First, please include all of my statement you quote.
No. I'll include the part I'm addressing, including contextual surrounding. Nothing more.
You do not get to dictate how others respond to your posts, OC for ME. What do you think this is? Your personal kingdom? It's a message forum! Please treat others here accordingly, with the respect they deserve.
Misleading it is to cherry pick my comments.
No. Cherry-picking, also known as the fallacy of incomplete evidence, is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It has little or nothing to do with responding to individual segments of a person's post on a message forum. I will admit, however, that it can certainly seem that way if when one person is providing salient argument and the other continually ignores the argument, instead choosing bits and pieces at which to either poke fun or worse, denigrate the other person.
Second, the 2A is absolute in its wording, no?
Absolutely.
The feds would be perpetuating the false notion that CC is a privilege via NR vs. coming flat out and stating that any prior restraints, or actions by the state employees to enforce clearly unconstitutional prior restraints, on the peaceable exercise of our 2A (OC/CC) by any LAC is a clear violation of the supreme law of the land, the 2A...
To paraphrase, you opine that national reciprocity is the feds attempt to negate/undermine/bypass/circumvent our Second Amendment in order to regulate either CC, OC, or both via law enforcement.
IF that were actually the fed's goal, then absolutely, that would be a clear violation of "the supreme Law of the Land."
Where you and I disagree, OC for ME, is that you assume any bill supporting national reciprocity would, absolutely, be used to govern carry, to turn it into a privilege.
I vehemently disagree, for a number of reasons.
I happen to know a (small) number of members of Congress personally. I happen to know how they really feel about our Second Amendment and gun control.
I know that some would like to ban firearms altogether, wrongly believing inanimate objects themselves are responsible for violence and that a ban would solve violent crime. These people are incapable of learning from history, much less observing ongoing factual evidence.
I know that some are for increasing gun control while others are for reducing it.
I know that some support very limited gun control in certain, exceptional circumstances.
And I know one or two would be very happy with either bills or court decisions that made it a crime to interfere with anyone's right to keep and bear arms in any way.
The point is, OC for ME, you cannot dismiss all legislature based on preconceived notions. You have to look at the bill. You have to examine it's wording, it's sponsors. A reciprocity bill
could be used as another venue. But it could also be directed solely towards enforcing the Constitutional rights of the people by reaffirming the 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendments.
I strongly disagree with anyone who automatically shoots from the hip merely because something could be used for ignoble purpose. After all, consider what you're carrying on your hip. Consider how the antis feel about that. Your approach to a national reciprocity bill is precisely the same approach as the antis towards your firearm: Oooh! It's bad! Get rid of it!
I'm serious, OC for ME: You're approaching reciprocity bills with the same degree of misunderstanding, ignorance, and vehement hate that haters approach the idea of citizens carrying firearms.
You're also assuming that I would support any reciprocity bill.
Absolutely not true. I would support a bill that enforced our 2A rights. I would oppose any bill that attempted use this as a means to degrade our 2A rights, morph our rights into privileges, or increase local, county, state, or federal authority as to who, what, when, where, how, or why we carry.
Quite the opposite.
Nor do I make the mistake of assuming that just because a bill is entitled "national reciprocity" that it will always trend towards the worst. That's a highly unrealistic and pessimistic tack.
I believe if it was written by Representative Pelosi or Senator Feinstein, that would almost certainly be true. However, if it was written by someone who respects the Second Amendment as it is written, that would almost certainly be false.
Now, would such a bill get off the ground in today's Congress? No. Perhaps if power shifts back in 2020. We'll see.
Written properly, a national reciprocity bill could just as easily be a 2A-protective measure that essentially tells the states to stop violating everyone's Constitutional rights and freedoms, and as a federal regulation governing the protection of Constitutional rights, it carries penalties for states and persons within the state who violate it. I see it operating on the same principle as anti-discrimination laws in the workplace which give discrimination victims access to the courts for suits against law-violating businesses.
and the violator, usually a cop (and legislators for enacting any prior restraint, and judges for not summarily striking down any prior restraint) will be dealt with criminally and civilly.
Pretty confident that the feds aint gunna do that.
The feds have already done that on many levels, most notably, anti-discrimination laws as I previously mentioned.
I made no comments regarding this topic. Please do not use my comments/posts to debate multiple members and their comments/posts.
Sorry, OC for ME, but once again, you do not get to dictate how others manage their posts. In the case of the snippet of which you speak, no, that was not from you, nor did I attribute it to you (see enclosed graphic). But it's my choice, not yours, as to whether or not I choose to reply to multiple posters in my post.
Have a nice day, OC for ME. Or not. Your choice.