Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Dillon]

Laize, why do you have to go all conspiracy on me? A stepping stone to broader gun control? How does it show that? Using your same words, if the AWB didn't broaden gun control then why would it now?

Feinstein, the one who pushed both AWB bills:



This, ladies and gentlemen, is the problem. In the end, it isn't about getting rid of "assault weapons". It isn't about preventing mass shootings, or crime, because if it were, we'd be focused on important things, such as improving our healthcare system and lowering costs, improving economic conditions, wiping out poverty, legalizing black market things like drugs which only empower criminals and limit the law-abiding.

No, no-no, this isn't about compromise. You don't get it.

These people don't want compromise, they don't want to get rid of "assault weapons", they want it all gone. And, they won't stop, whether by an inch or by a mile, until the law-abiding are entirely disarmed. It has nothing to do with conspiracy, because there is no conspiracy. It's right there in the video.

That is why gun owners are against any further regulation, because the term "compromise" cannot be trusted when uttered from the mouths of these fiends.

[Sicarus]

Let me get this straight. Ronald Reagan the person Republicans hail as their hero. The only person in the Republican Party they still compare current candidates to being was incorrect. Bill A Liberal was incorrect. You know what these men have in common. Millions of new jobs were added under both President. In fact Bill got a boost and perhaps some of the best economic times in our country.

My point being. It's perhaps..just perhaps they knew what they were talking about. You are dismissing with a wave of your hand Presidents from both party with a sole cause uniting them to ban assault weapons. Because that doesn't fit into your argument but you better then them..better then our past President..know what's best..

There's more then three Republicans who supported it. That's the only one I am listing. Comparing a person's sexuality to Gun Laws is really kinda mind bobbling. I never said just because one person shares a view then they ALL do it. I said even the most Republican out of the Republican voted for his law and the most liberal out of liberal voted for this. I really think that bothers you on a personal level.

Now please be so kind to enlighten me why our Past Presidents are incorrect on the matter. Please display your points on WHY they were incorrect. I provided my reasons to WHY this weapon should be banned in full detail. However since you know better then our past Presidents from both party. I am interested in your take.

Why do you keep saying REPUBLICUNS as if we're Republicans?

What does being a Republican have anything to do with this?

WHAT DO MILLIONS OF NEW JOBS HAVE TO DO WITH THE REGULATION OF OUR RIGHT?

They. Were. Wrong.

Why don't you cite more of the presidents or "political leaders" that were for gun ownership?

Some dude, who is elected by millions of dumb, uninformed average joes, is not better than me.

Just because a guy happened to have a silver tongue and impress everybody, doesn't make him right.

Hitler got a bunch of people to agree with him, does that make him right?

OH BIG DEAL, MORE THAN 3 REPUBLICANS.

He's not comparing Barney Frank's gayness to gun laws. He's comparing it to how you're saying Republican A was for assault weapons ban.

So that meant that meant, by your logic, all Democrats were gay, because Top Dog Democrat is gay.

You may not have said it, but you sure as hell are implying it heavily. You're saying they're right and we're wrong because they were big influential political leaders who would never lie to you or be wrong on anything, right?

They're incorrect because of the quite obvious and common knowledge evidence of the Revolutionary War. We we're being oppressed by Britain, if we didn't have the modern weapons, we'd be drinking Tea right now, and some of us would be speaking French, Spanish, or even German.

YOU NEVER PROVIDED REASONS. Saying ERMAHGERD SERNDY HERK, WHO WERE KILLED WITH PISTOLS BY THE WAY, doesn't make it valid or a reason to ban BIG BAD ASSAULT WEAPONS.

There is absolutely no reason for it, and your constant full auto full auto full auto sandy hook sandy hook sandy hook ronaldreaganronaldreaganronaldoreagan doesn't make it any more valid.

In short.

tl;dr Grow up Fused.

[Daelak]

How many times do I have to spell this out. Let me be more detailed, they were wrong on the issue. They were wrong on the issue because the Constitution clearly states in the Second Amendment ",the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." AR-15's are a type of armament, to ban them is infringing on the right to own one. Essentially, needs are irrelevant when it comes to rights. Again, if I want an AK-74 (I really do), I should be able to get one. A few crazy people killing less than .003% of the population doesn't constitute changing an Amendment and fucking up the rights of over 300 million.

