I had really, really hoped you would accept my plea to avoid that tangent. It's pointless to compare direct cause with indirect cause.

And your further statements show you simply skimmed my points before responding. I would have hoped you'd make more effort to process them. Oh well. It's the internet!

No.. I processed your arguments.. you were advocating limiting mag cap and said that you think the line must be drawn somewhere.

I am showing you that complete and utter failure of an AWB is not the item you should be using to support your case. That ban was neither here nor there on any line. It was nonsense.

I figured your question about the bazooka was rhetorical and didn't bother responding to it. You want to ignore my arguments about the first so I even shifted to an alternative...the fourth.. you didn't bother responding to that and just say i didn't read your post? Its like a mild ad hominem..but without the attack.

Come on tex...there are some of us around we can tell a little more about eachother than that. I read your arguments...and you didn't directly offer any solution..just a middle ground with no specifications. The only definitive thing was that you said you supported the awb..even if the reasoning made an ounce of sense the object of the support is paper thin rediculousness thats hurts your cause more than helps.

My only comment about mag cap is theyve brought it up before.... and almost all semi autos have a mag that will exceed whatever hypothetical number you arive. Just another indirect way to "accidentally" ban all semi-autos.

The essential point of what I was saying is that there ARE NO CLEAR-CUT SOLUTIONS-- even though some of you insist there are.

There never will be in a pluralistic society... unless authoritarianism takes hold.

One extreme would ban all guns.

One extreme would ban all restrictions on guns.

Neither extreme is acceptable to US society at large. Sooo... a line has to be drawn. The line is broad. But the line is also mutable and movable.

It's like Texas weather: don't like it? Wait a minute. But in this case it's "don't like it? VOTE."

I did acknowledge the imperfection of laws... as well as the gross error in following said "logic".

EDIT: oh, and I take much exception to you stating I said little of anything concrete. But then, opinions of all kinds are welcome.

And I don't necessarily respond to parts with which I agree, or if I see that disagreement may lead to undesireable entanglements. Also, you took some of my points in directions I clearly did not intend which is why I mentioned skimming.

Ok...but we can't ALL be completely passive on the subject as you appear to be

Yes..the end result is going to be a middle ground...but if either side cease to fight then the other side will dominate.

I am out here making sure people understand the full implications of what it is they support...most people dont have a clue about guns beyond "they're scary".. Like that AWB ban. It's a joke - but how many people looked beyond their emotions to actual SEE that?

People may argue they have a right to "be" safe...I argue you don't have a right to "feel" safe. And since neither side can definitively prove 100% that my owning a gun makes them safer, or less safe... I am of the opinion we side on the side of the constitution as the sujpreme court interpreted it. When/if it can be proven that my gun, beyond any logical doubt, presents a direct and inherent risk to others..maybe I'll change my mind... but while the statistics point both ways.. I am of the opinion that we stop interfering with people, their lives, and their rights on half-asked pathetic attempts at stopping the end results..not the initial cause.

Wow...I'm having a serious long post issue in this thread.

Completely passive???

Wow.

Am I speaking English? I can never tell these days...

Hm.,,laws suck, are imprerfect, following their logic leads to failure...

but we need laws, we have to find a fluid, movable center, in which..most laws are neither fluid or mobile....

Yes.. I guess your geniuseness and impeccable logic is beyond me because I really am having trouble deciphering what it is your "gunning" towards

And dont worry about entanglements - i try not to bite ;P... esp. if it'll help my poor intellect grasp the obvious underlining im missing.. besides... we can always agree to disagree at some point.

This whole gun argument can be boiled down to individual rights versus the greater good. I like to live in a place where the emphasis is on the community as a whole and what is best for most members of the community. That's my preference. Others prefer the individual rights and to hell with everyone else. That is their preference. A community made up of individuals looking out for their individual rights is not somewhere I would relish living. Especially if a lot of these individuals were paranoid gun nuts.

1984 thought that too .

See, a guy posts something perfectly sensible from his perspective and you take it too far.

I think you just want to provoke.

Only sometimes.

But i also think if you're gonna bother believing something...may as well be comfortable with extreme of that belief.

I'm comfortable with a 100% armed society. Is he/she comfortable with a 100% controlled society..."for the good of the people"?