You gun control advocates cannot even define accurately what an "assault weapon" is. Until you can, what sense does legislating it make?
I said nothing in favor of banning "assault weapons" so you are attacking an argument I never made. That is fallacious (straw man).
You just did, three times in your post #30, straw man.
That is false. What I actually said is: "There is potential for more damage when you use certain kinds of guns, ammo or modifiers. I agree the terminology of what constitutes an assault weapon is unclear and often manipulative, but I don't think that is a reason to disregard the entire premise rather than figure out better wording and clarifications."
As you can see, I said nothing about banning assault weapons. I said we can figure out better wording and clarifications for what society thinks ought to be banned. The term assault weapon could be disregarded entirely as far as I'm concerned.
Actually, it does, because 1. It is a fallacy that the purpose of a gun is to kill, as I demonstrated in post #29 [read the cited article],
What you did was cite a pro gun article with someone else's opinion. That is not demonstrating anything, especially because I think the article is stupid. For instance, it says "The purpose of a gun is not generally to kill. A handgun is designed for self-defense at short distances." How is a handgun going to be used in self-defense at short distances? Obviously the gun would be used to shoot someone and significantly injure or kill them, or threaten to via its capacity to do so; that is how it defends you. So relying on the argument that "guns don't kill" is pedestrian. It is lame to rely on semantics to make a point.
Guns have the capacity to kill and are often used to kill. That's what matters. That's why they are regulated. That's what you keep disregarding. I've repeated that we regulate other potentially dangerous things (drugs, alcohol, cars, etc.) and you've continuously ignored that point. Why is it okay to regulate those items but not guns when guns are far more dangerous and used to intentionally kill more often than drugs, alcohol and cars are? You can't say guns are above regulation because of our constitutional rights. I've already explained why the constitution is not absolute.
And constitutional scholars have debated how you can interpret the 2A for centuries. If the purpose of it is to protect us from tyrannical government, why are we not given a right to nuclear weapons as well? I also asked you if everyone is endowed by God with unalienable gun rights, why do you think society (someone like you) has a right to determine and regulate people's access to guns by their age, criminal status, etc. but you did not respond.
