Your most compelling argument seems to be:
Since we cannot control what insane, angry and otherwise ill-intentioned people will do 100% of the time, we should just not try to have any sort of control over access to weapons/guns. In fact, fuck it. Arm every man, woman and child to the teeth.
Very sensible.
I never said any of that, however in your side’s trying to get particular guns outlawed, you are just getting millions more of those guns on the street. Does that make you feel guilty, or just stupid?
You’re every fucking charicature of the worst kind of gun fanatic, rolled into one. LMAO.
Oooh, you got me there. 
You are mistaken. I’m not advocating for the outlawing of any one particular type of gun.
What are you advocating?
The lot of 'em.
All of them?
I have a dream. 
Good luck with your dream. Do you think it best to try and ban them all at once, or should you do it a little at a time?
All at once. Effective immediately.
Just to be clear, you’re asking for my philosophical position on the subject. Not how I would actually put it into practice. I’ve no illusions about the complexity of doing so.
Great, and thank you for your honesty. Just so you know, us freedom enthusiasts are on to you. We know that when you try for an assault weapon ban, you really want to ban all guns, you’re just trying for what you think you can get, when you can get it. We know that “reasonable restrictions” are just the first steps on the way to your ultimate goals. So when we buy more of that very gun you are going after, we make it impossible to get your ball rolling.
You misspelled “gun” enthusiasts.
Stop abusing the word “freedom” in that way. It’s fucking mental.
Also, “you’re on to me”? What the hell does that mean? I couldn’t be any more obvious.
I don’t think this is going to be like Roe v Wade where there are perrennial and constant attacks on a constitutional right. Guns are more like miscegeny than abortion. Some people will simply never get used to them but most people will get more comfortable with them through exposure.
We don’t really need anything more than what was in Heller (and hopefully some SCOTUS case on carry rights), the gun grabber arguments for gun bans is pretty much eviscerated. You can’t prevent any suicides by banning assault weapons if you have constitutionally protected handguns. You don’t reduce gun murders by banning assault weapons if you have constitutionally protected handguns.
At this point they are thrashing around in impotent rage and just trying to do SEMETHING to stick it to evil gun owners.
And THAT is why our constitution isn’t like the bible. It is subject to revision and amendments. Did you miss the part about amendment and constitutional conventions in that post or do you think that we should have a constitution that is subject to amendment with a simple majority (or perhaps just one that is subject to a majority of liberals?).
Sure, I get it, you’re not getting your way and you’re ready to throw out the constitution when it is inconvenient for you.
What example are you talking about?
A rational and mature response to, lets make it illegal starting next week to buy a particular type of gun is to buy one this week, that is if you have any desire to own the gun.
Assuming you mean banning and confiscation and assuming you also mean the guns that are owned by criminals. Your problems isn’t just with the laws we have, its with reality.
So you are ranting about a philosophically pure position that might exist in some alternate timeline where we never invented guns.
I’m against nuclear weapons but I don’t have any way of making places like North Korea disarm so I don’t insist that America disarms either.
So I’ll tell you what, get gun ownership among criminals low enough that the cops and the FBI don’t feel the need to carry guns and then lets talk.
I think what Kable is talking about is your side’s continued insistence that they respect the second amendment and only want to get rid of these dangerous military style assault weapons. These weapons account for almost none of the gun violence in this country, so what could be the reason for spending so much effort and political capital to ban such an ineffective means of reducing gun violence. I don’t really believe that the Brady Campaign is full of ignorant spiteful people, they just rely on ignorance and spite to further their agenda of reducing the list of available guns a little bit at a time until our gun laws look like Mexico’s (in the belief that unlike mexico, the gun ownership (in type and amount) among criminals will start to reflect the gun ownership among civilians.
Its an awful uncertain thing that you are asking society to ignore the constitution for.
Oh! I thought all this time this was like when the Congress renamed French fries as freedom fries.
I thought Kable was indicating that he is a French enthusiast.
I think your assessment is colored by where you live. There are many places where there are active efforts to increase restrictions and Heller does nothing to prevent those bad laws to continue to be enacted. If not for Gov Brown veto in CA, there would have been additional gun bans starting in 2014. Until Heller is recognized at the federal appellate level in all the circuits, it has no teeth. It would me a mistake to overplay the hand in Heller.
The argument is more like: Since the vast majority of all current and would-be gun owners are not insane, angry and otherwise ill-intentioned, we should not try to limit their access to guns simply because of the existence of a tiny minority that will actually use them to do harm.
I agree. Banning assault weapons alone is not the answer.
Most gun owners are not evil. Hell, most people are not evil. Other countries manage just fine without a second amendment. I don’t see any reason America wouldn’t do just as well.
Why do you keep bringing up the bible in this context? Who gives a damn about the bible or religion when it comes to guns? Oh, wait, I think I know…
I want nothing of the kind. I want to amend it. Amend it so that the second amendment is effectively neutered. The fact that it hasn’t been accomplished to date is a direct reflection of American culture and society - too much right, not enough left on this issue. It’s in stark contrast to much of the rest of the democratic world. I expect that will change in due time.
You can’t be serious. You cannot think of one example of an individual or group that disagreed with the prevailing gov’t or law that was expelled or otherwise punished for their dissent? But let’s pretend that’s never happened. Do you think that people who do not support the second amendment should be invited to seek citizenship in another country for their opposing views?
I love the fucking idiots who think if we pass laws banning guns, that no one will have any guns and we will all be safer. We banned drugs in this country long ago. How the fuck is that going? Not very fucking good, is it?
If there was some magic that would make every gun in the world go “POOF” and be gone, and keep new guns from ever being made, I’d be happy to take that deal.