Yet even when the Democrats hold the entire government that doesn't happen. Perhaps your hyperbole doesn't meet the legal requirement for charging the NRA.
'Even'? You do live in a weird world! Like AIPAC, the NRA has your politicians by the short hairs (to put it politely). Liberalism is the normal ideology of capitalism, American conservatism a search for more wealth and power by fooling the mugs. Heil Trump!
No - we lived, at the time, in the area where it all happened, and there was a great deal of evidence to be had.
The NRA donates relatively little to politicians - it's that the voters wish to protect their rights and vote in those who pledge to do so.
Does the number of "very's" you use quantify the power of the NRA as a lobby? For 2A rights, yes, they're powerful, mainly because the cause they support is embraced by so many Americans. Bloomberg, who outspends the NRA on gun control issues, isn't as powerful for precisely the same reason. When it comes to total spend to influence Congress, yeah, not so much. Soros and Bloomberg spend much, much more (that's two 'muches'). NRA isn't even in the top 50. https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php
Exactly !!!! As opposed to the Tobacco lobby that has ZERO Members of the smoking public, and consists of Tobacco Industry and related companies. Tobacco killed Millions and even second hand smoke is a hazard.
Following such logic, every individual in the united states who supposedly support greater firearm-related restrictions should also be tried as co-defendants in every firearm-related murder. The continuous claim made is that the majority of of the united states population supports greater firearm-related restrictions, yet they continue to maintain their silence, rather than rising up to oppose groups like the NRA. They do not call up their elected representatives, they do not get out and lobby, they do not donate, they do nothing but maintain their silence, and allow the supposed minority to speak over them. Their refusal to speak up on the matter makes them guilty by association.
Thank you for your civil disagreement, but I fear this will always be largely a matter of personal opinion, shaped by the national myths and legends to which we are all subject, and which inform our national value systems. The principles of freedom which the English colonists carried to the New World had their origins in the various documents which comprise the UK Constitution, and include Magna Carta and the principle of Habeas Corpus. And freedom itself can be a moveable feast dependent upon the society and circumstances concerned. I dare say the level of freedom afforded Washington's or Jefferson's slaves was not a measure of your 'original and unchanging principle of freedom'.
Fair comment, further validated by the fact that the raison d'etre of a forum such as this is discussion. My advice was based on my experiences at an earlier age, wherein my views appeared to be discounted as those of one who has (a) no right to comment upon matters American, and (b) could not possibly have sufficient knowledge of the subject to make comment. My ineptitude at expressing myself has led you to the misapprehension that no good comes of discussion - a misapprehension for which I apologise. The message I was attempting to convey was that, in my experience, most Americans are not receptive to any message which might suggest changes to the sacrosanct 2nd Amendment, and appear to consider it an impertinence that any 'foreigner' should presume to comment upon the matter. I am in complete agreement with your position that any number of measures, short of abandoning the 2nd Amendment, could have a positive effect upon the situation.
No, we aren't receptive to any changes in the 2nd Amendment unless done so in the manner outlined in Article 5 of the Constitution, or to any of the Constitutional amendments, especially the Bill of Rights. I for one don't care if non-Americans participate in the discussion, for as you note it's a discussion forum. If we allow the federal or state governments to make changes to the protections offered by the 2A in a unconstitutional way, it sets the legal precedent to attack other rights in the same way. I for one do not trust the Republicans or the Democrats with that power. True enough, although there is plenty of disagreement on which measures would be Constitutional, effective, enforceable, would be enforced and are necessary.
you cannot change the meaning of freedom to suit your new interpretation of it, the American freedom fighters who immigrated from england did not sacrifice and die against your kingdom and royal bloodlines only to copy your documents. the American constitution is superior to englands constitution because freedom as our constitution is set in stone, and the burden is upon the reader to interpret it properly. our constitution is similar to the 10 commandments which was written in stone by god for the jews, these moral principles cannot be changed willy-nilly since they have pure foundations.
The basis of Common Law is Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus - much of US Law is based upon Common Law. You might also care to examine the language you purport to use - not to mention most of your social customs. I'm not entirely sure what is meant by that grammatically individualistic comment, but might I point out that 'england' is a proper noun which merits a capital letter as much as 'American'. To do otherwise is to post a studied national insult. I think you do your Constitution (a most enlightened document for its time,) a disservice in comparing it to the self-aggrandising ancient myths and legends of an obscure nomadic Middle Eastern desert tribe. Stone is a material which lasts millennia - so where are these tablets written by the hand of the concept you call God?
in the words of an American freedom fighter: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0029372/quotes our laws improved upon your inferior interpretations of freedom, englands laws were written to benefit your noble blood lines and royal classes. an example of that is the second amendment, it gives the right of self defense to peasants against a tyrannical government. it is not an insult, according to the good book a slave must submit to their master and America is the master of england and the rest of the world, because might makes right. now that President Trump is in the high office, england and everyone else in the world must know and accept their place with humility as taught in the good book. http://biblehub.com/ephesians/6-5.htm that 'obscure nomadic middle eastern desert tribe' are the khazarian jews, and they have considerable influence and control over world politics because jesus is coming back to israel. their traditions and holy texts demand respect, because their religion as well as the christian religion are backed by lawful government force in politics and the laws of every land. http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html
