Mencth1
” “lets ban automatic weapons” they mean “lets start with this and then we will ban this next and then this next” If liberals would come out and say “we recognize the civilians right of protection in the second amendment , we will stipulate that we need to guarantee those rights, lets compromise…”Then a lot more people would be willing to have this conversation with them . but we recognize the deceit implicit in their words.”
that is the silliest thing in the world. so you are arguing that there are p[eople who agree that peopel are needlesly dieing but it is worth it, to stick it to the liberals who arent being forthcoming about their agenda?
Perhaops you think this way, but it is haerd to imagine many that do.
”
why is the second amendment the only one we need to compromise on? why not the first also? Is all speech really good? shouldn’t we ban some speech also?”
We do ! Look up Schenck v. United States whcih was a unynous decision limiting free speech whn it would cause detah such as shouting Fire in a movie theater
Secondly. The second Amendment EXplicitly says “A well regulated Militia,” nobody intended a wild west free for all with mass shootings being a normal part of life.