As opposed to the civilian disarmament crowd that only wants weapons in the hands of the rich and connected.

I do not see the PA or even Hamas advocating the launching or rockets lately. If there are such criminals, then they can be prosecuted. Demolishing hospitals is obviously not proportional response.

Individuals launching rockets is not the same as Israel as a whole committing those crimes. Also I don't remember the Palestinians using white phosphorus on civilians, do you?

I'm pretty sure Google has more power than many small nations and the UN.

Giant Enemy Crabs are easy. Just flip them over and attack their weak point for massive damage.

But they can be free as in freedom food. I no longer have to eat from my toe.

No, but since criminals already have guns, I'd rather shoot back.

Well, you're free to do so. You shouldn't make me take the chances you want to take, though. If you don't want to be armed, don't be. I will still carry my pistol, and I'm still going to use it if it is needed. Be sure to tell me how it goes if you ever get attacked by multiple assailants.

No, not really. A group of men trying to rape my wife are going to get shot, whether armed or not. A thief that breaks into my house will be shot, armed or not, and any group of punks that threatens me with a knife or any other object that might harm me is going to get shot. I don't need them to be armed to defend myself with deadly force. The point is taking the advantage. I'm not about making this a fair fight.

I was referring to the AR-15, as the gun you want to outlaw. You're not going to get killed by one, as for France, who the hell cares? They're not exactly a model to follow. They also force you to disclose encryption keys because you "might be a pedo." So excuse me if I don't think of France as the model nation.

One assumes that the "bear" part of the second amendment means man-portable, or at least that's how it's been interpreted historically.

Only if you drive it in public roads.

Funny, they don't seem to require that to purchase a car. So no, not a good idea. If you're going to carry, though. I agree take a class, and get a license. The government has the right to regulate that when in public, but stay out of my house and what I own.

Sellers already do background checks. Private sales are different, and yes if you are caught selling to a felon, that's a crime. A lot of people do background checks to protect themselves. In either case, criminals sell to each other, and that isn't going to change. Guess what? That's where they get their illegal guns, not gun shows as some people would have you believe.

Well, the thing about that is that it's at least fair. If you've proven you aren't responsible, you should be punished when you try to acquire an item that we know you are not responsible with. You shouldn't be punishing me for what I may do. That's just policing thoughtcrime.

And I support enforcement of gun laws already on the books. I don't see why I should limit myself for the sake of "security" seeing as I'm not the problem, though.

But it is illegal. If you are committing a crime, which is at the point that you become a criminal, it is another crime to have a gun with you. So yes, it is illegal, and will give harsher punishments.

No, what you are suggesting is having a driver's exam every time you buy a car, borrow, or rent. That's the kind of idiotic thing you are suggesting. As for allowing 13 year olds to buy alcohol and cigarettes, well that's already illegal, we don't require background checks to give one to your friend or spouse. You'll notice that selling to criminals is a crime, and a felon having a firearm is also a crime. As for airport security, well I don't like to be groped or have nude images of me or my wife taken, but I don't know about your tastes. I would rather not.

Strange, I could have sworn that criminals having firearms was already illegal. I wonder why the police haven't stopped it. Oh, right because they can't. Maybe if we make it ban it harder it will work, though how you do that is anyone's guess.

No, what it means is that you have no idea what you're arguing about, or why certain firearms are preferred over others. So how in the world, would you know what restrictions do or do not make sense? You don't, because you haven't bothered to study the problem. This would be more akin to letting a creationist be the head of the Texas Board of Education.

Then why is that not good enough now? Oh, right because they don't enforce the law to begin with. This regulation only works for people that submit to it, not criminals.

Except that "large capacity magazines" as you seem hell-bent on calling them are not a problem, and they don't get used in murders. And when is the last time criminals registered their stolen firearms? Never, that's when. The government can come and search my house anytime they like if they get a proper warrant. They have no business knowing otherwise. I remember that people on this very site were angry that India would demand the decryption of cellphones, but it's only a violation of privacy when it's something you like, and reasonable when you don't. I didn't murder anyone, nor do I plan to. Leave me and others like me alone.

Actually it only says that there are restrictions to dangerous and unusual weapons. The AR series are neither unusual or dangerous. Furthermore, the case of United States v. Miller states that the second amendment protects the right to weapons in common use by a militia. Seeing as how the organized militia, the National Guard, has access to not only the AR series, but the M16 variant, I'd say that we have a bit of regulation to do away with. Now had we been arguing about RPGs, or mortar shells, you'd have been right, but you're not. Maybe try reading the court cases next time.

I'll have you know my cousin was an avid cricket fan and a junkie. Think before you post. Do you think Britain is the only place in the world that plays the game?