Your right is not infringed. You can purchase an AK, you can still get an AR-15 with all the ammo you would ever want. You are going to have to convince me that right now, in a time where there are more firearms in this country THAN EVER BEFORE, your rights are being infringed. You can't do it, because it doesn't exist. It is all propaganda.

[Rocko9]

Your right is not infringed. You can purchase an AK, you can still get an AR-15 with all the ammo you would ever want. You are going to have to convince me that right now, in a time where there are more firearms in this country THAN EVER BEFORE, your rights are being infringed. You can't do it, because it doesn't exist. It is all propaganda.

Yet. Rights are not infringed yet. We are talking if gun control was implemented. I live in Texas, you can go buy an AK-47 or an AR if you can find one.

I'm not an idiot, I already have an AR-15 and AK-47 lol. Trying to tell me I can go buy one, that's good lol.

[FusedMass]

How many times do I have to spell this out. Let me be more detailed, they were wrong on the issue. They were wrong on the issue because the Constitution clearly states in the Second Amendment ",the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." AR-15's are a type of armament, to ban them is infringing on the right to own one. Essentially, needs are irrelevant when it comes to rights. Again, if I want an AK-74 (I really do), I should be able to get one. A few crazy people killing less than .003% of the population doesn't constitute changing an Amendment and fucking up the rights of over 300 million.

Kindly reminding you that saying I was wrong in big bold letters does not mean I was actually wrong. We all understand the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. No one is talking about doing that. These are Military Style Assault Weapons by using your logic our right to bear arms shall be be infringed upon that should mean I should walk to my counter store and buy an Ak-47 and actually a heat seeking missile launcher. Why not?

It's our right to bear arms? Oh that's right the founding Fathers never detailed exactly what weapons we can keep. No one is stopping you from picking up a hand held pistol or a shotgun from a store. Those are rights you will not have taken away. It does not detail the type of weapons.

Honestly these weapons were already banned once. Seeing how the President of United States proceeded with the ban. He must have been acting in good faith. You can argue the exact wording. I do not see the term assault weapons under the right to bear arms. It's a very very vague meaning weapons in general.

These type of weapons are not used for self defense. They are not used for hunting. There is only one reason to have a weapon firing out more then a hundred rounds in less then a minute. To kill people. This is not Syria. You should NOT be able to get any type of weapon you want just because it says not infringe upon our rights.

It is both logically and common sense denied to have any weapon you want. I don't think I should have to detail why you shouldn't be allowed grenade launchers walking down the street.

[Daelak]

Feinstein, the one who pushed both AWB bills:



This, ladies and gentlemen, is the problem. In the end, it isn't about getting rid of "assault weapons". It isn't about preventing mass shootings, or crime, because if it were, we'd be focused on important things, such as improving our healthcare system and lowering costs, improving economic conditions, wiping out poverty, legalizing black market things like drugs which only empower criminals and limit the law-abiding.

No, no-no, this isn't about compromise. You don't get it. They don't want to get rid of "assault weapons", they want it all gone.

This is bordering on delusional. The freaking youtube title itself says she "WANTED", but she did compromise! No one is advocating confiscating all firearms in this country, it would be a logistical nightmare and would just be insane. The only people who believe this kind of shit are people that are already thinking of republic-ending scenarios in their head and what strength concrete they should use for their end of the world bunkers.

Your rights are not being infringed. You have unfettered access to any firearm, and ammo. You can build a gun, you can print a gun, you can steal a gun from your neighbor, you can pawn a gun. I don't buy the argument of "The federal government is GOING TO TAKE OUR GUNS. NOT TODAY. BUT PROBABLY TOMORROW!!! BUY GUNS!!!"

[Elegiac]

Honestly these weapons were already banned once. Seeing how the President of United States proceeded with the ban. He must have been acting in good faith. You can argue the exact wording. I do not see the term assault weapons under the right to bear arms. It's a very very vague meaning weapons in general.

And because it is so vague it may very well be the case that assault weapons are permissible.

These type of weapons are not used for self defense. They are not used for hunting. There is only one reason to have a weapon firing out more then a hundred rounds in less then a minute. To kill people. This is not Syria. You should NOT be able to get any type of weapon you want just because it says not infringe upon our rights.

Because as said ad nauseum, liberty is the norm and not the exception. The burden is upon -you- to provide a legitimate reason why the right should be curtailed to the extent you desire; given that the assault weapons ban is highly unlikely to be effective at its slated goal, you fail to provide that legitimacy.

It is both logically and common sense denied to have any weapon you want. I don't think I should have to detail why you shouldn't be allowed grenade launchers walking down the street.

