Ok. If a weapon was invented that harnessed nuclear technology that could kill thousands in an instant and fits in the palm of your hands, should people be allowed to own them, for protection or hunting?
what the hell kind of comparison is that?
i understand your logic, or the idea you was trying to express,
but having a mobile or semi mobile nuclear device that can kill 1000s or 100k of people at once, in the hands of "civilians" is in no way on the same level as having a gun. even one with 30 round mags.
if the argument is that we don't need ar-15s or ak-47s, only hunting rifles or handguns,
that defeats the whole purpose of the 2nd amendment:
the reason we have guns is to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government.
the government has tanks, full auto machine guns (not semi-auto like we have)
rockets, nukes, and 100k-1mill plus of brainwashed "soldiers" to jump by their command.
and what do we have? some toy weapons? semi auto 20-30-45? rounds?
woooooow. much defense, much victory over bad government.
we are already at a severe disadvantage, only our numbers can take them down at this point.
these random shootings that happen oh so conveniently spaced together, then broadcasted for a week or two on the news, followed by candle lit ceromony, followed by crying people, followed by.... really cant be helped or stopped. ban or no ban.
**straightens tin-foil hat after it almost fell**
there are about what 3 guns to every american? i know its probably 1:1,
there are 331 million people in the United states alone.
not counting undocumented persons, no matter what race.