9 year old girl accidentally kills shooting instructor

What you meant is what you always mean. Gubmint recognizes your right to bear arms, and one of your (Lanzman's) stated reasons for owning guns is to, if necessary, defend yourself from that very Gubmint. If you suddenly decided to storm the Pentagon, would you still get to keep your pension?

QFT.

Because you don't care about the mentally unbalanced, the criminals, or the idiots. Unless they use a gun. Then and only then do you care.

Typically leftists are for universal health care including mental care. Along with this we're perfectly happy with a nanny state. I'm not sure of your reasoning.

"Reasoning"? Can't hear it over the shouting. "YOU JUST WANNA TAKE UR GUNZ!!!!

Well, thanks for being honest about that, puts you ahead of about 90 percent of ypur brethren.

Your totally made up stat is one that is thrown around commonly by pro-gun types.

And it is one that is misleading if not applied to a discussion specifically on assault weapons. Garamet was disussing that very meme at the starting point of your 'existential' conversation with her - indeed, it specifically appears you are using it to deny her point.

It is the capability and extent of what the object is capable of. A weapon refined through centuries of warfare to kill people is going to be more deadly than a rock.

This is the whole 'you can't discuss nuclear weapons in a gun thread' argument. Yes, its silly.

Just as silly as claiming a flowerpot or rock is as deadly as a modern firearm.

Well, I was using hyperbole to make a point. "Perfectly happy" with a nanny state is an exaggeration; I'd be happier with less restrictive liquor and drug laws. Ditto for highway speeds. In general a more European attitude.

This. It's just that some Americans seem to need more nannying than others. If they're gonna throw tantrums and scream "My gunz, mine, Mine, MINE!!!!" at the slightest (or even no) provocation, why do they expect to be treated like anything other than annoying toddlers?

Not sure he meant what you think he meant.

I do, and in fact I share it. That's why I have guns.

That's a start. How do you distinguish between upright citizen and deranged sociopath when the doorbell rings? What actions do you take to ensure your safety?

Yeah, I know. So what?

So now you're saying it would have been misleading if the context of the discussion were something that it wasn't?

My point was that the whole, "But guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless at best, and outright deflection at worst, unless you're teaching a philosophy class. Everybody knows that guns were designed to kill.

Of course it is. Otherwise I'd have a concealed rock permit.

I agree.

And yet, curiously, that wasn't what I said.

I know you didn't.

Would you like me to copy and paste the 2nd Amendment?

[/quote]
Which has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, or the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment clearly defines this. There is no "perceived" right on my part regarding this, it is a fact. There is a difference between a right and a privilege.

I think you maybe confusing regulations for something with consequences for violating the law.

No need. It's right here

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Of course, if that's the only thing you read, I can understand your misunderstanding of the words. Throughout the Constitution, over and over, the authors refer to the people in reference to the government - a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Why would the authors, in this single instance, refer to "the people" as individuals?

"The people" listed in the First Amendment are referenced as individuals.

Or do you think only groups of people have the right to free speech?

All the people.

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Individually.

No. I edited my post. The authors are still referring to "all the people"

I believe that was the Gettysburg Address.

Why doesn't that say, "The People shall make no law..."?

Amendment I is still an individual right.

People are not mentioned in the free speech clause of the first Amendment.

I'm not going to convince you. However, people who have studied the document their entire adult lives still question this. You can believe if you want that the authors are saying what you wish them to say. But, I see more evidence, not just in the constitution, but in all their documents, that they were describing an army, not giving individuals the right to own assault weapons for fun and entertainment.

Jeez, Jenee, you got it exactly backwards. "The People" is not the government, it's us.

We are the government - at least, that is what the founding fathers intended.

When they do something deranged or sociopathic.

I wear seatbelts, I have fire extinguishers, and I own guns.

Abraham Lincoln wasn't one of the founding fathers.