BSH wrote:There you go again, putting the cart before the horse. If you want to pass a restriction on a constitutional right, you must show good evidence that doing so serves a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to do just that and does so in the least restrictive means possible. None of the recently proposed gun law revisions has been accompanied by any EVIDENCE that such proposals would have a real effect on crime and public safety. Unsupported assertions are not evidence.
The issue regards referring to gun nuts as "unreasonable." When one makes such a claim, the suggestion is that the gun nut is acting without reason
. In such a case it is not necessary for me to provide evidence.
Regarding your comments directly: the main thrust of your statement is incorrect; no evidence is required to change the Constitution, only the desire of the people. And any changes to a Constitutional right should be done in the interest of the people
, not the government. Especially a government undergoing a slow motion coup like ours is enduring.
And if you really don't see any reasoned, evidenced cause in our society to reconsider the Second Amendment, you are one of the unreasonable gun nuts.