And the vast majority of people that own assault weapons don't carry them around in public. Stop making exaggerations, appeal to emotion only works upon the weak-minded.

[Daelak]

Yet. Rights are not infringed yet. We are talking if gun control was implemented. I live in Texas, you can go buy an AK-47 or an AR if you can find one.

I'm not an idiot, I already have an AR-15 and AK-47 lol. Trying to tell me I can go buy one, that's good lol.

See everyone, see the fucking illogical beliefs we are dealing with? So you expect me to side with you, even though we have more firearms in this country than ever before, and you still have unfettered access to any firearm, and your only reason is "YET". This is the same line of reasoning why we should mandate volcano insurance for every home. Or start building a gamma ray shield in the off chance of being hit by one.

This is why rational people cannot take libertarians and conservatives seriously. Yet? You can just keep putting a new date on when the world will end, when hyper inflation hits, when Obama takes your guns with his youth civil army. You will always win the political propaganda because you keep people in a state of fear, something scary is always on the horizon.

[Sicarus]

Kindly reminding you that saying I was wrong in big bold letters does not mean I was actually wrong. We all understand the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. No one is talking about doing that. These are Military Style Assault Weapons by using your logic our right to bear arms shall be be infringed upon that should mean I should walk to my counter store and buy an Ak-47 and actually a heat seeking missile launcher. Why not?

It's our right to bear arms? Oh that's right the founding Fathers never detailed exactly what weapons we can keep. No one is stopping you from picking up a hand held pistol or a shotgun from a store. Those are rights you will not have taken away. It does not detail the type of weapons.

Honestly these weapons were already banned once. Seeing how the President of United States proceeded with the ban. He must have been acting in good faith. You can argue the exact wording. I do not see the term assault weapons under the right to bear arms. It's a very very vague meaning weapons in general.

These type of weapons are not used for self defense. They are not used for hunting. There is only one reason to have a weapon firing out more then a hundred rounds in less then a minute. To kill people. This is not Syria. You should NOT be able to get any type of weapon you want just because it says not infringe upon our rights.

It is both logically and common sense denied to have any weapon you want. I don't think I should have to detail why you shouldn't be allowed grenade launchers walking down the street.

Condescending Wonka would be all over your post with how illogically ironic that is.

Exactly, why the fuck not? If you want an anti-tank missle, fucking buy one! That doesn't mean you're going to use it to kill people. UNLESS, GASP! FUSED ARE YOU MENTALLY ILL!?!?

I don't see our military using AR-15s or AK47s.

MILITARY STYLE IS REFERRING TO HOW THEY LOOK. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GUN.

It IS our right to keep and bear arms. You know why it doesn't detail the type of weapons? Because they knew people like you would try and say that kind of shit, they left it vague because they knew technology would advance, and they wanted us to have the most modern technology to defend ourselves, and ensure liberty.

THEY WERE BANNED ONCE, HOW DID THAT WORK OUT? IT DIDN'T. Just because somebody is the EL PRESIDENTE doesn't mean they were right or what they did was right. I'm sure Bill Clinton, who cheated on his wife by the way (If they will cheat on their wife, who's to say they won't cheat the American people?) obviously was acting in good faith.

LIKE HELL THEY AREN'T. I've seen people hunt with all kinds of shit. Which do you think would deter someone from attacking you, an EVIL DEATH DEALING WHEELING MILITARY STYLE ASSAULT WEAPON, or a pistol? ALL SEMI-AUTOS CAN FIRE 100 ROUNDS IN UNDER A MINUTE, DON'T BE IGNORANT.

I SHOULD be able to get whatever I fucking want, you have the liberty to be stubborn and pretend like you don't see the logic in what we're arguing, but it's your right and freedom.

NOBODY IS GOING TO WALK DOWN THE STREET WITH GRENADE LAUNCHERS, THAT IS OFFENSIVE AS ALL FUCK. YOU'RE NOT ONLY CALLING ME A LUNATIC, BUT OVER 300 MILLION PEOPLE.

[Deleted]

I'm going to say this again, people need to chill out a little bit. It's borderline but please, be civil.

[Sicarus]

I'm going to say this again, people need to chill out a little bit. It's borderline but please, be civil.

:/

At some point, Fused needs to have some sort of action taken against him/her.

Essentially what they're doing, is saying "this" to all of his/her own posts, and passively aggressively being insulting.

