>>>>>>You can have gun laws (background checks and registration) implemented in just a few months and start seeing results quickly.
>>>>>
>>>>>SNIP
>>>>>
>>>>>What results would you expect to see?
>>>>
>>>>In one year I would expect to see minimal change, so you'd better revamp it to restrict more potential buyers. In another year when the projected results aren't achieved you'd probably have to tweak it again to limit the types of guns that are available for purchase. That didn't work? Those semi-auto rifles and shotguns must be the culprit. That didn't work either? Well, it would be too politically damaging to revert to the way it was, so let's just move the goalposts to make it look like we accomplished something.
>>>
>>>I don't see any problem with limiting semi-automatics. Unless you can explain why they have any useful purpose.
>>
>>You might as well say "I don't see any problem with limiting all guns" since the vast majority of handguns and shotguns are semi-auto.
>>
>>Please define "useful" and explain the "usefulness" of owning a particular type of car.
>>
>>Here are 3 "useful" uses for our 2nd Amendment right : protection, sport, stress relief. Protection is self explanatory. I assume you understand the usefulness of sport since you are a fan of many. As for stress relief, http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/01/stressed-america.aspx.
>
>Ah I see... yes... its my right to own handgranades and rocket launchers, to protect myself against my imaginary enemies who are in fact young children or people sitting in a cinema watching a movie. I find it a sport to kill them all, it really reduces my stress...

>It all makes sense now.

I agree it all does make sense. You've resorted to name calling, cherry-picking, projection and now hyperbole as debate tactics. All the while refusing to address or even consider the points being offered in opposition to your POV.

I'm just waiting for you to compare me to Hitler or throw a bible verse or 2 at me to complete the losing internet debate grand slam.