ChangoLanzao

That's a non-sequitor. Some laws are necessary and effective despite the fact that we know there are people who will violate them. So we need this law to take the weapons away from the people who would never use them in the manner that caused us to need the law, while full well knowing it's not going to stop the act that caused us to need the law. If I were a liberal I'd be calling you names by now. Of course, that isn't what I'm saying. Laugh all you want. Your logic is flawed. If my logic is flawed it's not anywhere near as flawed as yours. Gee. Well, I'm glad that's settled!

Your logic is flawless, of course. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure you're aware of the nuances involved with this issue. There is no doubt that the NRA facilitated this crime by helping to ensure that the weapons and ammo are readily available and law enforcement is unable to prevent it from happening. For fucks sake. Do you really think this way? Yes, I do and there are many more of us. Ah, but the last 12 years has proven that all of "you" don't amount to jack shit. Feinstein today says that this topic has no business in the 2012 election. When you can't even get a whack job like her to propose action in the aftermath of a terrible shooting like this, you're fucked. We're fucked. But we're not giving up. It's a good thing it jammed. If those magazines and AR-15's we're MUCH harder to obtain, then it could have jammed his whole plan. No I'm not. I just happen to think that this is a perfect time to bring up the need for stricter gun controls, especially on these type of weapons. I would be making the same arguments even if he failed to kill anyone. You're quite wrong and banning the assault rifles and "high capacity" magazines will make it more unlikely that they will be used again. Good for you. You should have to work even harder to get hold of these kinds of weapons. I'm sure you could probably do it with shotguns and knives if you wanted to. Identify the people AND make it far more difficult for them to obtain these kinds of weapons.

At the very least we can define one that exists everywhere and forever in order to justify spending unlimited amount of money on the military forever. Oh? And churches and charitable organizations don't have to fight each other for funding? My experience in organized religion has taught me that the only real enemy is other religions. They are the one's that take our funding (and our souls). That is what organized religions do. They fight each other for funding and for souls. Funding and souls are everything. Poor people are just the pawns used to obtain funding and souls.

I suppose you'll want to argue about what "publish" means, but here's one small example: "I think it's Katrina. I think it's terrorism. I think it's crime. And I also think that it's people worrying about [whether] they'll be attacked by politicians," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "They're suspicious, and justifiably so." Here's another gem by NRA celebrity spokeman, Chuck Norris: “How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?” If that isn't insurrectionism, then what is?

Oh! I thought this was your original position: I was puzzled by your assertion that lazy poor people should not be rewarded. You haven't explained what you think should be done with them except that you think Christian ministries should reward them with charity and that they will no longer be lazy because their values will somehow be adjusted by the ministries and they will then no longer be poor because they will begin to work hard or something. Why do you think the government is competent to run the military, but not capable of being competent to help lazy poor people and adjust their values? What about all of the HARD WORKING poor people out there. Do you really think that if the government helps them out, they will become lazy too? If so, then why aren't you afraid that the government will make military personnel and contractors lazy also?

I am saying I've witnessed this BS since 1964 and President Johnson's Great Society. It has not worked. Poor lazy people are simply useful idiots for the Liberal Democrats. Poor lazy people need to be taught to value personal responsibility and personal achievement. How do you teach them that, without converting them to Christianity, of course. What about poor, lazy Republicans. I guess we haven't even talked about them yet. That reminds me ... do you think there are very many RICH, LAZY people out there who sit back and make tons of money not producing anything of value? If so, do you think that LAZY people are OK and don't cost us anything as long as they are rich?

Agreed. Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; Seems pretty clear. Yes it is. It applies to well-regulated militia. It doesn't apply to any schmuck who wants to arm himself to the hilt at the neighborhood Wal-Mart because he thinks that he may someday need to defend himself *against his own government*.

VALUES CLARIFICATION???? So, you are saying that the best way to deal with lazy poor people is through "values clarification"? So, basically, you're against any method that Liberal Democrats try to use to help the poor, lazy people? That's nice.

If you are so confident the big guy is coming back, why would you give a flying rat's ass about what happens in this world? Would you rather not error on the side of being Christ-like by giving away every dime, spend time with the sick and imprisoned and turning the other cheek? Every generation since Jesus has thought that the end of times were at hand, your prayers are hardly unique. Giving to the poor is Scriptural. Government funding of the poor for political power is not. My prayers are not meant to be unique by the world's standard. Organized religion knows a thing or two about funding of the poor for political power.

That's the reason why they agreed on a constitutional form of government putting The Rule Of Law above all else! It's preposterous to assert that the Second Amendment is there for the purpose of allowing any well-armed citizen to decide which laws they will accept as legitimate through the force of arms. (I believe this is one of the arguments that the NRA included in their amicus brief in the Heller case.) According to the NRA, "The Framers also sought to ensure a well-regulated militia by guaranteeing private ownership of firearms, as civilian ownership and use of firearms would confer experience and arms invaluable to militia service, and a right of private ownership would prevent the federal government from effectively disarming the populace by declining to organize the militia." It doesn't matter how many weapons you collect, the Federal Government will defeat you if you try to overthrow it by force. The Civil War should have settled the matter. Nullification through armed conflict is exactly what The Constitution must prevent. Having a bunch of seriously armed insurrectionists each deciding on their own that the federal government is the enemy is the worst possible scenario. It can only lead to chaos and tyranny.