They're not providing anything new to the argument, and continually say they will, but leave us to assume we know what they're talking about.

[Rocko9]

Kindly reminding you that saying I was wrong in big bold letters does not mean I was actually wrong. We all understand the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. No one is talking about doing that. These are Military Style Assault Weapons by using your logic our right to bear arms shall be be infringed upon that should mean I should walk to my counter store and buy an Ak-47 and actually a heat seeking missile launcher. Why not?

Are you joking? Right before the bold it says "They were".

It's our right to bear arms? Oh that's right the founding Fathers never detailed exactly what weapons we can keep. No one is stopping you from picking up a hand held pistol or a shotgun from a store. Those are rights you will not have taken away. It does not detail the type of weapons.

They left if vague because they knew technology would advance in time and that evil people and their idiot followers would want to get rid of them. Any gun is an armament, so it qualifies under shall not be infringed.

Honestly these weapons were already banned once. Seeing how the President of United States proceeded with the ban. He must have been acting in good faith. You can argue the exact wording. I do not see the term assault weapons under the right to bear arms. It's a very very vague meaning weapons in general.

Since you love Reagan so much here you go:

"I think you all know that I've always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help"." - Ronald Reagan

These type of weapons are not used for self defense. They are not used for hunting. There is only one reason to have a weapon firing out more then a hundred rounds in less then a minute. To kill people. This is not Syria. You should NOT be able to get any type of weapon you want just because it says not infringe upon our rights.

It is both logically and common sense denied to have any weapon you want. I don't think I should have to detail why you shouldn't be allowed grenade launchers walking down the street.

All weapons are used for destroying and/or kill, stop stating the obvious. You should be able to get what you want, because the reason the 2nd Amendment was put in was to allow The People to revolt against a tyrannical government, and it was left vague so that they could be properly armed with the current time period.

I'll throw this in, if I gave you my AR-15, I bet I could still out perform you with my .357 lever action. Why? I know my guns and I've trained with them.

[Daelak]

Condescending Wonka would be all over your post with how illogically ironic that is.

Exactly, why the fuck not? If you want an anti-tank missle, fucking buy one! That doesn't mean you're going to use it to kill people. UNLESS, GASP! FUSED ARE YOU MENTALLY ILL!?!?

I don't see our military using AR-15s or AK47s.

MILITARY STYLE IS REFERRING TO HOW THEY LOOK. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GUN.

It IS our right to keep and bear arms. You know why it doesn't detail the type of weapons? Because they knew people like you would try and say that kind of shit, they left it vague because they knew technology would advance, and they wanted us to have the most modern technology to defend ourselves, and ensure liberty.

THEY WERE BANNED ONCE, HOW DID THAT WORK OUT? IT DIDN'T. Just because somebody is the EL PRESIDENTE doesn't mean they were right or what they did was right. I'm sure Bill Clinton, who cheated on his wife by the way (If they will cheat on their wife, who's to say they won't cheat the American people?) obviously was acting in good faith.

LIKE HELL THEY AREN'T. I've seen people hunt with all kinds of shit. Which do you think would deter someone from attacking you, an EVIL DEATH DEALING WHEELING MILITARY STYLE ASSAULT WEAPON, or a pistol? ALL SEMI-AUTOS CAN FIRE 100 ROUNDS IN UNDER A MINUTE, DON'T BE IGNORANT.

I SHOULD be able to get whatever I fucking want, you have the liberty to be stubborn and pretend like you don't see the logic in what we're arguing, but it's your right and freedom.

NOBODY IS GOING TO WALK DOWN THE STREET WITH GRENADE LAUNCHERS, THAT IS OFFENSIVE AS ALL FUCK. YOU'RE NOT ONLY CALLING ME A LUNATIC, BUT OVER 300 MILLION PEOPLE.

Again another great example of an irrational position that is against a completely improbable event in the future, whose date is always changed, or in other words, delusional.

Sicarus, you can purchase any weapon you want, the only restriction being how much money you have. There is no argument that shows our rights to bear arms has been infringed when we live in a time of unprecedented guns in circulation and production. Refer to my other posts for more information.

[Elegiac]

All weapons are used for destroying and/or kill, stop stating the obvious. You should be able to get what you want, because the reason the 2nd Amendment was put in was to allow The People to revolt against a tyrannical government, and it was left vague so that they could be properly armed with the current time period.

Please. The 2nd Amendment was included to give the states recourse against slave rebellions.

