Again....But it's never the guns!

[Shell B]

It doesn't matter. You said it was a stupid law to write and that civilians never should have had guns. If the government has guns, so should we. A people should always be able to protect itself from tyranny. The framers of the Constitution knew that better than anyone.

.... Lost case ...

Seriously? That is your response to me pointing out that you moved the goalposts? Great argument, bro. By the way, it's lost cause, dumbass.

---

Who says the government isn't supposed to have nuclear weapons? Is there some nuclear arms treaty I don't now about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_t...ar_Weapons

Pursue disarmament. In other words, they are supposed to be getting rid of nuclear weapons.

And anyway, to follow your logic it doesn't really matter if government is supposed to have nuclear weapons, it matters that the government actually does have nuclear weapons. Your example seemes to be stating that whatever force the government uses, we should be able to match. The government is able to use nuclear weapons; should we be able to match that?

No. My argument is that if the government is armed, the people should be as well.

Bullets start fires?

Don't be willfully obtuse. You were going on an on about destructive weapons.

Yes, you can do just as much damage with a gun as you can witha cannon which is why I also don't think the public needs to own military artillary. Would you argue that the military should be able to own artillary cannons? You can actually do more damage with a sword than a gun, largely because swords don't run out of bullets, but you don't see these mass shootings happening with swords (and if we did, I'd be calling on us to put regulations in place to regulate sword use).

If you think I am arguing that there should be no regulations, you are either ascribing someone else's argument to me or putting up strawmen. I don't give a shit if gun use is regulated. I'm pointing out the fallacies in all of these, "But, but, guns are more destructive den anyting, eber." retarded ass arguments I keep seeing.

The major technological advances between the revolutionary war and the civil war made guns even more destructive. They used rifles, not muskets. There's a huge difference between the two; after you fire with a musket, you had to turn the musket upside down, pour powder in the top, put another pellet in and stuff them. That took so long to do that it actually would have been faster to reload with a bow and arrow.

The difference is hardly huge. Single shot. Reloading in the midst of battle, etc. You do realize that there was not even a century between the two wars, right? You also realize that the Civil War was also a rebellion where weapons were required for the safety of the country, right? Citizens needed weapons to protect themselves from roaming bands of starving soldiers and deserters, right? Please tell me that you can see the irony of your argument? Deadlier weapons, yet still the Constitution must hold for the good of the people.

And if we're going to consider the civil war, let's take another look at things. The war was bloody and deadly because of a lack of hygenic practices. You got shot in the arm, they responded by cutting the arm off... and then they used the same saw, without cleaning it off, to cut the arm off the next guy. Scores after scores of people died from infection. While the guns were still dangerous, they still aren't nearly as destructive as the body count alone would indicate.

What the actual fuck? Who's talking about the "body count?" Go by casualties. You can get a pretty accurate idea of how many people were shot by that. That's what people are arguing, right? "You jest cain't shoot dat many peoples with anyting short of an automatic weapon."

Kinda disingenious of you to specifically exclude the phrase that I emphasized, isn't it?

Oh, you mean the phrase that is readily available on the internet and included in your post? That one? I wasn't being disingenuous. I was avoiding having a quote within a quote because the tags kept fucking up and I was tired. Ass.

I think that's an important phrase because I don't, and never have, believed that we should just take everyone's guns away; I do believe that they should be 'well regulated,' just like the constitution references. While taking guns away would be unconstitutional, regulating those guns is totally kosher.

I completely agree with that, as anyone who has read my posts would know. I just disagree with assertions of what sounds like a bunch of pussy ass founding fathers. They weren't pussies and they were much more intelligent than your average "ermagerd the Constitution is old" twatwaffle you see on the internet.