Why do anti gun extremists hate stories about self defense

You asked the question. You wondered why I inquired: I've answered. You've fought the hook and been wrong. No one cares.
As stated: YOU ASKED THE QUESTION. You don't get to pretend you didn't make the choice to type it out. If you don't like the result: Be less flippant in your responses and don't open the door.

What lie? You asked the question.

So you're perfectly fine then? A clear answer like we have given you is what basic forum courtesy would require. Not to mention, you don't seem to have the courage of your convictions when you won't simply state them and explain your reasoning.
The rest of us have answered the questions posed to us honestly. What, precisely, is it that makes you think you're somehow immune to doing likewise and still proceed in good faith?

 

So...
You DO believe the prohibition of any weapon, including nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, is an infringement.
Thus, you DO support the right of the people to keep and bear nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
So... what's your point?

 

My point is, many people, even those posting here for gun rights, have their own line in the sand for infringements.

 

you keep trying to justify all sorts of restrictions by pretending yours are no different than someone who agrees that private citizens shouldn't own militarized anthrax, ICBMS or that prisoners in jail should be disarmed

 

"Infringement" has been defined by the USSC. What you think is and is not an infringement does not matter.

 

What other restrictions have you seen me post?
They should be real easy for you to find.

 

The 2A explicitly states what would be an infringement.
So, it's not what I think, it's what is written.

 

<snort>
What is the explicit definition of "infringement" as found in the 2A?

 

And in doing so, ignores and obvious non-seq.

 

Have you read it?

What the Second Amendment Says
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

 

Yes.
You said:
The 2A explicitly states what would be an infringement.
I asked:
What is the explicit definition of "infringement" as written in the 2A?
Well?

 

I take it to mean any infringement on arms bearing is an infringement.
That's not your take?

 

You said
The 2A explicitly states what would be an infringement.
So, it's not what I think, it's what is written.
I'm waiting for your definition of infringement, as stated by the 2nd.

 

Long time passive aggressive attacks on gun ownership

 

This particular failure to understand the basic tenets of reason is especially amusing:
"The constitution allows limits on the right to keep and bear arms, so (intent relevant limit here) is constitutional"

 

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Shall Not = never.
Don't you agree?
Is this difficult to understand?

 

You claimed "infringement" is defined in the text of the 2nd.
Clearly, you knew you were wrong when you made that claim.

 

they hate stories about self defense, because democrats and their politicians always want to be the victims. and someone trying to murder a republican, and a republican with a gun only shooting a democrat only out of self defense, is something that looks bad on the person trying to murder.

sorta like kyle rittenhouse.

plus self defense, doesn't help push their Anarchist/Socialist agenda. Things like defunding the police, and burning down buildings, and riots in the streets. After all, they have to be able to justify such things. or at least try to.