The idea that a democrat is naturally smarter and more enlightened has gotten old. We’re having a civil conversation stating opinions. If that’s a problem, I’ll go elsewhere.

Normally, I would agree with you. Civil and constructive debate is something that is needed in politics…..However….
i see it as a knee-jerk reaction by us liberal progressives. For more than half my lifetime (and I am gaining on 50 y.o)we, the little working guy without the money for fancy educations was snickered at, talked down to, and basically left in the dark with nothing but the “crap” they fed us, just like a bunch a mushrooms. The measures taken in the last 25 years to increase the wealth and decrease the taxes of the extremely wealthy and the destroying our livelyhoods by outsourcing jobs and making union a dirty word. We feel that for decades we had NO voice and that the governemnt was corrupt and we could do NOTHING about it. Well, we finally did something about it and elected the man we felt would most protect the rights of the backbone of American society, the blue collar worker.And we were quite willing to hear the republicans ideas and try to work things out. But since the MOMENT he took office nothing but opposition, name calling and fearmongering has come out of the GOP. I mean, be realistic, for the first 5 years of Dubya’s administration they had control of washington. And in those 5 years some opposition from the left was felt and critisms were made, but nothing like the firestorm of hate and rabblerousing that has come from the right media and most horrifyingly, from republican political officials. And honestly, you don’t think that a lot of the things that have been said and done recently by republicans and the right media sounds less than intelligent? Michelle Bachmann is a prime example of this. ALso an example would be th GOP’s budget report they put out.
Why would you do more of the same things that got us into this mess in the first place. And most importantly,do you think that saying that we are being too hard on rich people and bankers in the middle of the worse economic crises in 70 years is intelligent? One last thing…this is what confuses me the most about the republicans right now. Why in the hell are they acting surprises and horrified by what the President is trying to do. It’s not like they were blindsided by his views. HE IS SIMPLY KEEPING HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES! If the republicans actually kept campaign promises then we wouldn’t be in the messes we are in right now.

For me personally – I own a gun, but don’t do so in order to protect myself from a government gone wild. We have Blackwater to protect us right?

Maybe you didn’t get the point of my analogy. I have a right to decide which types of guns I want to own, just as I have a right to decide which kinds of speeches I want to make. And, like any right, there are limitations to both. I can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, just as I can’t own a bazooka.

But does the fact that my right is limited in one respect, mean that it can be limited in all respects? Certainly not, for if that argument held, there would be no rights at all.

Since these two extremes are ridiculous, let’s bring it down to reality.
Can you scream “TERRORIST” in an NRA meeting hall? Or will they all shoot each other?

“But does the fact that my right is limited in one respect, mean that it can be limited in all respects? Certainly not, for if that argument held, there would be no rights at all.”

But your ridiculous notion also, lays into the other side of the extreme which is everyonewill have right to do everything. And that is not true.

The “responsible” middle ground is the place of true patriots. Not the fringe. Have guns, but background check the shit out of everyone, and license them, and tax the shit out of the ammo. And identifiy every bullet. You can own it, but with it comes the responsiblity to know where every bullet is at every moment, and have a vested interest (money) in making sure the gun is used only in the most needed of circumstances. Like protecting the homefront. And “arms” only pertain to those guns that are reactive in a one to one fashion. One click, one bullet fired.

Responding to the tragic death of an 8-year-old Connecticut boy at a Massachusetts gun club, a key legislative committee voted Tuesday on a measure designed to keep machine guns out of the hands of anyone under 16.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-machine-gun-vote-0401.artapr01,0,7075800.story

A kid at a gun club was given an uzi to shoot at a pumpkin. He lost control of the weapon and shot himself in the head. It’s sad that there has to be a law to tell an adult not to put a semi-automatic weapon in the hands of a third grader.

The authors of the Constitution, in their darkest nightmares, never imagined the firepower a single person can carry. Back then, a trained soldier could only get off between one and two rounds per minute and one could escape or neutralize that person while reloading.

You’ve a right to buy a gun you like out of the options that are allowed, just like I can’t ask for a bazooka but I can ask for a pistol.

Laws can set the limits on firearms but it never removes all firearms because that would be unconstitutional.

Do you understand what I’m pointing out?

Eric T Says:
08Dariana Says:

The constitution gives you a right to own a firearm, where does it says you have a right to demand a firearm that you like?

Where does it say the government, has the right to select what guns you can have. It doesn’t, it say “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Can we put you down in the “supports the right to own a rocket launcher” column?

How about the “supports the right to own tactical nuclear weapons”?

Your comparson are just as wrong as the previous my point has nothing with killing, I’m simply pointing out that even if they do ban semi-automatics you can still buy Manual guns.
Like I said the constitution say that you’ve a right to own a firearm, it doesn’t give you a right to buy wichever you pleas if it did assault weapons would be legal, they’re not.

Where does it say the government, has the right to select what guns you can have.

That would be covered by the Preamble to the Constitution. I memorized it in grammar school.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I believe that concerns about mass murderers would fall under:
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

I would like to see an honest debate about high capacity weapons as well and consider adding them to that list.

Don’t add them to the list, most gun crimes are committed with pistols, the percentage of crimes with high cap rifles is very small.

Maybe you didn’t get the point of my analogy. I have a right to decide which types of guns I want to own, just as I have a right to decide which kinds of speeches I want to make. And, like any right, there are limitations to both. I can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, just as I can’t own a bazooka.

But does the fact that my right is limited in one respect, mean that it can be limited in all respects? Certainly not, for if that argument held, there would be no rights at all.

The constitution gives you a right to own a firearm, where does it says you have a right to demand a firearm that you like?

Where does it say the government, has the right to select what guns you can have. It doesn’t, it say “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Would you be calling for alcohol or automobiles to be banned after a drunk driver killed some people. Or demanded all nightclubs and bars be shut down?

Would you ban porn, if some pervert got all fired up after watching it and went out and raped and killed someone?