Reply #35: well you did make an attempt to articulate your position

[OhioBlue]

so I will give you that..

but your last comment seems combative.. nice soundbite... but totally inappropriate. the ONLY thing in my post that could be interpreted as stating a fact is when I said legislation would go through a process and then have to be enforced and litigated. I'm pretty sure you don't disagree with that.. but I could be wrong.

The problem I see is that gun rights advocates look at a proposal like the one from Congresswoman McCarthy - whose intention is to limit the rounds in a clip in weapons like those used to spray bullets into victims in AZ or in her husband and son's train and automatically demonize it as trying to take away people's hunting guns. If there is language in the proposed legislation that does more than the stated intention, that should be pointed out and the legislation should be changed before it comes to a vote.

Now.... you can still be opposed to the intention of the legislation and oppose it in its final form while at the same time acknowledging the actual stated intention and discussing in a civil manner how to make the proposed legislation's wording match the stated intention. That does not seem to be the way most gun rights advocates view things tho - it comes across as black and white - good and bad and all proposed legislation needs to be demonized - they're gonna take ur guns.