So .. is there an acceptable level of violent deaths for you?? As long as someone can only kill one person at a time with a knife or cricket bat is that OK as long as they can't kill two or five using a gun?? Are you willing start regulating knifes and cricket bats also, because those have been used by crazy people to kill also. Don't laugh, several years ago a group of doctors in the UK suggested that long, pointed kitchen knives should be banned because they are plenty of other alternatives and they tend to be the knives used most often when killing someone with a knife. Just as with firearms in the UK, they didn't ban them all at the same time. It started with just one type.

Your entire argument is that if you take something away, it can't be used anymore by crazy, bad, or angry people. That is a logical argument. So, why don't we just round up everyone that we think is crazy, bad, or angry and put only them into jail. That should stop the violence also, shouldn't it??? How about a law that says if you threaten someone, you are put into jail for 20 years to make sure you can't. What if we pass a law that says that if someone is scary, they also get put into jail. How about we pass a law that says the nice, quiet guy that lives next door, never bothers anyone, always says hi, is also thrown into jail just in case he goes nuts.

I can think of all kinds of ways to end all kinds of violence that would also work that are equally as moronic as removing all guns. Since you probably don't read any real news, you probably don't read about how daily, people all over the United States stop violence because they are armed. It does happen, a lot more than idiots like Rupurt Murdoch and Everytown want you to know.

The price that is paid by removing all guns it can't be used by the large portion of the population either that enjoy using it, already have it, and sometimes depend on it. You are willing to deny large segments of the population something they find useful and safe simply because you don't use it, aren't affected by not having it, are scared by it, and have a (false) sense of security because it's not around.

Free free to not own a gun. I have no problems with you not owning a gun.

I have problems with whiny little college kids thinking they have some sort of magical insight into the world and try to justify taking something away from me that has never been used in an illegal manner simply because they are scared of it, probably because they have never even shot a gun before in their life.

Fortunately, I didn't have such overly-protective parents and learned to shoot as a teen and discovered how much fun it was putting holes in pieces of paper 500 yards away.

Your comment about Canada fails to note that Canada not only has fewer guns per capita, but also fewer capita per square mile. People kill other people either because they are crazy and just want to kill people, or because they are pissed at them. It's a lot harder for crazy people to kill other people when their aren't any other people around. And it's a lot harder to get pissed at people if fewer people are around. I also wonder what their drug/crime rates are, removing gun incidents that occur around other criminal acts significantly lowers the overall death rate. People involved in criminal activities are far more likely to end up on the receiving end of a gun or knife than I am. People who live in high-crime areas are also more likely to become a statistic.

The United States is not a violent culture, that's a label that liberals and other anti-gun fanatics love to throw around. The vast majority don't go around beating up people, stabbing them, or shooting them. There are pockets that are violent, usually centered around poverty and drugs. The average person is very unlikely to witness violent acts, let alone be the object of them, in many areas of the country.

Owning and shooting guns does not define a violent culture. Anymore than owning cars defines a country as a racing culture or drinking at bars defines it as an alcoholic culture. My wife and I own 3 revolvers, 3 pistols, a lever-action rifle, and a semi-automatic rifle. I probably have close to 1,000 rounds of ammo, and several pounds of gunpowder. The only violence these mechanical devices have seen is at firing ranges and in the desert, where helpless targets, plastic water-filled bottles, and the occasional apple are strewn about for practice.

The vast majority of the population in the United States stays as far away from violence as they can, except for in the movies. And from what I can tell, many people all over the world like violent movies just about as much as the population of the United States.

In what way is a semi automatic rifle with no serial number consistent with a well regulated militia?

In a way pornography is consistent with the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Heck, much better than that: any militia — well-regulated or otherwise — can use such a rifle whether or not it has serial number.

Huh??? I own an M1 Garand, total length 43.5 inches. It would take little more than dexterity to use it to end my own life. Presumably most people that intend to commit suicide have toes, right?

Gosh, if only there was a way to have let your Mom know that it was the two of you instead of a would-be rapist. Perhaps you could have yelled out "HI MOM, WE'RE HOME EARLY!" as you entered the house. Nah, that couldn't possibly work. It's a damn good thing for you she wasn't armed or you'd be dead now. I have the same fear every time I come home early, but thankfully my girlfriend has evolved some pretty neat biological features like eardrums that reduce the likelihood of this happening....

The Constitution allowed slavery

Nope, there until the Thirteenth Amendment.

and no vote for women

Nope, the Constitution was silent on the matter until the Nineteenth Amendment.

