I think that video would have better represented the argument of how bad guys will still get guns if all guns were banned.
Sure does. Every form of "regulation" that limits the classes of "armament" that can be sold is a form of restriction. Increasing the legal age does that too. You do know the meaning of the word, no?
I'll even argue that redefining who is "responsible" is a way of doing so as well.
As for the stupid infographic being stupid. You seem to completely overlook that introducing stupid graphics is a point of failure in an "intelligent conversation".
Comparing the selling of tacos to the purchase of tacos would be effective if the point is to demonstrate "regulations only matter from the point of the profiteer".
Ham-fisting guns into it doesn't demonstrate a working logic.
Sure doesn't. The 2A ensures that the people have the right to bear arms in case of a tyrannical government. Aside from what can be inferred from the federalist papers, technically speaking having access to a bb gun could be considered enough to bear arms against said government, from the point of view of the government. At no point does the Constitution explicitly state that the people should be allowed to have the exact same armaments as said government.
You can redefine "responsible" all you want, but if we're saying that people who aren't responsible enough to abstain from shooting up a school, a church, a mall, what have you, should still be allowed to own guns, well... I'm curious to see someone fight to have prison inmates keep their gun rights.
Well coming from someone who clearly likes to bastardize their interpretations of words and their meanings, I can see why you think the graph and the intent behind it is stupid. Just because you don't understand the idea behind, or agree with it, doesn't mean it's stupid.
The point wasn't the difference between sale and purchasing rights, it was to highlight one of the many ways regulation has failed from an overarching point of view. But feel free to redefine the graph however you like; at least some of us won't resort to calling you or your information stupid because we don't understand it or disagree.
Ham-fisting the right to protect something that isn't going to be taken away does not demonstrate working logic either. It does, however, further breed the fear campaign that seems to have many a Republican up in arms (You like what I did there, didn't you? You don't have to admit it. I know)
Technically, that is part of their job, to uphold the law and protect the innocent, which does involve risking their lives if someone is a dangerous enough criminal. There was no reason why they couldn't go in and stop the guy with the number of officers and guns they had.
I thought this same thing myself, but
@Foxi4 provided a link quite a few pages ago that proves this is false. What confuses me though is why the police have operated under the guise of serve and protection for so long if in fact that's far from the truth.
To the last sentence, I will still say someone should've gone in there. Hell, I would've, officer or not. But if we can't expect the cops to do anything, they certainly should've not had the right to hold the parents back from going in themselves. Seems to a precarious situation to be in if the cops won't save the kids but the able bodies parents are kept from it as well.