[Jaxi]

Kindly reminding you that saying I was wrong in big bold letters does not mean I was actually wrong. We all understand the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. No one is talking about doing that. These are Military Style Assault Weapons by using your logic our right to bear arms shall be be infringed upon that should mean I should walk to my counter store and buy an Ak-47 and actually a heat seeking missile launcher. Why not?
It is both logically and common sense denied to have any weapon you want. I don't think I should have to detail why you shouldn't be allowed grenade launchers walking down the street.

Our issue is, and always has been, with the politically motivated banning of a weapon based on its aesthetics.

It looks like a military weapon, therefore it is one? As it has already been pointed out, the functionality of an AR-15 is closer to that of the exempt-by-name Ruger Mini 14 than what the military uses. Comparing it to military hardware is utterly fallacious.

Oh but it can be converted fully automatic? Yes, not easily, but at any rate how many times has that actually happened in these massacres? So it's a completely irrelevant post.

Oh but it is customizable? How does a pistol grip improve lethality? Or a Flash Hider? Or a collapsible stock? Or even the larger magazines? Columbine and Virginia tech both taught us that a criminal will simply bring more magazines, and the massacre continues without a single setback!

The justice department commissioned the University of Pennsylvania to study the '94 ban on "assault weapons" and found it to have negligible effect on curbing gun violence in this country.

On top of that little point, violence (including gun violence) has been on a steady decline since the 80's, so why are we just going after this now?

Well because public spectacle massacres occurred 3 times more often in the 2000's than in the 80's, but then why hasn't violence total increased? Two theories are being tossed around on that: 1) Civil commitment laws have softened. In fact, the UC Berkeley did a study showing that states with strong civil commitment laws have a 1/3 reduced crime rate; 2) The media glorifies these killers. They shouldn't even have a marked grave, let alone their 15 minutes. The Newton shooter should have been called "That bat$h!t crazy evil maniac that shot a bunch of kids" when addressed by the media.

The fact is a weapon that is used in a very, very low percentage of gun related violence is being targeted because it looks scary. That's our issue with it. It's a political stunt aimed at placating the fear of a confused and ignorant public. It's only lasting legacy would be a stepping stone to broader gun control.

[Rocko9]

Please. The 2nd Amendment was included to give the states recourse against slave rebellions.

I used to really like you as a poster, but I'm losing faith in you. If they really wanted slaves that bad, they would have put "and the right of property" instead of "and the pursuit of happiness".

Again another great example of an irrational position that is against a completely improbable event in the future, whose date is always changed, or in other words, delusional.

Sicarus, you can purchase any weapon you want, the only restriction being how much money you have. There is no argument that shows our rights to bear arms has been infringed when we live in a time of unprecedented guns in circulation and production. Refer to my other posts for more information.

Again, alot of the posting is in reference to post gun control.

[Dillon]

This is bordering on delusional. The freaking youtube title itself says she "WANTED", but she did compromise! No one is advocating confiscating all firearms in this country, it would be a logistical nightmare and would just be insane. The only people who believe this kind of shit are people that are already thinking of republic-ending scenarios in their head and what strength concrete they should use for their end of the world bunkers.

Your rights are not being infringed. You have unfettered access to any firearm, and ammo. You can build a gun, you can print a gun, you can steal a gun from your neighbor, you can pawn a gun. I don't buy the argument of "The federal government is GOING TO TAKE OUR GUNS. NOT TODAY. BUT PROBABLY TOMORROW!!! BUY GUNS!!!"

Delusional? What, simply because she didn't succeed in her true goal, an ounce of poison is more acceptable than a pound?

Will you actually tell me here, now, that they wouldn't ban it all if they could? What is it that makes you think that isn't their entire goal? It's clearly evident, yet you ignore it behind your own feeble argument. Covering your ears and going "it isn't true" doesn't make it so, I'm afraid to say.

But, you are right. She did compromise, I don't deny that. But her true goal is disturbing to me, just as disturbing as official religion in government, religious law, limits on free speech, illegal search and seizure, etc. An affront to one freedom is an affront for the more, because the entire concept is being challenged, and the very idea of it I am repulsed by and reject on a fundamental level.

Again you're right, at least for the most part, my (gun) rights aren't being infringed, but there are some things standing in the way that shouldn't be there, such as the Hughes amendment. But that doesn't mean that I should just throw back and never pay attention just because on this day things "aren't so bad", because these people don't stop.

