make it a capital offense to so much as look at a gun. And that would create serious 2nd Amendment, 8th Amendment and logistical problems.

So what's the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.

I even say it as someone whose feelings about the NRA mirror the left's feelings about Planned Parenthood: It has a useful advocacy function in our deliberative democracy, and much of what it does should not be controversial at all.

And I say it, finally, mindful of the arguments on the other side, at least as I understand them: that a high-capacity magazine is not that different from multiple smaller-capacity magazines; and that if we ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines one day, there's a danger we would ban guns altogether the next, and your life might depend on you having one.

But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure.

There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Gun enthusiasts can still have their venison chili, shoot for sport and competition, and make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are a part of the SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden.

It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action.

Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Larry Alan Burns is a federal district judge in San Diego.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/20 ... n-20121220

I hope folks don't just read the highlighted portions; it really is worth reading the entire article. For my money, of all the many words I've heard and read on this since the shooting at Sandy Hook, this is the most spot on perspective I have seen. I agree with every word.

[Lord Jim]

How about this as a suggestion: let the proponents of second amendment rights write a bill

Lib, the people who wrote the bill on background checks that was voted down, were all "second amendment rights proponents"...

As were the overwhelming majority of the members of the Senate who voted for it...(I'd be surprised to learn that there are more than half a dozen 2nd Amendment opponents in the entire US Senate...maybe a few of the most left wing; and perhaps there are a few dozen in the House)

By phrasing that the way you did, you have fallen into the trap LaPierre has set whereby he wants everyone who doesn't embrace every element of his most extreme and absolutist position to be considered an opponent of the 2nd Amendment.

I categorically reject that.

ETA:

If you think about it, if LaPierre were correct with this position, then the 2nd Amendment really would be in serious trouble; since 90% of the public supported this bill...

But since polls show that an overwhelming majority of the American people also oppose repeal of the 2nd Amendment, he is obviously wrong. (Which of course he well knows.)

[Big RR]

JIm--I think the article you cited makes a pretty compelling case for limiting magazine size; not as much for banning assault weapons (I'm not sure what "particularly deadly" weapons are). Good reading. Thanks.

[Gob]

The history of the success of gun legislation in this country, (good and bad) hasn't been a slippery slope; more like climbing the face of El Capitan....

Is that with or without a baby?

The Nose (the easiest way up the main face,) has been climbed in an incredible 2:23:46, Hans Florine and Alex Honnold, and was recently free-climbed by Lynn Hill in less than 24 hours,

It goes at about E1 5b, in real money. I've climbed at that grade, but, obviously not for that sustained height. It's still a reasonable challenge, but not out of the capacity of a good average climber.

[liberty]

http://news.yahoo.com/senate-democrats- ... 00548.html

The most ardent gun rights advocates literally stay up at night worrying that each gun regulation they allow to pass could be the one that sets off the avalanche that turns this nation into some sort of gun-outlawing regulatory hell. This group of people is naturally suspicious of arguments for "common sense" gun control, not so much because they really think that their gun rights would be in any sense compromised by the recently defeated revisions to the existing background check regime, but rather because they do not think that the advocates for the aforementioned regime will be content to stop once background checks are in place.

Many of these pro-gun individuals would be fine with background checks. But they fear, with some reason, that if they concede on background checks today, then the next time some madman gets a firearm and kills 30 people, the same proponents of background checks will be harnessing public outrage by turning the families of the victims into lobbyists for what they will undoubtedly label "common sense" reform that decent American couldn't possibly oppose. For that reason, the position of many gun rights advocates is that they prefer to defend their right to "keep and bear arms" from the Rhine so they will never be forced to do so from the Rubicon.

[Scooter]

So rather than pass a common sense law supported by 90% of Americans, your government should continue to appease the paranoia of a handful of psychotic gun nuts. Sure, makes perfect sense.

[Lord Jim]

But they fear, with some reason, that if they concede on background checks today, then the next time...

No Lib, there is absolutely no rational reason for anyone to fear anything like that, for the reasons I've recently outlined in this thread. Given the rulings of the SC, so long as popular support for the 2nd Amendment remains as strong as it is, that fear is completely "unreasonable"....

I'll tell you what I believe would be a much more "reasonable" fear....

It would be reasonable to fear that if the legislative process continues to be unable to pass even the most modest measures favored by 90% of the public, that the frustration level might rise to the point that the broad support the 2 Amendment has traditionally enjoyed could deteriorate, and then you might very well have the sort of change that no 2nd Amendment supporter wants. (Including me)

The best way to make certain that basic gun rights are preserved is to have the most absolutist uncompromising types like Wayne LaPierre thwarted.

