>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Projection again. I wasn't the one who brought up Australia. I was the one who pointed you in the direction of their own statstics. I didn't narrowly define "safe".
>>>
>>>>90% of Americans agree with that the gun control laws need to be tightened,
>>>
>>>Incorrect. 90%, in one poll mind you, agreed with a question. When asked about the specific legislation that number dropped significantly. When the poll was broken down by state, the votes were in line. Again, I've posted this all before, you simply choose to ignore.
>>
>>Yes it's all a matter of how the question is worded. I think it's safe to say that most American's want universal background checks and registration though.
>
>I completey agree with this. However, we are not a democracy. We are a representative republic designed so that the majority rules with the consent of the minority. Even if the entire population of California, New York or Texas decides they want some particular law does not mean they get to force it upon the nation as a whole.

Correct. But when it's 90% of the USA population want something, and a bunch of bought & paid-for politicians don't do it, then our representative republic system has failed and is broken.

>>>>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".
>>>
>>>We are a representative republic and the will of the people IS being followed. Constitutionally guaranteed rights are meant to be VERY difficult to change so they do not succomb to the whims of the simple majority at a single point in time. There is a method to change the Constitution and until such time as the will of the people rises to mandate that change, our rights should exist. All of them.
>>
>>While I agree with you in principle, I think the purpose of the 2nd Amendment has been skewed. I don't think anyone with guns is going to stop the government with tanks, planes, nukes, etc etc. There have already been limitations set on this because a person isn't supposed to own a rocket launcher or a nuke. I think it's time we updated this with a new amendment - but like you said it's difficult to do (thankfully).