Originally Posted by cutthemdown
I disagree because we have tons of gun laws already. Not like it hasn't been debated over and over. You could say same thing about dems refusing to cut the budget to raise debt limit. Earlier they were bargaining so does that imply they already agreed cuts were needed?
That doesn't answer my question: where are the gun nuts willing to draw line regarding the ownership of "arms?" And what is their rationale for drawing that line? Or are they not willing to draw any line at all (i.e. anything can be owned under the umbrella of "arms")? I hear plenty of complaints about "infringing on their rights," but basically nothing regarding what "arms" control (if any) they are willing to accept. Tell us what's acceptable in your view and explain the rationale, and we can work from there.