Oh, Bull! That's like saying that someone who is for a single-payer health-care system wants to turn the country communist! & as Mike stated, the 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere, so even if I would love to see virtually no guns anywhere, just like with an afterlife, I don't resort to wishful thinking in real life! Maybe we really ought to be extreme to fight the NRA lies, to fight that extreme in the same way you describe!

You need to stop believing the NRA bullshit. I do NOT want a gun free country. I own guns. The 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere, it's practically impossible to repeal an amendment if I wanted to, and I don't

@phxbillcee You just said, "...so even if I would love to see virtually no guns anywhere..."

I rest my case. A majority of people who are shouting from the rooftops about gun control do indeed want them gone, not just controlled.

Yes, the NRA lies. It's a political machine, so of course it does. I can't do anything about that. That doesn't mean I want them to stop fighting for the 2nd Amendment.

@Shawno1972 Jeez! I also said, "I don't resort to wishful thinking...". At least don't cherry pick like xtian apologists do, & for the same reason! Wanting to live in a world without guns is like wanting to live in a world without disease. Ain't happenin' anytime soon, so stop that false, idiotic trope! In other words, stop lying & stop putting words in people's mouths! You are so typical of the ammosexuals that won't listen & won't budge! Just really sad!

@phxbillcee There's no need to hurtle insults. I get that you're bothered by what I said, but maybe you can take it down a notch? You really have no idea what I believe or stand for. Thanks.

@Shawno1972 Really?!? You've sort of shown that in your response to me! You took a part of my statement & tried to make it the whole! You're dishonest! So, yeah, easy to see what you stand for! I'm bothered because you're lying in how you carry out this argument. No thanks!

@Shawno1972 Hurtle insults! LOL

Which will always be better armed than the civilians!

If assault weapons "aren't well suited for hunting or home defense", then why license them at all? You want to give a license to someone for a weapon of mass murder?

And they are no match for fighting a tyrannical government. A whole army of civilians armed with fully automatic weapons is no match against a government armed with fighter jets, tanks, cannons, etc.

@dare2dream License assault rifles for fighting a tyrannical government.

I’ll just concede your point that they are no match. I don’t see how that is an argument to ban them. To me it supports the idea of allowing more deadly weapons like the M16 or AK-47.

The well armed and regulated militias of 1861-65 didn't fair too well against the 'tyrannical' government. Tyrannical is/was a matter of personal choice. I'm deliberately avoiding slavery in that argument, just what would have been seen as freedoms of the period.

Is it not obvious that a person would get a handgun for security? Does it help the discussion to say they need a ‘security blanket‘? It’s great that you don’t feel like you need or want a handgun. I wouldn’t make a blanket statement about others though.

@indirect76 The only time I ever considered getting a gun for personal protection was the period I spent several years living in the US of A. It's a gun oriented society and I would never want to bring a knife to a gun fight. That said I have live in places like Bermuda where guns are highly prohibited, virtually nobody has one, even the local gangs only had access to one handgun that could be rented if you had the right connections. My American employees would often feel naked without 'their gun' when they first came to Bermuda but I would explain to them that nobody else had a gun either so they were perfectly safe considering they were much bigger than most Bermudians and better equipped to defend themselves physically.
The USA is not the whole world and it's rules don't apply everywhere.

@Surfpirate I agree, living in the U.S. does tend to make people want to own guns.

You do realize that a fully automatic weapon that you are describing is quite difficult to get in the United States, right?

If our founding fathers had wanted everybody to have as many guns as they want, the 2nd amendment would just say" the right of the people to own firearms shall not be infringed" saying anything other than that says they intended some type of limitations.

@MikeFlora Would this technically apply to nukes too?

These guys used quill pens and bottles of India ink they're not going to write more words than they have to. So if they had wanted everybody to have as many guns as they wanted the 2nd amendment would just say "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". Anything beyond that means they had some kind of limitations in mind. The whole militia thing means they had some serious limitations in mind, and it would have been nice if they had bothered to explain a little better what they had in mind, exactly.

They are pounding it into their members that we want to get rid of all guns and repeal the 2nd amendment