Explain to a non-American why it makes sense to change Congress every two years!

Conceded.

 

Absolutely, on the right to own and use THOSE category of arms, if any weapon stays on their property and is used expressly for self-defense. The open-carry crowd waving AK-47's around takes it to the streets (or ultimately voting from the rooftops). They cheapen the concept. Support your personal right to keep and bear howitzers.

 

PROPER AK-47's cannot be 'taken to the streets' can they?

 

I'm confused - $6 per day is $2190 per year. Or were they only actually paid for every day that Congress was in session?

 

Obviously you didn't. I must've been thinking of another gun man.

 

You said:

"Are handguns in common use for legal purposes?
Yes - the cases revolved around it."

So you provide the answer "YES." Then you continue, by presenting what seems to be a contrast:

"Are rifles in common use for legal purposes?
Are shotguns in common use for legal purposes?
Are shoulder-fired SAMs in common use for legal purposes?
Are grenade launcher in common use for legal purposes?
Are LAW/ATGMs in common use for legal purposes?"

The difference is that you didn't provide an answer to these ones, but considering that this list includes "LAW/ATGM's" it is obvious that you're saying that NONE of this list is "in common use for legal purposes."

 

Most U.S. states do allow the peaceful display of weapons. The gun-wavers I mentioned in that quote do cheapen legitimate gun ownership issues. That said, an armed society is a POLITE society. Robert Heinlein's words to live by.

 

Both. They were overpaid $6 for every day in session.

 

Not automatics though, without an insane process to get one, as I understand.

 

LOL. I see. So you actually think that they should've worked for free. Perhaps SILL work for free?

 

I said overpaid, not free. Some however should have paid for the job, or their sponsors, and doubtlessly some did. Nowadays it's a profession much like journalism and prostitution. Very much.

 

You said that when they were getting $6 per day, they were overpaid by $6. Doesn't that mean free?

Why do you say that?

 

The $6 per day pay was for each day in session. If a maximum of 150 days in session over 5 months is assumed that would be $900 per year.

 

Sure they can.

 

No.
These are questions for you to address; the answers will then better paint a picture as to what falls under "bearable arms".

 

If it is legal to openly carry a gun, why would it be illegal to openly carry an AK47?

 

Aren't only CERTAIN guns legal to open carry in some states? Anyway, I said that automatics cannot be open
carried, WITHOUT an insane process to GET ONE. As in, you have to get one before you can carry it around.

 

I know that they are legal, but I have no idea if they are considered to be "common use for legal purposes."

I HOPE not!

 

You're probably right. Power is everything.

 

It is an unfortunate longstanding fact in American politics that despite the party it is appallingly common for key donors to receive ambassadorial appointments. Back in the days of the true U.S. political heyday of "honest graft" (see George Washington Plunkitt), it was extremely common to hear phrases such as "The Honorable Senator from Standard Oil" --- because he was. Now we use OpenSecrets.com and other sources to track who bought who.

Some ambassadors have been stellar examples, such as Joseph P. Kennedy, named ambassador to the Court of St. James (the English crown and government), who fathered future President John F., and future attorney general Robert. Long before the sons gained political clout and went after the Mafia, our patriarch John was also a huge contributor to the Democrats.

The family money came from smuggling liquor across the Detroit River from Windsor, Ontario (where Prohibition was not in effect). Seagram's purchase records from the era have frequent entries of the elder Kennedy's signatures, as shown over CBC Windsor television.

Even a bootlegger can become someone whom the Brits are forced to recognize as fit to meet their king (at the time). On the other hand, the Brits have the Windsors and extended family to deal with (and for Harry, unfortunately not distant ENOUGH!). It's instructive that Harry can live off Daddy's and Grandmummy's pile of cash out in the colonies, whilst still mewling whatever that older American woman tells him to.

 

One argument which has been very prevalent in this thread is that the founders never intended that people would become 'career politicians.' What do you think?

 

There were fewer persistent pressing issues at that time and I think they would be uncomfortable telling people who they can vote for other than age and place of birth

 

But people CAN vote for any candidate.

 

Technically true but if one is running for President for example they could write in a candidate under 35 or not born in the US or one who has seven two full terms but even if they win they will not be allowed to serve in the office.

 

Why would someone under 35 or not born in the US be running for President? Also, what is "seven two full terms" referring to?