I don't have a problem with my argument. You assume you have actual facts and not lies perpetuated by a lazy media. The vast majority of guns illegally trafficked are stolen and very few, less than 10%, are bought new by straw buyers. The time to crime for a gun in the US is 10 years. That means on average, it takes 10 years from first sale before a gun is used in a crime.

If an RPG is not covered, then a nuke wouldn't be either and I didn't think I needed to draw that distinction. If it wasn't clear, I stated that defensive arms were. As for court cases, Us. v. Miller (1934) and DC v. Heller (2008). Read them and you will see that guns in common use (AR 15s are mighty common) for both individual and the common defense.

As for what a person would be faced with, it's the same as what a cop would be faced with. Here is a guy who needed it. He is not the only one.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e55_1234305715

What??? You don't know the law. While it's per se legal for someone to buy a bunch of ARs, it's a strong indication of a straw purchase and the FFLs are required to not sell them and these FFLs along the border . The FFLs were told by the ATF to proceed on the sales. The electronic tracker program was only one of the programs and that was not implemented on all 2500 guns but only a handful of them.

Learn the law and get your facts straight. The US government intentionally trafficked firearms so they could track those firearms to mexican crime scenes. In other words, the guns were needed to be used before they could be tracked.

I can't believe how many people believe the bull shit of the anti gun crowd like it's real.

I replied with data points that refuted his absolutist statement. I have a job and a volunteer position that I need to attend to and can do everyone's homework for them.

If you want to investigate this issue please do and you will realize that respected economists and others have found no correlation, much less causation, of gun control policy v. actual gun violence (eliminating suicides from the mix). Even ones who were originally antigun and who thought they would find the opposite. Start with John Lott.

Yes, The US government is actually supplying those guns to mexican cartels (google fast and furious cartel guns) and I am sure things will be peachy once all of us are disarmed in all of North america. It's not like the governments don't supply guns to bad people...

Sorry, distilling not fermenting. You are right there in my haste I didn't make the distinction.

I see, so the conversation you want to have is that I am automatically wrong ("But that conversation will go nowhere if you think you have a constitutional right to a high-capacity magazine"), you are automatically neutral (because you are open mined about the destructiveness of a plastic box) but everything is framed in terms of need and enjoyment. I see.

So you don't have a right to post on the internet for all to see. You don't have a right to email because it allows you to communicate with lots of people with little cost. I don't see the 1A says that speech to large numbers of people is part of the right any more than you see a right to a box. And when you invariably say "But it's guns and they are killy and only meant to kill" realize speech kills. A lot. A turd in FL burned a Koran and 20 UN workers in Afghanistan were slaughtered. Yeah, the syria thing was BS but the one in Afghanistan wasn't. People lie routinely in political campaigns. Bush II got elected and then waged war based on a pack of lies. How many people dies because those lied allowed the people to support his stupidity?

An arm is easily defined and frankly that you would think that nukes falls under that or even entertain that is telling. An arm is that which a soldier can bear by themselves for their defense. An RPG is an offensive arm. Not a defensive arm. It's real simple actually. A rifle is a defensive arm in that it is suited for that. A single RPG pull of the trigger can kill tens of people. A single pull of the rifle trigger kills at most one. Offensive v. defensive. It's done.

You don't want a conversation. You want a conversion by me to your deluded way of thinking that objects are responsible for the havoc their operators cause. We don't ban cars because people kill with them. We don't ban kitchen knives because more people are killed by those than assault weapons. Hell, more people are killed by hammers than assault weapons. Look it up. FBI stats. Google it as many articles have been written on it.

A: Regulated meant disciplined in 1780s America.
B: Mexico and Brazil have virtually no legal civilian gun ownership and their murder rates (including those with firearms) are orders of magnitude higher than ours.
C: States and Cities in the US with strict gun control regimes are some of the most dangerous places to be in this country. The stats you are swallowing whole include suicides in them to make the rural areas look dangerous.
D: You know nothing about this topic and are simply seeking information to confirm your biases.
Good day to you sir.

And the stupidity of this "theory" of theirs is only once has the squirrel found this nut. Every other mass shooter has gone through magazine after magazine of ammo without ever getting stopped. VT ran through 17 magazines averaging 10 rounds each and guess what, no one stopped him. It's a canard.

It's not legal to ferment grain at home. Only beer and wine.

So you want to eliminate 2/3rds of the self-defense situations out there (not counting military because mostly that's not self-defense) before granting us the privilege of proving to you we *need* something the bill of rights guarantees??? No thanks. You have proven you don't care about the truth. BTW: It's also not called the bill of needs either.

Right, the stock ticker and the wireless company aren't the same, which means there are a lot of dumb people out there.

As others have said, this is not about electrical interference but social control. What's the difference between someone reading harry potter on a 1lb device or reading it in it's 10 lb hardcover form? The greater danger is from the projectile the book becomes in a crash. But since there is no FUD means for banning the book, they allow you to read it. But in reality there is no difference so long as the plane doesn't crash.