The response was not of a lower level than what was originally posted.
Really? If I were a fascist I would applaud most of the works of this government not fight to maintain our basic freedoms. Sorry you don't see it that way. By the way please don't try to insult me by calling me a girl. Girls and women have many virtues that are lacking in many males and it is not an insult to call me one.
You can't see very far or very well. I am not nor have I ever been an architect. When you look up names on the internet please be aware that there is often more than one person with the same name. Also I have never lived or operated a business out of Golden.
You frequently refer to legal references that for your information are good till the next one comes along. I have never held myself up as an authority but I do hold opinions that are as valid as most other opinions and usually based in some fact or at least in logic. I look at an executive order that says a president can murder if he so desires and form an opinion of its relationship based on my own ability to read and understand. The same goes for a law that says the president can detain a citizen without trial or real evidence indefinitely. I don't need some other branch of that same government telling me that is not unconstitutional. I know it is. But it is much safer to let those that know more than me decide than to have my own opinion. If I did that I probably would always agree with you and never risk being accused of having a thought different from those in positions of authority.
Really Johnny. How many ad hominem attacks does one have to endure here before he is allowed to defend himself? Apparently you don't read all of the trash your friends post or since they aren't directed at you you see no harm in them. The only ones I attack are the nastiest of the bunch and you can't tell me their attacks aren't of a personal nature. So just cool your pipes and go back to indoctrinating school kids or whatever you do. Since I haven't posted on here for more than a year I could care less if some whining, complaining authoritarian manages to get me removed from the forum. In other words, your threats mean nothing to me. By the way, I believe I have explained and defended my opinions better than most here.
Caliber does not actually define the improperly labeled "assault weapon" . These tend to be 223, 308, 30-06, 7.62 x 39 (as a matter of fact most any 30 caliber round. Some pistols can be placed in this category that shoot 45 or 9mm calibers and probably many more. Hunting weapons span the range of all calibers mentioned. A shooter really proficient with his weapon can do as much damage with a high powered hunting rifle. But if you ban calibers larger than 223 you effectively ban hunting deer, elk, bear etc. I am sure many people would love to do this but I don't think it would go over well.
Many hunting weapons are semi-automatic and have a high rate of fire. Most have not had very high capacity magazines adapted for them but they still have a high rate of fire. I have to say I believe criminal control beats gun control in most circumstances. I believe America has a certain love for the outlaw mentality and refuses to punish many criminals to the extent of effectively curbing their behavior. Good luck with trying to control the mentally ill gunman or bomb builder. You really cannot maintain a free and open society and manage to control all of these factors. You must have some faith in your fellow citizens and realize that sometimes bad things are going to happen.
You say there is no mention of gun rights in the Constitution but with any reasonable interpretation of the second amendment investigating all of the evidence from the time it is apparent that is not true. The Federalist Papers do define a right to gun ownership beyond defense of the state. This is why the second amendment is in the so called Bill of Rights. I believe that is Federalist 45.
A ban by type of weapon would be difficult in the sense that there are millions of all types of weapons in circulation. The ban of sales forward of the law is possible as was done in the previous assault weapons ban although as you pointed out this mostly addressed appearances, not capability. The problem is all of those weapons that are already out there. Would you attempt to confiscate them or demand that they be turned in? This would make it illegal to possess a previously legal weapon and criminalize behavior after the fact. This would create an untenable political position for those advocating confiscation and a dangerous confrontational atmosphere between otherwise law abiding people who refuse to comply and government. I believe in the very harsh punishment of those that commit violent acts with or without guns. Get the pot smokers out of jail, put the cartels out of business and make room for those who commit violent acts. We see many violent criminals set free into society where they repeat their offenses. Unfortunately, this does not address the mentally ill gunman who has never committed a violent crime before he butchers innocent people.
You really don't rate a response but this is for you. You very aptly named yourself DimBulbs but don't try to apply that moniker to me. I doubt that you ever have anything positive to contribute to any conversation but I do suspect that my buttocks is truly more intellectual than your brain. Nothin personal, just sayin.
But making mischief at their expense might be. And don't forget the Obama administration with Fast and Furious certainly contributed to the armament of the cartels. As for the Mexican government's armament, I am pretty sure most of it came from the United States.
Let me see bad neighbor _26. Yes, I do get a few dollars a month in social security which I was compelled to pay into for the many years of work I did earning a living and serving in the military.
If that is the dole to you, fine. It was simply the law to me and I conformed. Now I intend to collect it as I believe is as it should be.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Invention