Conservativism is the Ideology of Selfishness

No.

You are a fucking moron.

That ban's importance rests on when the weapon was manufactured, not the fact it's being sold. Since it only effect the sale of brand new assault weapons it wasn't much of a ban as far as protecting anyone goes.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3--that has nothing to do with anything in this discussion.

Not that one, idiot. The other one you posted, the one you want desperately to forget about.

Oh, so the one that makes me right isn't OK to post here?

I think I can sum up SDs debate abilities in this thread:

Can you see that?

Awe, he hates having his words used against him.

You are right in neither example.

For the last time, a Wikipedia article that you could have written yourself doesn't prove anything.

Do you see how pointless that is since people could still easily get assault rifles if they wanted to? They just had to buy older ones.

EXACTLY!

Except that "couldn't" would be more accurate.

Other than that...

Appology accepted

My words weren't used against me. The ban was for selling these weapons. It's pretty obvious and only a fool would claim otherwise.

That.
Is.
What.
We.
Have.
Been.
Telling.
You.
For.
Two.
Hours.

I never said it didn't say that.

Christ...I'm sorry...I accidently edited your post instead of quoting it .

I.
Never.
Said.
They.
Couldn't.

You really are dense. This IN NO WAY MAKES YOU RIGHT.

Yes you did.

So what was so great about this "Assault Weapons Ban" that didn't actually ban any assault weapons and was therefore completely and totally pointless?

Yes it does.

L
I
A
R

I can tell you his Stupidthink:

He wants guns banned so that they won't "be in common use" anymore so that the wording of the Bill of Rights will negate the right.

It's a retarded tactic, but I think that is where he's coming from.

I bought three!

Pretty much.

Course, the problem with political philosophy, is it's really a bit of circular reasoning to half-ass ethically justify what you already feel anyway.

Which is how you end up with a rigid split between the altruistic do-gooder types, and the selfish greedy prick types.

The problem with that is, everyone has a bit of selfishness AND altruism in them.
But when they become a fundie for their little ethos, and climb into that little box, a lot of other possibilities get blocked off, because "ew, yuck, that doesn't fit into my little box, that's how the guy in the enemy box thinks".

And then you end up with tedious debates like this thread.

All that said, Leo Strauss needs to be dug up, and a stake driven into his evil heart to make sure.

That's not it at all. I already said I support the 2nd Amendment but with limits because it's a technology.

And those limits are infringements of what is called a right. It does say SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Tamar Garish said she misquoted me so you're confusing me with her editing mistake.

Actually the ban did involve the ban of selling them. From PBS:

And that part of the Constitution gives congress the right to regulate how things are sold. That includes guns. You are right, however, that Congress does not regulate the sell between two individuals. For example, a father can give his son a gun. However, for anyone that sells guns: