jerryzflies

Indeed, I spend 5 1/2 years in the North East of Scotland (on the Moray coast)... fantastic part of the world ... I both loved and hated it in nearly equal measures. Lossiemouth? I had a cousin stationed there. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

because it is stupid and pointless. It does nothing to make anyone any safer. We do not not need more pointless legislation that will not make any difference at all other than to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. But, to quote your own words: "The Hunting Rifle is just as capable of doing that. In fact the killer will now just have a weapon that has a little more range if he/she uses a hunting rifle instead. NOTHING else changes." So by getting a hunting rifle you will have a BETTER weapon, and NOTHING ELSE CHANGES. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

You must mean the justices of the Supreme Court, right? If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

You just shot your own argument out of the water - since the ban is on cosmetic features, why the ban at all, since it is nothing but a 'feel-good' measure? Not at all. Animals won't be scared by the cosmetic features of a "scary" gun, so the only logical targets are people. I can see a very valid reason to ban "scary" guns whose specific design feature is to scare people. You shot your argument out of the water (not that you had a good one to begin with, since you folks have come up with so many contradictions in this one thread). If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

The banks have disparaged themselves. Have you not read a newspaper since 2007? If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Chicken tikka with its flavor blunted by yogurt and tomato soup? Nope, no issues. Why do you ask? You must frequent fast-food joints. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Wrong again - we are illustrating the point that the ban is based on COSMETIC APPEARANCES, not any enhanced lethality. Our position is clear - your ability to understand it is evidently lacking. I understand that some of you claim the difference is merely cosmetic (in which case a ban won't hurt you unless you want to be "scary") while others claim greater functionality (in which case maybe the ban is justified). You sure make a lot of fuss about a ban that you claim is merely "cosmetic". If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Scholarships are not charities. ? Most, probably all, private colleges and universities in the US provide scholarships from their endowments. Endowments come from benefactors. Given the miserable state of government funded scholarships in the US right now, I'd venture that most scholarship money at private schools is coming from non-government sources. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Sounds good to me. Why should anyone's contribution to running the country be reduced just because they want to give money to a megachurch or an art museum? Or a local mission for the homeless, or a battered women's shelter, or an orphanage, or the Red Cross, or an animal adoption center, or a boys and girls club, or a food bank, or a local scholarship fund, or a Goodwill store, or a home for runaways. It's called incentiving good deeds and it works pretty well....or did. Why would good deeds need incentives? Isn't being good incentive enough in itself? (Maybe not for Republicans.) The facts: Biden and wife averaged $369 per year to charities in the past 10 years. Biden and wife claimed $995 in charitable gifts in 2007 or 0.3 percent of income of nearly $320,000. McCain in 2007 reported $405,409 in total income and charitable contributions of $105,467, or 26 percent of total income. McCain files a separate return from wife. The totals do not include Ms. McCain’s charitable contributions. Obama and wife donated $240,000 in 2007, or about 5.7 percent of the couple’s $4.2-million in income. Seems I remember Gore and Kerry followed the democrat mold too. I also remember during the election hearing about a poll from one of the big research outfits that people who identified themselves as democrats gave far less overall in dollars and even volunteer work than people ho identified themselves as republicans. That makes sense, though. Maybe Democrats don't give as much to charity because getting a tax deduction would take money away from the government. Fascinating but not relevant. How does any of that information answer the question of WHY a good deed isn't incentive enough? If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

And banning the Assault Rifles will not stop a killer from going on a killing spree either. The Hunting Rifle is just as capable of doing that. In fact the killer will now just have a weapon that has a little more range if he/she uses a hunting rifle instead. NOTHING else changes. So now "regular" firearms are better again. Why can't you guys make up your minds what your position is? You (collectively) are coming over like a bunch of retards. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

So now you're claiming that there IS a difference in functionality. You guys need to make up your minds which of two contradictory positions you are going to use, and stick with it. Switching back and forth according to the needs of the argument just makes you look like liars. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Objectively, one does have to acknowledge the general lack of culinary skills in England. Maybe living on that island has allowed them to evolve without taste buds. You have an issue with chicken tikka masala? If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

The point I'm hearing being made is - folks who try to ban "assault weapons" don't know beans about what they're trying to do. Thus, once successful with such vaguely worded laws, it's just a matter of time before all guns are viewed as "assault weapons". Didn't want to answer my question, eh? "Slippery Slope" is one of the more common logical fallacies. Apparently all you gun folks are agreed that from a functional point of view, you will lose NOTHING if "assault weapons" are banned. So you're whining about nothing, or lying. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Gee and here I thought you lived in the USA... where everyone seems to want their government to do something for them. Isn't that the quintessential definition of socialism?? Personally I would prefer JFK's vision...... doing something for their country rather than expecting to get something for nothing. Doing something for your country could involve paying the taxes necessary to get it out of debt. Unfortunately the last 8 years have shown that Republicans are unwilling even to go that far. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Bad news, but at least user fees instead of excise taxes are better than the previous proposal which was user fees PLUS increased excise taxes. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