[Svifnymr]

You remind me of this Sheriff on CNN who questioned if he would enforce new gun laws. He said that only if he talked to the Attorney General of his state if any Federal Gun laws were passed. People like this really see them themselves as so unique when it comes to law's like this.

There is a matter of constitutionality, if the sheriff is worried about whether the law is enforceable, he seeks information on such from his superiors. Seems how the situation should go, though I haven't seen the guy in question so don't know.

I never said anything about the appearance. The evidence is the dozens of dead body's that were killed by this weapon.

The ban is all about appearance, your lack of understanding that not-withstanding. "Dozens of body's" were killed by plenty of weapons, not just AR15s.

Let's recap at the Movies a man used an AR-15 to kill at least 10 people inside the movies. Two out of Four Fire Fighters died when responding to a false hoax about a house being on fire. Turns out a man was there with an AR-15 in ready and gunned them down. He was even quoted as saying he wanted to kill as many people as possible.

Movies were actually a S&W MP15, though I assume every time you say "AR15" you mean "AR15 style gun". 2 firefighters isn't really a mass shooting either, the guy wasn't very competent. He'd probably bought into the lie that the press advertises that AR15's are super deadly.

Now let's focus on the weapon itself. It's capable of turning from a Semi Automatic to a Fully Automatic. That's not an appeal to emotion. That's a fact. Though some Gun Owners will complain that it's not easy modified the fact you can modify it at all.

You have been corrected many times, the AR15 is not easier to convert than any other gun. You're just intentionally misleading with your rhetoric.

That's beside the point though, find me a single shooting where they used a converted AR15?
Find us a section of the proposed AWB that says it's a factor?

Even in Semi Automatic mode depending on how fast you pull the trigger. It's already been confirmed you can shoot a hundred bullets in less then a minute.

Same as a glock, sure.

Some years ago a small community in Waco Texas. Saw the Government much like some of you see it. Their response to letting the Government issues a search warrant was to fire back bullets in response.

Some years ago, there was a cult in Waco. They had been dealing in drugs, but the new guy took over and got rid of it. They were still suspected of doing something illegal, so federal agencies had an undercover officer inside to investigate. They also had a federal license to deal in firearms. The federal agencies got a warrant, went out with their strike team including helicopters. A gun battle ensued, though witnesses conflict on who fired first. This was no "polite knock" on the door. Over a month of siege later, they smashed holes in the walls with tanks and lobbed in flammable smoke cannisters, the resulting fire killing almost all of the people inside.

So yeah, smoke canisters killed more people than all AR15's this year combined probably. It was not a very honorable time to be an ATF agent. Ruby Ridge was same timeframe, where a sniper shot the guys wife while holding his baby, since she was at a window unarmed looking dangerous.

Heck, not like they're a lot better now. Look at the Sandyhook photo's and you'll see ATF in their full vest/rifle kit. Is that how an investigator dresses hours after a shooting?

If Gov wants to pass gun laws. I think they more the proved why they need it. In the end everyone who say's they will not convert at the end of the day as a choice to face.

You know, at Waco they didn't have any converted AR15s. You'd think if that was a major point they'd have done so, but since it's really just YOU who thinks this..

And the idea that they should ban weapons because someone might use them to defend their home against the government?
The idea that to prevent someone from blowing up a building because someone might take their guns, you need to take their guns?
Seems a bit off.

[Sicarus]

Again another great example of an irrational position that is against a completely improbable event in the future, whose date is always changed, or in other words, delusional.

Sicarus, you can purchase any weapon you want, the only restriction being how much money you have. There is no argument that shows our rights to bear arms has been infringed when we live in a time of unprecedented guns in circulation and production. Refer to my other posts for more information.

My irrationality reflects on how FusedMass is presenting themself.

IF it were improbable, why are we talking about it RIGHT NOW?

I can't purchase any weapon I wan't, I can't purchase a full-auto gun, I can't purchase a rocket launcher, I can't purchase grenades. It's not a restriction on how much money you have, it's a restriction from an unconstitutional law.

Like I said, if we even have to debate it now, there is argument that shows our rights are either being or on the verge of being infringed.

Which, they are being infringed, since some types of weapons are being restricted.

[Elegiac]

I used to really like you as a poster, but I'm losing faith in you.

What, because I state the truth of the matter? The Founders were not infallible altruists, they represented a class of men with vested economic interests, and their political designs were aimed at protecting those interests. Ideology was part of it, of course, but as with every other instance in history it is never the sole determinant.