We have to make the laws that are reasonable to our time.

Sure. The point was, for any such laws to be valid, the Second Amendment has to be abolished (or altered) first. Hardly unheard of — the Eighteenth Amendment, which prohibited the sale of alcohol, was repealed by the Twenty-first, for example.

Make arguments, please, that are really arguments, rather than hiding behind a document

I am making a legal argument, and I'm referencing (not "hiding behind" — whatever that means) a legal document — the Constitution.

Does it make sense now for individuals to buy and sell full-auto weapons? "Assault rifles"? Flamethrowers? Surface-to-air missles? What are the real distinctions?

As long as the Second Amendment is in effect, there are no distinctions. If you feel there should be, you need to discard (or reword) the Amendment — until then, any and all weapons are, indeed, legal under the Constitution.

That's because you're calling the White House switchboard. Try the Country Club next time and you'll probably catch him. :)

A lot of these vendors are locked into their own technologies.

I had interviewed at Epic once (didn't feel like moving to Wisconsin... sorry) and realized that they used M for most of what they did... not much interconnectivity there.

The Civil War there has been ongoing for a little over three years. The American Revolutionary War took eight years to fully resolve itself. The Syrian Government only controls about 20% of the country if this map is any indication, so that would seem to dispel your notion that you can't effectively fight the police state.

The Syrian Government is doomed in the long term; it's basically a battle of attrition at this point and the cold mathematical reality is that al-Assad's followers have less males of military age than his opponents. Barring decisive intervention from the outside he is doomed; I leave it to the reader to decide if this is a good thing or not...

deeply-confused gun-nuts who thinks that banning guns designed for mass murder means banning defensive guns.

I don't see, where in the Second Amendment there is any distinction made. An 18-century cannon fired at the right target would be no less devastating ("mass-murderous"), than an M-16 today. Yet, the Constitution makes no exceptions — any arms can kept and any can be born.

If you wish to see any such limitations added, you should be arguing for abolishing the Amendment — not violating it, as is common practice now.

But, if limiting the weapons "designed for mass murder" were indeed the goal, why are the brass knuckles and "bladed weapons" illegal anywhere? I mentioned this mystery in the post you replied to, but you chose to bring up "mass murder" anyway — which means, you are not merely mistaken here, but are a liar (or, indeed, simply a troll).

Such people generally use stolen firearms or (more rarely) legally purchased firearms via straw buyers (i.e., Here's $1,500, buy this $1,000 firearm for me and pocket the change)

Criminals don't need to build their own firearms when there are sufficient numbers of stolen ones in circulation.

It did no such thing, it simply reserved such matters to the States, per the 10th Amendment. The 14th and 19th Amendments changed that of course. The 14th was actually intended by its drafters to be interpreted more broadly than it has been, in theory it should have immediately applied the Bill of Rights against the States (including the 2nd Amendment) but SCOTUS neutered it and it has instead taken the better part of a century and a half to get most of the Bill of Rights applied against the States.

Incidentally, the established process of amending the Constitution (Article V) is available for gun control proponents to take advantage of if they think they can actually win a debate on the merits of the issue. All you need to do is convince 2/3rd's of Congress and 3/4ths of the State Legislatures to sign off on a repeal or amendment of the 2nd Amendment. Best of luck with that. :)

Do you somehow find yourself aggrieved by not being able to carry a sword with you?

The point was to demonstrate, that people harping on "assault weapons" and seek to limit the size of a magazine, are fools or liars. As are those, who try to limit the Second Amendment protection to the sort of weaponry available when the Amendment was written.

I should think there's very little call for walking around with a sword.

I should think, it is none of your business. Whether there is such "call" or not, as long as the Second Amendment is in effect, no local ordinances can (legally) ban any arms — certainly not those, which were in wide use, when the Amendment was written

That said, the brass knuckles, which I listed in the same sentence, remain quite convenient to carry — and will not harm your toddler, should he find them (another oft-repeated argument against firearms) — yet, you chose to ignore them completely...

I thus doubt your honesty and sincerity here and am unlikely to respond again.

Must be nice to have tickets that are only $100. The very cheapest moving violation in Oklahoma City is well over $200, and the speeding fines start in the upper 200s.
Keep in mind that tickets are not a mere nuisance for rich people, either. Tickets cause insurance to go up, and eventually tickets lead to getting your drivers license taken away. That is not any better for the rich than it is for the rest of us.