Any gun regulation will result in the abolition of all firearms.
That was never the argument.
The argument was, that any gun control brings us 1 step closer. That argument is unassailable, which is why it was twisted.
Constitutional rights are absolute.
I wish the ones who scream this the loudest, would remember it when complaining about the PLCAA, but as far as PLCAA detractors are concerned, some rights ARE absolute. Just not the rights they dislike.
We have finally hit upon an argument that is occasionally brought up but not as quoted in that article. Some pro-control folks will, in the wake of a major news making "mass shooting", use that event to justify the passage of new laws that would have had no effect on the event or its outcome. Further, when a pro-RKBA points that out, they are usually countered by accusations of parroting the NRA, having no compassion or "not being a true Democrat".
Its not just mass shootings. Using the instance of someone who stole a gun and killed a cop as an example of why we need (more) background checks, rubs people the wrong way (Gun haters excepted). It smacks of dishonesty, which is a deal breaker on the gun issue, for far far more people than any of our friends on the other side of the issue will ever admit. Such dishonesty strongly implies that they have no actual
applicable example to use, which begs the question of how significant the problem is that they claim they're trying to solve. Or if there even is one.
For about a tenth of a second, I start to think, "someday, they'll learn", but then that tenth of a second is up, and I'm brought back to the stark reality that they will
never learn, because they think what they're doing is working, or because they're too invested in it to change, or both.
= new reply since forum marked as read