[Sue U]

Some comments on recent posts...

Which brings me back to my current hobby horse:

On public policy grounds (i.e., not just "because the NRA is a powerful lobby"), why shouldn't the Second Amendment be repealed and gun ownership made a restricted and heavily regulated privilege? What justification is there for a "right" of gun ownership?

Actually Sue, at this point I think "dead horse" might be more appropriate....

We've flogged that particular filly into a fine mist....

You seem to be implying that the only reason there's broad and deep support for the 2nd amendment is because of the NRA; this is simply inaccurate. The overwhelming public opposition to repeal of the 2nd Amendment doesn't spring from some sentiment manufactured by the NRA; it springs from the fact that the right to defend one's self, one's home and one's loved ones is a deeply held and cherished American value. (Not by you apparently, but by the overwhelming majority of the American people.)

First, I didn't say that "support" for the 2d Amendment "is because of the NRA." I specifically asked you -- and anyone else -- to provide a reasoned justification for why gun ownership should be enshrined as a constitutional right, and to do so without referencing the perceived political power of the NRA (or any other lobbying group), or even the difficulty of an amendment/repeal process. Once again and quite to the point: What is the rationale for a presumptive "right" of uninfringed gun ownership as opposed to a strictly regulated privilege? Simply claiming a right of self-defense is nothing more than misdirection to evade a genuine answer, as it's simply not any part of my question. There is absolutely nothing about repealing the 2d Amendment that curtails anyone's right of self-defense -- with or without a firearm.

So why won't you -- or anyone else -- just answer the question that was asked?

[Lord Jim]

What is the rationale for a presumptive "right" of uninfringed gun ownership as opposed to a strictly regulated privilege?

This really is deja vu all over again...

That construction remains (as was pointed out before) the complete strawman and false choice it was the first time you posed it....Nothing has changed to magically transform it into anything else in the intervening time...

Once again, the reason it's a strawman and false choice is because the SC has made very clear that 2nd Amendment does not require a "right of uninfringed gun ownership". So every time you pose this, you are comparing a mythical thing that does not exist to your preferred course of policy. (That would be the very definition of a strawman and a false choice.)

There is absolutely nothing about repealing the 2d Amendment that curtails anyone's right of self-defense --

I'm sorry, but on it's face that would appear to be an absurd assertion; would you care to elaborate on how that could possibly be rationally true?

So why won't you -- or anyone else -- just answer the question that was asked?

It's been answered repeatedly, you just don't like the answer. Your bizarre assertion that repealing the 2nd Amendment would do "absolutely nothing" to "curtail anyone's right to self defense" , is a clear rhetorical attempt to discredit the answer, but I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.

If you want to discredit the right to defend one's self , home and loved ones as the legitimate justification for the 2nd Amendment, you'll have to explain how a claim that seems self-evidently false is instead true; (ie , There is absolutely nothing about repealing the 2d Amendment that curtails anyone's right of self-defense") That burden lies with you...

Until you have succeeded in doing that, that explanation continues to stand as the legitimate answer to the question that you keep insisting no one has answered...

[Sue U]

If you want to discredit the right to defend one's self , home and loved ones as the legitimate justification for the 2nd Amendment, you'll have to explain how a claim that seems self-evidently false is instead true; (ie , There is absolutely nothing about repealing the 2d Amendment that curtails anyone's right of self-defense") That burden lies with you...

Until you have succeeded in doing that, that explanation continues to stand as the legitimate answer to the question that you keep insisting no one has answered...

The Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to self defense; it guarantees a "right" to "keep and bear arms," which "shall not be infringed." Whether or not you own a gun, you have a right to self defense. Regardless of whether you have a constitutional "right" or just a restricted privilege to own a gun, you would have a right to use it in self defense. Even if you owned a gun illegally, you would still have a right to use it in self defense (although you may be charged with a weapons violation, but that's a different matter entirely).

And you have the Supreme Court's Heller decision exactly backwards: It didn't use self-defense as a rationale for the Second Amendment; it used self-defense as an argument to individualize the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms." That there is a constitutional "right" to bear arms was already the indisputable conclusion, as there was (and could be) no challenge to the Second Amendment itself on such a case; the only thing at issue was whether a law banning handguns contravened that constitutional right. But what I am asking is whether there should be any such constitutional right at all in the first place, which is a political question (not a legal one) that requires a public policy justification (not a constitutional interpretation).

I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to grasp that question, other than that you are being willfully obtuse. Here, I'll start your answer for you: "We need to maintain gun ownership as a constitutional right rather than a regulated privilege because .... "

[Lord Jim]

I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to grasp that question, other than that you are being willfully obtuse.

that's a good one...

