>>>>>>>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.

If you fail to miss the point I'm making here, that is not my problem. You can claim your rights as much as you want, but that does not make it right. As you said before, laws are subject to change and refinement, because it is understood that they are incomplete, ineffective or both. Not everything the law allows you to do, is morally right.

BTW, you were the one starting the cherry picking, not me. The cherry picking always has been the political instrument of the NRA, by pointing to the few odd cases where a gun saved lives and ignore the order of magnitude lager number of cases where it took lives.

90% of Americans agree with that the gun control laws need to be tightened, but I get the impression you do not feel obligated to agree upon the democratic principles to let that happen and cheer for any power to block that, with nothing more than the argument "its my right".

>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.

I would not lower myself to that level jake.... I never took anything in the bible seriously. And why do you want me to compare you to hitler is beyond me. Perhaps, because you would like me to do that not having to address any argument from me? That would be too easy, won't it?

Walter,