The NRA is foaming at the mouth about Obama's (strangely unnecessary, IMHO (*)) words about assault weapons. Their lawyer/rep actually said owning assault weapons is a God-given right! No, NOT a "constitutional right" - a GOD-given right!

That's just weird.

[Now we get to watch as a response comes through mentioning Constitutional mention of God...]

=============

BTW - I think prohibition of any type is unthinking and, consistently, proven to be an incorrect method to cure certain woes. This applies to guns, drugs, choice, whatever.

I say let the Gun Nuts (**) have whatever weapons they want - IMHO, they are, in general, NOT the ones we should be worried about having guns.

However...I think gun use should be treated pretty much like driving - you want to drive, you train for it and get tested and licensed. Same thing for gun use. You want to own a machine gun? No problem. Train in its/their use, get tested, get "approved" by appropriate authority.

That's not gun registration, BTW - that's gun user registration. Once confirmed a valid user, that user gets to own as many weapons as they want without a heads up to The Gummamint about any subsequent purchase. And...said training/testing/approval proces JUST might solve the Real Nuts Owning Guns and Shooting Up Malls problem - the NRA guy actually said the NRA wants to stop REAL crazies from owning guns - how strange! But I agree with THAT sentiment!

W.r.t. 2nd amendments rights, etc - the wording is about militias - and USER training fits very nicely into just that wording.

============

(*) Since I think Obama actually has a head on his shoulders I would tend to believe that he literally did not care what the NRA and Gun Nuts thought about his stated assault weapon position because everyone who would have voted against him for those words are already voting against him anyway.

(**) They're Gun Nuts because they think anything "gun" is the most important thing to vote about and literally vote that issue and that issue alone - that's nuts.

More excuses........

One of the top characteristics of intelligence is the ability to place yourself into the shoes of others and empathize with them.*

If you were to research the culture of far-Right American gun rights philosophy and activism, you'd understand why they use that kind of language.**

Here, watch this vid. Maybe it will help you understand their perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ4_V2sBsw8

*This is probably why mud people commit so much violent crime. They simply don't have the brainpower to empathize with their victims.

**After all, you libtards were more than willing to sympathize with our communist enemies during the Cold War and our islamic fundamentalist enemies during the War on Terror. But for your domestic Right-wing enemies? FUCK THEM!1

Yucky24. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> **After all, you libtards were more than willing
> to sympathize with our communist enemies during
> the Cold War and our islamic fundamentalist
> enemies during the War on Terror. But for your
> domestic Right-wing enemies? FUCK THEM!1

Who told you that we sympathized with the communists and the islamic fundamentalists? That was supposed to be a secret.

Can someone actually say what an assualt weapon is and how it differs from say a rifle? Autmatic weapons are already very strictly regulated but if they mean automatic when saying "assault" then why not say so. Is it because it looks like something spec ops would use? The way something looks makes it no more dangerous.

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The NRA is foaming at the mouth about Obama's
> (strangely unnecessary, IMHO (*)) words about
> assault weapons. Their lawyer/rep actually said
> owning assault weapons is a God-given right! No,
> NOT a "constitutional right" - a GOD-given right!
>
> That's just weird.

Many people believe that the Bill of Rights spells out rights which are not just protected, but are rights that are not given to The People by their government. Rather those rights are give to the people by their Creator.

The distinction is important, because if those rights were given by the government, they would be in a position to take them away if they so desired. This theory holds that the government cannot really amend/modify the Bill of Rights.

Since the 2nd Amendment does not clarify what kind of arms it is speaking of, it's reasonable to infer that it is speaking of military type arms. Remember the nation had just been through a war, and citizens were allowed to keep the very same type arms that the British army was carrying (at the time they were arguably the most powerful military force in the world).

You may say that people didn't have access to the type of arms that are available today so therefore they should be allowed to only have 18th century type weapons. However, once you open up that type of test for the Bill of Rights, it becomes reasonable to restrict other rights similarly:

Freedom of speech does not cover radio, the internet or television.
The right to freedom of religion does not cover any religion that did not exist in the 18th century. Right away, Mormonism is banned.
Freedom to print pamphlets/books etc, only covers items printed using 18th century printing presses.
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure does not cover digital content.
Freedom to assemble does not include virtual (internet) groups
Petitions to the government must be completed by pen/pencil and paper. No electronic or machine assisted petitions will be accepted.