You are aware that we can change the legal definition of something, right? You're acting like no one has any right to change the constitution. You're wrong.
|My right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Now we can agree that people should own rocket launchers. But banning rocket launchers is, in fact, infringing on my right to bear arms. We have just agreed that it is a reasonable infringement and amended the original law to reflect that agreement. |
And we can as easily amend the law to state that an assault rifle ban is a reasonable infringement.
|Nope. As stated above, the argument surrounds the constitutionality of limited the type of guns one is allowed to own. It is a valid argument and an important one. It's not as easy is flailing about "BUT BUT...THE KIDS!!! GUN NUTS ARE CRAZY!!!" |
Yeah, because that's what I'm doing.
|I guess I just feel like you are over-simplifying the idea that someone shouldn't own an assault rifle because you, personally, don't see a reason why anyone would need it.|
That's not what I said. I said IF we ban assault weapons, it will be because a majority of people have decided that.
| There doesn't seem to be any practical application for banning the weapon, just political chest pounding.|
The first part of that sentence is only true if you ignore facts. The practical application has been pointed out to you several times in this thread. There's also no practical application for allowing the average citizen to have one, so the argument is irrelevant at best. The second part of that sentence is just a meaningless insult, not to mention projection.