The semantics of gun control...

[beevul]

153. Did I mistake you for someone who uses the terms ammosexual and gun humper?

I'm a gun control pusher. "I got ya gun control over here for $5", "get cha gun control". Just that, that calling me a "pusher" lets me know that you are not on the level to actually talk to, there is no way any kind of logical or rational discussion is going to happen between us.

Did I mistake you for someone who uses the terms ammosexual and gun humper? If so, My mistake, but its an easy mistake to make, as I'm sure you understand, given the behavior of some of those on your side of the issue.

You could surprise me, I mean actually the majority of Americans want more gun control http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx but ya got your narrative so instead you call me a pusher instead of actually having a rational discussion with facts and numbers and such things that are dangerous to you.

Support for gun control is a mile wide and a millimeter deep.

A lot of us even have guns and cant understand the disconnect between what it takes to have guns versus a car. ID=gun, Drivers license, insurance, taxes, registration, testing = car.

Wrong. Drivers license, insurance, taxes, registration, testing does NOT = car. It = authorization to use a car in public. No drivers license insurance registration tax or testing is required for simple ownership, or for a vehicle not used on public roads. And theres no background check. An equivalent already exists too. Its called concealed carry. Somehow, I don't think that's what you had in mind. No, I'm pretty sure you meant, was applying the same requirements to simply own a gun, as are required to drive a car in public.

No dice. Driving in public is a privilege, owning a gun is a constitutionally protected fundamental civil right.

Your only argument is the constitution, the same one that said slaves were fine.

I could swear that the constitution didn't originally mention slavery at all.

There is no moral argument, no intellectual argument, no argument based on logic at all that guns cant be more controlled.

That's your opinion, and far from fact. In my view, there is no morale argument, there is no intellectual argument, no argument based on logic at all, for making the lives of the innocent more difficult, for zero exchange in public safety, at the cost of the rights of the innocent. The majority of proposals I've seen do that, and people like you know it, and just say "well, we have to start somewhere".

Just strict (not really) adherence to words on a paper that itself gave the power to change as the times do.

Like I said: There isn't enough of you gun control folks to make a big enough "we" to get that (amending the constitution) done.