No, the "willful obtuseness" is all on your side my good Madam, and while I don't have the time at the moment to properly deconstruct your sophistic interpretation of Heller, (you don't even mention McDonald) and your fairly skillful rhetorical legerdemain, (I would expect nothing less of you... ) please rest assured that I shall do so in the next couple of days...

[Sue U]

I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to grasp that question, other than that you are being willfully obtuse.

that's a good one...

No, the "willful obtuseness" is all on your side my good Madam, and while I don't have the time at the moment to properly deconstruct your sophistic interpretation of Heller, (you don't even mention McDonald) and your fairly skillful rhetorical legerdemain, (I would expect nothing less of you... ) please rest assured that I shall do so in the next couple of days...

This is not about Heller or MacDonald or any judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment. Again, it's NOT a legal question, IT IS A PUBLIC POLICY QUESTION. Very simply, if you think gun ownership needs to be maintained as a constitutional right rather than a regulated privilege, explain why. What is the public policy that requires such a right and how is it advanced by such recognition? It's not a trick question. Just complete the sentence: "Gun ownership needs to be a constitutional right rather than a regulated privilege because .... "

[Lord Jim]

Okay, well now you seem to be abandoning all your strawman false choice atmospherics, and not even making an attempt to defend your strange "There is absolutely nothing about repealing the 2d Amendment that curtails anyone's right of self-defense" assertion, as well as your attempts to play word games regarding the relevant SC decisions... and now you're asking for a straight forward answer to a straight forward question...

Which I am happy to give you:

The right to defend one's self, one's home and one's loved ones is a deeply held and cherished American value. The "right to keep and bear arms" is fundamental to preserving and protecting that right. It is all together fitting and proper therefore, that this right, (though not absolute, as I've made pretty clear in everything I've written about this...no Constitutional right is absolute) should be enshrined in our Founding Document, as much as the right to Free Speech, or The Free Exercise of Religion, or any other deeply held and cherished American value.

Obviously, you can disagree with me on this...You may think the answer stinks to high heaven...

But will now at least concede that your question has been answered?

[Sue U]

Okay, well now you seem to be abandoning all your strawman false choice atmospherics, and not even making an attempt to defend your strange "There is absolutely nothing about repealing the 2d Amendment that curtails anyone's right of self-defense" assertion, as well as your attempts to play word games regarding the relevant SC decisions ... and now you're asking for a straight forward answer to a straight forward question...

Which I am happy to give you:

The right to defend one's self, one's home and one's loved ones is a deeply held and cherished American value. The "right to keep and bear arms" is fundamental to preserving and protecting that right. It is all together fitting and proper therefore, that this right, (though not absolute, as I've made pretty clear in everything I've written about this...no Constitutional right is absolute) should be enshrined in our Founding Document, as much as the right to Free Speech, or The Free Exercise of Religion, or any other deeply held and cherished American value.

Obviously, you can disagree with me on this...You may think the answer stinks to high heaven...

But will now at least concede that your question has been answered?

I have never offered a "false choice." I have explained to you as simply as possible that with or without the Second Amendment, the recognition of a right to self defense is completely unaffected. I have clearly stated that the issue I am presenting has nothing to do with any court ruling. I have asked repeatedly for an answer to a straightforward public policy question. I have asked the same question four times previously on this page alone. Nothing about what I am asking has suddenly changed, that it now miraculously allows you to answer.

And no, you STILL have not provided an answer. You have not even attempted to explain how a constitutional right to gun ownership is in any way "fundamental" to self-defense, much less how it is in any way distinguishable from or preferable to a regulated privilege to effect the same purpose. The "right to defend one's self, one's home and one's loved ones" is not a uniquely American value (the modern version of such a "right" originating in ancient English law), and I am certain it is equally cherished by Australians, Canadians and even the Welsh -- none of whom require a constitutional right to firearms. I have gone so far as to start your answer for you, so as to give you a clue as to what the issue is, and you stubbornly refuse to read the plain words set out before you. If you have no answer, that's fine. If you need to take time to think about it, that's fine, too. But don't try to pretend you have supplied any kind of actual public policy rationale that mandates constitutional recognition of a right to gun ownership.

[Lord Jim]

I have never offered a "false choice.

Oh for the love of God....

You offered a choice between:

"a right of uninfringed gun ownership"....

Which does not exist...

It's like unicorns or centaurs, or The Tooth Fairy...

There is NO SUCH THING...(at least not under US Constitutional law)

And you gave that as the only other available alternative to your choice:

" a strictly regulated privilege"

You don't see constructing a choice between something you recommend and something that does not exist as a "false choice"?

Really?