That's not an argument for personhood. I understand the reason corporations exist.

The idea of corporations as people is a fucking stupid idea. When that dude said, "Corporations are people too!" I wanted to smack his face. He's only saying it because he's been paid by corporations who want to extend their influence by using more money than individual people could ever actually spend. The retarded idea has convinced people of the idea but I wouldn't bet the people involved in it really believe it.

The only reason to give corporations personhood is to allow people to spend more money in politics. If they are people, then they should also go to jail. Want the benefits? Get the disadvantages.

I remember reading something on this a while ago. I submit to you: why are US politics so fucked up? What started the spiral to so much money in politics? Compared to a country like Switzerland? How are the dynamics different? (Or is Switzerland as corrupt and no one told me.)

A fringe group tried creating a third major party: the Tea party. We do have other, small parties, but they never get many votes, and often end up costing one of the major parties.

The two party system has to go. We need more parties, making it harder to buy politicians.

Stay with me here.

1) This super PAC hopes to rid the government of corruption.
2) It plans to do so by attempting to incentivize politicians to ban super PACs and get money out of poliics.
3) To incentivize politicians, it plans to buy them, thereby promoting the very corruption it seeks to abolish.
4) ???
5) Profit!

Is there any guaruntee that the politicians it attracts are actually honest, since they're effectively being bought anyway? What will their policies be once this passes?

For that matter, are there any fucking honest politicians? It seems the only people interested in politics are dishonest, immature, old little bitches. There should be a maximum age for politicians, let alone a minimum.

assault grips?

A quick Google search brings up bicycle handle bars and World of Warcraft. What are you talking about?

bombs?

A bomb is not the same as a rifle. Nor a carbine. Nor a pistol. Bombs are covered under different laws.

any military weapon?

That's Claymores to cruise missiles. Looks like you're just flailing around now.

or a military sniper rifle?

Still flailing. Adding words like "military" or "sniper" does not change the functionality.

what is the purpose of an extended clip handgun?

You mean "magazine", not "clip". And "handgun" is redundant.

The purpose is to have more rounds available without reloading.

to tell you the truth i know very little about guns. 80% is from action movies and 18% from news reports or newspapers.

So the basis for your position is Hollywood fantasy. And you can't tell the difference between the real world and a Hollywood fantasy.

So you're going to argue based upon the Hollywood fantasies that you've watched.

I don't know the difference between a thumbhole stock and having my thumb up my butt, but I know that reasonable people will agree that some guns are designed for sport, some are designed for self defense, and some were designed to kill humans.

"Reasonable" being defined there as "agree with this statement".

No. You are wrong.

Once you get away from fully automatic/burst (already regulated) there is NOTHING (see below) that differentiates a weapon used for hunting/sport from a weapon (as you claim) "designed for" ... "kill humans".

There are excepts such as an "elephant gun" and such for hunting larger animals. But by that logic a weapon designed to "kill humans" (as you claim) would be less effective.

Yes, but at least the screenwriters for the original series knew the difference between "your" and "you're" - an important measure of intellect, don't you think?

what's the purpose of a flash surpressor? Why would somebody buy one and install one on their weapon?

Well, according to YOU it is because:

Here's the fact: the purpose of these "cosmetic features" you mention is to make the gun good at harming other people.

So, specifically, how does a flash suppressor accomplish that?

I have to disagree with your assessment about "cosmetic". It speaks to the purpose of the weapon.

Again, specifically, how does a flash suppressor accomplish that?

And don't bother replying with another question.

all I'm saying is would somebody reasonable stand up so we can have a reasonable conversation.

And which of the "gun nuts" that you identified would meet your criteria for "somebody reasonable"?

Almost EVERYONE thinks that their beliefs are "reasonable" (and correct).

the fact that you'll fight so hard to keep your arsenal of guns that are designed to hurt other people says a lot about your true intentions.

Work on your trolling.

I have to disagree with your assessment about "cosmetic". It speaks to the purpose of the weapon.

I don't think you understand the subject. How, exactly, does a flash suppressor "speak to the purpose of the weapon" in this case?

Here's the fact: the purpose of these "cosmetic features" you mention is to make the gun good at harming other people.

In WWII, the M1 Garand was issued to the US soldiers. It had no flash suppressor. How is it less effective because of that?

i don't make people gun nuts. they make themselves gun nuts.

And that is why the people who disagree with you will not accept your views on "compromise and ... consensus".

that may or may not be true but the quote was from the 90s and the debate over the original brady bill, when the focus really was on AK47s, etc.

Except that fully automatic AK-47s were already highly restricted. And they still are.

to be honest, I'm really surprised by the absolutist nature of gun nuts.

You might want to look at your usage of "gun nuts" in that statement.

Once you start labelling people who disagree with you as "nuts" it does not inspire confidence that you will be less "absolutist" in your goals.

the article is about a law to ban the domestic manufacture (not sale or ownership) of assault rifles (the brady bill).

This is one of the problems with this discussion.

"Assault RIFLES" are already heavily restricted. These are the fully-automatic weapons.

"Assault WEAPONS" is a classification that was created for political reasons. It is based upon COSMETIC features of a weapon.

surely you see the difference between a vote on the assault weapons ban and a vote to "ban guns". methinks you're being dishonest.

No. Because the difference is cosmetic. Not functionality.

Weapon A can be classified as an "assault weapon" and banned if it has a flash suppressor (along with other cosmetic features).

But if weapon A does not have a flash suppressor then it is not an "assault weapon" and is okay to sell.

The flash suppressor does NOTHING to change the functionality of the weapon.

Well said, allowing a toddler to play on the road would draw the attention of child protection authorities, allowing them to go unvaccinated should provoke a similar response.