Yeah, that’s not an answer. How are tanks, planes, missiles, etc more precise to the point that they have lower civilian casualties than a handgun or rifle?
You appear to be agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time? Yes, bigger weapons would involve more civilian casualties, but that's not relevant to the point you are being pressed on. A citation is not required to know that showing up with a knife to a gun fight puts you at a disadvantage. Your point about civilian casualties is a distraction tactic, LDSman. I'd let this one go.That’s always going to be true. Doesn’t mean you give up and surrender any chance of resisting.
I sympathize with the right wing's argument on this. There is historical precedent for governments turning against their own people, often violently. It isn't a boogeyman that doesn't exist, unlike transgender people molesting children in bathrooms and so on and so forth. The hypothetical scenario deserves to be engaged with seriously and not simply dismissed as conspiratorial. However, Tehrun's point is something we need to grapple with. How do we balance having a deterrent to a potentially oppressive regime with a healthy and functioning society? One could argue that at this point, an oppressive regime would be less deadly than the state of current gun control laws.
I'm also failing to understand if how, as you say, 2/3'ds of gun deaths are suicides, that negates the need for stricter gun control legislation. We tightly control substances like narcotics and other powerful drugs for example, which people commonly use to end their lives.
...Does the 2nd Amendment cover WMDs. In part I believe it does. Citizens used to own warships with cannons, artillery and even stockpiles of explosive materials. The problem is that chemical, biological and radiological weapons aren’t good personal defensive weapons. If you set off one of those, you do a lot of damage to the neighborhood and could even kill your self. If this was actually an issue rather than an attempt to argue gun restrictions by comparing limits on WMDs to guns, I could see allowing ownership provided the owner has a vault capable of preventing leakage of whatever is in it along with regular checks on the owner and the items in question. Would it ever be an issue? No. The number of people that could afford the items and afford to maintain and store them would be only a few in the country.
Well, I'm happy you answered, anyways. But damn. I had to wipe the crust out of my eyes a few times on this one.
You're being a little obtuse. Supreme court opinion pieces are often lengthy and filled with complex, legal jargon. I didn't argue against it, I asked you to do the work and quote the specific parts of the majority opinion that support you. And yes, I would say the same thing to anybody who cited any expert on any subject. It doesn't matter if it was "these scientists, these judges, these economists" etc. You can't just cite an authority without putting their specific argument into context and dip. :/If you have an issue with the court decision, please mention that instead of trying to dismiss my point by claiming it’s an “appeal to authority.” Throwing that one out could be a way to argue against any expert. “Well, these scientists say..”. Appeal to authority