[jaguar]

Maggie you’re in a debate, you have to be able to justify your actions and words on issues that are directly related to the debate. Secondly cars are designed to transport people, computers are designed to process information on the other hand assault rifles are designed to fire bits of lead at really really high speeds many times a second to kill things. It’s not a dual-use device like a computer or a car can be, it’s designed to kill stuff, full stop. Big difference. If I’d asked you why you own a car, you'd have a point, I asked you why you wanted to own a high-power firearm designed for killing people (originally) that’s entirely on topic.

Tell me why I cannot have a weapon at my disposal.

Because you have no justifiable reason for needing one. Why can't I have a library of cracking tools, why can't I modify my own hardware in the future?

Defining "arms" is simple; by their original definition or the current one, they are carryable weapons, an extension of the arm. Tanks don't count if they include big guns, and nukes are Right Out.

Really? Got a source for that? Arms I’d take to be a shortened version of armaments which includes everything from single shot pistols to 20mm chain guns on choppers to daisy cutters to nukes.

The woman was assaulted by a man who was drunk, and on psychiatric drugs. I personally think she should have had the opportunity to defend herself.

How about some fucking pepper spray? Situation can be resolved without killing people. This I’m sure is news to the NRA. Tasers, teargas, screamers, non lethal ways of disarmaments are bloody effective, I’d argue more effective in some situations and no one dies. That’s the most important thing in my book.

And yet the Vietnamese now control their own government

You really want to get started on Vietnam? Fine. Firstly if you send a battalion of ordinary Vietnamese into battle, and a battalion of ordinary Americans, you'd have a few thou viets left and no Americans. Secondly look at the toll, the damage decades of war ahs done to the place will take centuries to recover. Thirdly half the reason America lost (the actual battle, not would have happened afterwards) was because a swing in public opinion at home, not losses on the battlefield. Thirdly it was knowledge of the territory that made them so deadly, if you a real-life idea of casualties in such conflicts look at possibly Israeli actions in palatine or the British in Northern Ireland. Army wins, hands down. My belief is if something happened to cause the majority of the population to insurrect (lets say bush declares himself dictator and burns the bill of rights...oh wait he already....nevermind) the army would dissolve into chaos anyway.

My 89-year-old grandfather used to get letters from the IRS that he would just set aside and ignore. Why: well he was 89, he didn't think he had long for the world, and I suspect he just got fed up with the nonsense. Why did they send LETTERS when it would be much more effective to send AGENTS?

If it was worth it, they'd do it.