>>>>>>>>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.

"morally right?" By whose standard? Yours? Or should the world live by Utilitarianism?

Does that mean that you think our Constitution, Amendments, and Bill of Rights need to change? I think not. However, I do not see how background checks in any way take away the right to bear arms other than for criminals who already lose certain rights. It is no different than requiring id when voting. You can still vote and you can still purchase a weapon. Both are "rights." The question is, how difficult is it acceptable to make exercising those rights to be? What weapons are acceptable to be included in those rights? Which are excluded?

All criminals didn't start out as criminals though. They became criminals at some point in time. Some of those may already have weapons purchased legally.

On a totally separate note, it is interesting that most Dutch Americans are Republicans.