You are expanding the parameters of the immediate question. You have drifted into the classic guns or butter argument. I vote guns. It is that simple for me. Sorry. Didn't mean to go off-track. So. Back to the immediate question. What do you think we should do with the lazy poor? Saying that the Christian ministries will take care of them simply begs the question. They will still be poor and lazy, won't they? We will still have to provide them with food and shelter won't we? Assuming that the Christian ministries would even be capable of taking care of all the lazy poor people, where will they get the resources needed to take care of them? Have you done the math?

Go look it up. I'm asking you. I'm not going to argue with you about the definition of "assault weapons". It doesn't matter how many times you ask.

Go look it up.

I will also go shoot my guns. And I've already made an additional donation to the Brady campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

That's a non-sequitor. Some laws are necessary and effective despite the fact that we know there are people who will violate them. So we need this law to take the weapons away from the people who would never use them in the manner that caused us to need the law, while full well knowing it's not going to stop the act that caused us to need the law. If I were a liberal I'd be calling you names by now. Of course, that isn't what I'm saying. Laugh all you want. Your logic is flawed.

Well, in midieval England, the Church levied taxes; lots of them. Some of the taxes went to help the poor, some to build bigger churches. As far as the root cause of abuse, that can't all be laid at government's feet. Just for example, a few years ago, the head of United Way was found to be using donations for his private expenses. Almost all charitable organizations have suffered some misappropriation of funds. I'd say that the root cause is human greed, plus the availability of something to get greedy about. I hope we don't close all the emergency rooms because some people come in looking for drugs to feed their addiction, nor close all the soup kitchens because some people who don't really need the charity abuse it. +1

True. I could, but I don't blame the movie industry for this at all. I never said that I thought that the NRA is FOR gun violence. (Although I do think that many NRA members are convinced that the Constitution gives them the right to use the threat of gun violence against the government in the event that the government passes/enforces laws they disagree with.) I do believe that the NRA is mainly interested in putting as much weaponry and ammo in the hands of every American citizen with little or no regulation. They are a clear threat to our constitutional form of government because of the insurrectionist propaganda that they use to to undermine efforts to regulate firearms. What NRA produced material are you reading? I must say I have never heard them called a threat to our "Constitutional form of Government" before, that is a new one, to me. Maybe, it is just how one reads things and interprets those same things, based on their Ideology. Matt Clearly, you haven't been doing enough reading.

It's not a knee jerk gun ban we seek. We've been working on it for many years and we won't give up until assault weapons are once again banned and gun regulations tightened. The reason we live under the rule of law is precisely to prevent this kind of approach to crime.

True. I could, but I don't blame the movie industry for this at all. I never said that I thought that the NRA is FOR gun violence. (Although I do think that many NRA members are convinced that the Constitution gives them the right to use the threat of gun violence against the government in the event that the government passes/enforces laws they disagree with.) I do believe that the NRA is mainly interested in putting as much weaponry and ammo in the hands of every American citizen with little or no regulation. They are a clear threat to our constitutional form of government because of the insurrectionist propaganda that they use to to undermine efforts to regulate firearms.

Care to comment on how the ban on illegal drugs is working? A ban on any type of weapons will work out just the same. Actually, it's not the same. This crime has nothing to do with the drugs. Stop trying to change the subject with false equivalences. That's not what the anti-drug camp says. Let me guess, your all for legalizing drugs. I am for banning the sale and manufacture of assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and regulation of firearms.

What, exactly, DO you think we should do with the "Lazy Poor"? Let the various ministries care for them, like in the old days. But, as President Nixon so accurately stated, once a government program has been funded it will never go away. And, that is where we are stuck in our demise. Where would "the ministries" get the resources to "take care of them"? How would "the ministries" take care of them without "rewarding" them? Take a look at the Salvation Army, Metropolitan Ministries of Tampa FL to name a couple. Christians love to donate to their favorite ministries. I worked for both of those organizations. What we found, in the Tampa Bay Area, is that the welfare scammers draw their government checks and lie to the social service ministries to the extent that a social service background check network is required. That way there is some chance of weeding out the system abusers. System manipulation and abuse is a way of life. IMO, government funding is the root cause of the abuse. So, you're saying that it's OK for the Christian ministries to reward lazy poor people by giving them handouts? You think that government funding is the root cause of the abuse. Do you think that this is just limited to funding of programs to help poor people. For example, if government funding is the root of all evil, then wouldn't it be better if the Christian ministries funded the military too? Wouldn't Christians step up to the plate and help defend our country while at the same time making sure that military contractors won't abuse the system?

Your logic is flawless, of course. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure you're aware of the nuances involved with this issue. There is no doubt that the NRA facilitated this crime by helping to ensure that the weapons and ammo are readily available and law enforcement is unable to prevent it from happening. For fucks sake. Do you really think this way? Yes, I do and there are many more of us.

Care to comment on how the ban on illegal drugs is working? A ban on any type of weapons will work out just the same. Actually, it's not the same. This crime has nothing to do with the drugs. Stop trying to change the subject with false equivalences.

Your logic is flawless, of course. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure you're aware of the nuances involved with this issue. There is no doubt that the NRA facilitated this crime by helping to ensure that the weapons and ammo are readily available and law enforcement is unable to prevent it from happening.

That's a non-sequitor. Some laws are necessary and effective despite the fact that we know there are people who will violate them.