OK, serious question here. You've made a very clear statement advocating resistance by force against elected politicians you happen to disagree with, should they cross some line in your perception of things. Every time discussion of the 2nd amendment comes up, someone makes a similar statement. So why is this OK, presumably it makes you a "true patriot" and all that, but when someone else of a different political leaning actually does take up arms to oppose a government they see as oppressive and unresponsive to the peoples will, they are labeled "terrorists". To be specific, why is Tankbuster (and others of similar persuation) a patriot, but William Ayers is a terrorist, and by extention Obama "pals around with terrorists"? I'm really curious about why you don't see Ayers as an "American patriot", since he actually did what you all threaten to do. Don No, I haven't made a statement of that nature. The 2nd ammendment was intended to ensure that government would never get too powerful and oppressive, because of the threat of armed revolution. When I mention those politicians, including two conservative ones, I'm sort of restating that point. They must fear us, respect our right to bear arms and protect ourselves. Not just from home intrusion, but also from an oppressive government. It isn't a threat to any of them, but a warning which was issued a couple hundred years ago, and not by me. While I'm absolutely diametrically opposed to the current "leadership" in DC, they gained power according to the constitution, and I'm just gonna have to grin and bear it for as long as it lasts. Bend over too, it seems. As in the Declaration of Independence, if enough of us believe that government has become destructive of these ends...... Ayers was a terrorist. Just because he opposed the war didn't give him the right to take up arms against the government. He should be behind bars, but since he's not he's gotten smart and decided to change the government legally, by pushing a radically left agenda through the education system. Hopefully, conservatives will be able to counter this movement, also within the law. There's a big difference between organizing a few hippies to plant bombs, and organizing an entire nation to throw off an oppressive government. If it ever does happen, and I believe there's a decent chance of it in the next few decades, there will patriots and loyalists, just like the last one. But why do you need a scary looking "assault weapon" to do this, when you pro-gun folks have told us over and over that regular looking weapons are just as good and maybe better? Or were you lying when you said that? If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Uh........ actually the hunting weapons I use are far more powerfull than any of the typically "scary" looking assault weapons... PLUS... I could VERY easily reach out and touch someone with my better weapons easily past 500 yards. ANYONE who is even slightly familiar with weapons... should know that.... People who are afraid of guns should educate themselves.. and take a class or two.... to overcome their phobia's Rather than regulating what kind of weapons we "BAN"... I would much rather make SEVERE penalties for those who USE a weapon in the commission of any crimes.....period. "BAN" those who misuse the tools... instead of the tool. OK, so if "regular" weapons have at least equal to and maybe better functionality than "assault weapons", WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF ANYONE WANTING SAID "ASSAULT WEAPONS" OTHER THAN TO ASSUAGE THEIR NEED TO APPEAR MACHO? And maybe people who need guns to feel adequate should seek help instead. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

But it's much harder for us to invade Poland. poland's not that far from rammstein.. How many stormtroopers do we have at Ramstein? If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

I believe they are strategically comparable. Regardless, it makes little difference. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

It's not about hunting, my friend. It's about making sure we always have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny. How does the APPEARANCE of the weapon make a difference to that? Surely you want the most functional weapon. BTW, thanks for keeping us all safe from tyranny. I do it by scattering pepper around the back yard. Just as effective, and it keeps the elephants away too. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Companies going out of business are a healthy part of an economy. It serves efficiency.. I guess that's why the economy is so healthy right now. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Tjhere's tremendous arrogance in believing the US can succeed from 7,000 miles away where both the British at the height of their Empire and coming from next door, and the Soviets also coming from next door, failed ignominiously. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

I like the ones at road intersections. Wish we had more of them over here instead of the traffic light plague. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

Thanks for clarifying that! No problem. I think they each should get a chance in a reeducation camp first. They could be subjected to such horrible tortures as Mathematics, Biology, and Civics until they see the error of their ways. and I would give the left lessons in paying your own way, hard work and i can spend my money how I want I've made a 6 figure income for the last 20 years, work hard, pay MY own way, paid off my house, pay my taxes without whining, have never been unemployed since leaving school, and consider myself left of center I'd suggest giving the righties (particularly those in the red states) lessons in paying their share of federal expenses and not expecting taxpayers in the blue states to subsidize them. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

I meant to put the Winchester 70 or the Remington 700. I'm glad you understood my mistake. How about Charles Whitman? The point is that what some have called "assault weapons" are simply classified as scary looking. What you would classify as an assault weapon, has obvious flaws and exceptions. Others have called for a banning of all calibers that are used or have been used by the US military. Well, that's literally just about every caliber made. With all the current gun laws on the books, how is another AWB going to do anything for society except limit our rights as law abiding citizens. Since you folks tell us that the same functionality is found in "scary looking" packages as in more normal ones, what is the purpose of buying a "scary looking" firearm for hunting? Do you want to scare the animals away before you shoot them? OTOH, if the reason is to scare people, then maybe that is a reason to ban them. And if gun folks just want one because it makes them feel macho, maybe they should invest in some penis-enlarging therapy instead. If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.