I don't care how long semi auto weapons have been available, there is now a reason to ban them. They were invented for one reason, to kill more people, more rapidly. My point remains begin eliminating civilian ownership and use of mass killing style weapons. You can still own a gun, jus be a single shot.
I consider having close to a billion iPhone users worldwide giving up their right to privacy is going nuts.
Well as usual, gun nuts will be condescending because I used the word clip instead of magazine. ( see I can be condescending as well) When I was in law enforcement the term clip and magazine were used interchangeably. And for my purposes more than one round at a time is excessive for civilian use..
As for banning cars, no that's currently not practical, but since you raised the subject doing something more to reduce the 40,000 deaths a year from vehicular accidents seems to be a bit more worthwhile than the money, time and effort spent to reduce the 15 terrorist deaths.
For some unknown reason, we respond with complete disregard to proportion of actual and potential damage done. 3000 people killed 911, mostly by Saudis. So we spend over two TRILLIAN DOLLARS, wage a ten year war against a country that had nothing to do with it. Killing and wounding 10s of thousands of US citizens, not to speak of million Iraqis. Destabilize the entire region, help create Isis. We sure do get the bang for the buck don't we.
As for armed citizens stopping crimes. This is quite rare, and will usually bring charges or actions against them. Had a guy with ccw stop two women fighting at GM tech center. He may have saved life of woman being knifed. Course he lost his job because GM has strict policy of no guns on GM property.
If anyone the police are better prepared, trained and ready to defend themselves against attack. Yet more cops are killed each year than save themselves when an unannounced attack occurs. It defies imagination that a gun carrying civilian, caught unawares, would for some reason perform better than trained officers.
I never assumed you trust the government. We all have reasons not to, based on being lied to over the years by our government. The only real defense against this is a truelly free independent press, with investigative reporters. Not owned by a few rich men that promote their own agendas claiming it to be news.
Finally, I stand by my statement that no armed civilian group will withstand a governmental attack. Your 1946 gun fight, while interesting altered nothing. Bunch of guys got to shoot at each other, show how tough they are, but in the end here is what happened.
The new government encountered challenges including at least eleven resignations of county administrators.[citation needed] On January 4, 1947, four of the five leaders of the GI Non-Partisan League declared in an open letter: "We abolished one machine only to replace it with another and more powerful one in the making."[10] The League failed to establish itself permanently and traditional political parties soon returned to power.[7]
Now that we are done with the gun issues, my whole point which has been made, is that for some people, their pet amendments mean everything, while other amendments, and people's inherent right to privacy seem to be secondary. Too bad there isn't an organization like the NRA that will lobby and spend money to promote privacy rights as strongly as owning guns. And this organization would represent world wide right to privacy, not just one country.
