kill others. Well, to kill and to play with as a recreational item (toy bothers some too much to use here, but appropriate).

The ban of course makes perfect sense, with or without what happened last week in Paris.

You wont hear millions of people complaining about it though.

They do that here. I am using the word "complaining" because the word I want to use would get me in trouble.

Only doctrinaire anti-gun zealots see semi-auto rifles as built solely to kill others.

Insist on banning something that's a minor factor in crime based on how it looks and makes them feeeeel.

What, rifles overall were involved in less than 275 crimes all last year, according to the FBI?

Let's keep trying to ban the most popular rifle in North America anyway, because they look scary to them.

While we're at it let's ban racing stripes on Dodge Omnis, because ir makes them look too fast.

Kinda sounds like that "Bull Connor School of Charm" at work; "I don't like they way they look, so get 'em outta here".

No wonder they can't get anything done in the legislatures and have to make the NRA the big bad boogeyman to excuse their regular lack of any kind of success.

That, the semi-auto ban, laws that include only or principally only rifles and mostly all prohibition-like laws about most any objects (as opposed to behavior) belong in that great and apparently unflushed toilet with the AWB.

Adjusting to that concept in the real world seems to be a challenge for some.

But it is about the only strategy you and your fellow travelers have left, besides whining online about the evil NRA and gun owners.

money of the NRA, we cant do that

I say I but I mean our government, of course.

Then I could live in a state where guns are outlawed, and you could live in one where everybody has one.

It's working so well, attracting support for your "cause". Brady has what now? Maybe 400 dues paying members? Everytown and MDA are so desperate to look legitimate, they consider anyone that "likes" their Facebook page a "member".

Clinging to the imaginary "militia" interpretation isn't going too well either. You're hard pressed to find any serious legal scholarship that actually supports that idea. But some people probably mourned the loss of Dredd Scott too I bet. They're still losers too.

Just can't accept that the American public just doesn't like your flavor of the 2nd amendment and when given choices doesn't vote that way? The 5 million dues paying NRA members must have bought off all those appellate judges that ruled against more gun control too I guess.

At least a few people that don't keep track might buy into the NRA $$$ myth.

They probably don't know that Bloomberg gave gun control $50+ million last year and gun control pissed it away on losing campaigns in three states, in some cases outspending the NRA 7 to 1 and they still lost.

But please, by all means, keep that imaginary big NRA bank account front and center as your excuse and you'll keep failing dismally.

caused daily by unnecessary guns.

Its not your place to determine whos guns are necessary or not, and while you may not know it, the majority of Americans know it full well.

Presuming that it is, is why you lot will fail and fail and fail.

The rest of the civilized world, also does things like beating confessions out of people, bans silverware to those under 18 including plastic, and a whole lot of other nonsensical to completely offensive bullshit examples.

Beyond that, 99.9x percent of gun owners in America do not use guns to commit gun violence, and 99.9X percent of guns in private possession in America are not used in the commission gun violence.

We are keeping our guns, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Find another object to direct your hatred towards. With luck, you can find something that everyone, or hell even a majority, agree with you on. If I were you I'd steer clear of alcohol and MJ, but each to his own.

In over a decade here, we have yet to find one gun control supporter who ever does anything besides whine online about how horrible guns and gun owners are and offer up the NRA as their excuse for utter failure and irrelevancy.

No petitions begun or signed for CCW repeal, no town hall meetings to speak out against a new gun range or gun store, no legislator meetings to speak their mind.

Just a lot of smoke and online mirrors, no real activity in the real world.

Based on the evidence, we have to assume either gun control supporters are really lazy, or they don't have any infrastructure to guide them on what to do and where to do it.

Tell you what, so you don't feel bad, you can pretend that the reduction by over 50% in gun crimes and "sick and twisted deaths" in the last 20 years is because gun control was so "outspoken".

In the meantime, we'll each decide for ourselves what is and isn't necessary for our lives, not some self appointed "moral better".

then why are you going after the guns that kill fewer people than bicycles?

But going after the guns that kill the most people (by a ridiculous margin) doesn't advance the culture war.

So your emotional needs are irrelevant.

The 2nd amendment clearly does not provide for an individual to own a gun other than within the regulation of a militia.

This is a basic fact.

Just like George W Bush did not win that election, even though the SC insisted that he did.

Because our party platform clearly states that the 2A protects an individual right. Our president has also publicly said the same.

So to some extent yes the NRA has its influence in our party.

Obama could NOT be elected if he took any other position, no politician could.

Just because the majority of us want something, doesnt mean it is good or right or beneficial.

We are a deeply flawed nation when it comes to guns, this is simply a fact.

They support it but not with any enthusiasm or deep support. It is never been a high priority for Dem voters therefore it goes nowhere.

The right of "the people" to be secure in their papers and effects (to paraphrase) doesn't mean "well, there is a collective right to privacy but no individual has a guarantee of privacy". It means that ALL INDIVIDUALS have an INDIVIDUAL right to be secure in their papers and persons and effects.



There are three entities in the 2nd Amendment: the State, the militia, and the people. "The people" in the 2nd means the exact same thing as "the people" elsewhere in the constitution.

completely.

Not completely.

You also cant be 100% certain you wont shoot an innocent person by mistake, not 100%.

The military comment is meaningless, they fall entirely under separate legal cover.

Look, this is simple, the rest of the civilized PLANET has done away with the need to have guns over the downside of having them.

We havent.

We are debating anything, you are insisting on holding on to a dangerous, sometimes childish behavour, and people like me are asking you to stop.

wait, why am I explaining this to you, if you dont know the difference between military and police, we are wasting our time here

A difference that makes no difference, is no difference.
Apparently, yes we are.

Mainstream America sees the need, the addiction, to control others, as a dangerous, sometimes childish behavior.

See prohibition, the war on drugs, folks against free speech and the first amendment...and on and on and on.

Make no mistake, you are squarely in the camp of the prohibitionist.

Like gun controllers like to say, a gun owner is responsible until they are not. Same with nations. They are civilized until they are not.

Get support structures and economic security into place in the USA and then let's start talking about civilized nations and gun control. By the way, it's unlikely we're going to get more civilized laws and safety nets in the USA without more gun owners voting democractic party candidates so the gun control folks are faced by a Catch 22 or more simply short term pain for long term gain situation.

The same applies to the majority of gun owners. So your sophomoric and simplistic meme is wrong.

when you do, and you wont hear another peep out of me.

Remember, to be a Dem is to support gun ownership as an individual right. It is in our party platform.

against the rational plan to do away with them since the cause so many issues.

So either you really really want one, or you argue for the fun of arguing, so I assume you really want one.

Why?

Competitive shooting has been my sport for decades and I will not give it up to cater to your irrational fears. Not complicated.

I mean, you personally?


If that's how you see the world, then how do you even leave your home? What if you just decide to grab a baby carriage and whip it out into traffic?


Can you guarantee, 100%, that you WON'T shove a toddler into traffic?

Terrorists use automatic weapons, bombs, suicide vests, and grenades to kill over 100 people.

Response: Ban semi auto weapons.


Makes about as much sense as this hypothetical:

Wolves responsible for killing livestock.

Response: Ban pit bulls.

Disarming me won't make my family safer. Period end of debate...