imported post
Mr. Diaz,
How do you define "more lethal"? Isn't something labeled lethal if it is deadly? Dead is dead, how can something be more dead? All you seem to describe is product improvements. I'm sure you have said it yourself, a firearm's main purpose is to kill. So, if the manufacturers are producing "better killing machines" as you claim, then how is that different from Ford producing better vehicles over the years, ones that drive smoother on less gas, etc?
Product safety information on firearms? If I were to look that concept up in the dictionary, I bet I would find something along the lines of "information concerning the safety of a product to it's user when used as intended". I don't see how that information is being withheld. I can easily find information concerning how 40 caliber Glocks can injure the user if a round is chambered multiple times. What you seem to be looking for is data to support your "save the children" motives. Data that is kept by the FBI and other national agencies. But going along this line of "making the world a better place" seems flawed. "Accidental" shootings of children occurs what, 2000 times a year in this nation? More chidren are hurt by motor vehicles in a month.
What is a military-style automatic firearm? I'm willing to bet a railgun wouldn't meet whatever questionable definition you have, and yet I would bet a large sum of money that if I produced and sold handheld railguns to the public, you would condem me, as you currentally condem the NRA and "gun lobby". This, of course, would be a plausable scenario in which you would be going against your word in what you want. That is why no one is really intrested in a compromise with you because as soon as you get a semblance of what you publically state you desire, you will change your mind and demand more.
You act as if you are reasonable, but it is only an act for the press and a thinly deguised one at that. You use terms and definitions that are silly and incorrect all to appear like all you want is this reasonable ammount of change, but once nailed down, that change is neither reasonable nor a clear as you try to make it. You, sir, are a young toddler who wants a sheiny new toy, but when asked for clarification or a well thought out reason why the chest of old toys at home won't do, throws an incoherant fit.
I think one of your last statements sums up the situation nicely. You state that Obama could stop the importation of a certain class or type of good through an executive decision. This statement shows how little you know of the US Constitution, and the Law it lays down. While this seems to have little bearing on the debate at first glance, it really shows that you do not, nor want to, understand the issue you are debating, which is a section of the US Constitution. How, sir, can you claim to debate this issue, in an informed and educated manner, when all you show to the nation is nonsense and ignorant gobblygook?