You are aware that many famous killers were in the military before they shot innocent poeple, right? Being in the military doesn't mean you should be trusted with an assault rifle at home.

a background check is needed of course.

If a background check removed your ability to buy a gun then it would also remove the ability to join the military. Plus most killers have a clean history.

I can actually agree with some of this, being a full on gun control supporter, but the tyrannical government argument always makes me cringe. Partially because if the US Army does decide to go full on Fourth Reich on our asses, do you really think a couple of rednecks with AKs are gonna be able fight off one of, if not THE, biggest war machines on Earth? One with thousands of bases around the world? It's a good argument, but it always seemed to me like a hopeless one.

Well I'm just a glass half-full tonight, aren't I?

"do you really think a couple of rednecks with AKs are gonna be able (to) fight off one of, if not THE, biggest war machines on Earth?"

The US Army only has 1.5 million Active duty service members. 95% don't have combat roles. Of that 5% that actually fight, how many do you think would follow orders to kill U.S. citizens?

And on top of that, a bunch of uneducated farmers with AKs and tricky tactics kicked our asses pretty hard in Vietnam.

im not talking about "a couple of rendnecks with AKs", im talking about actual war veterens, security experts and such. And make "assault" rifles very hard to be bought in case of rednecks and normal citizans.

There's actually something I can agree with. I don't agree with an all out assault weapons ban, but I do like the idea of it being restricted from access by civilians. And I was just making a joke about the rednecks thing.

why dont you agree that atleast war veterens shouldnt get assault rifles?

I agreed with you on that point.

Thats the Socrates method of argument i was trying btw.

That was actually a pretty good read, and I honestly don't have any argument against it. I guess I just don't see it as optimistically as that guy. But if such were the case, wouldn't we be breaking the law anyhow? Would gun restrictions even matter at that point? I guess it would limit access to it, but can't we just take it from fallen soldiers in our Wolverines-styled insurrection?

The founding fathers were breaking the law. You do not comprehend what is going on here. I'm not saying go start a revolution. No one wants that, But this is what the 2nd amendment is for.

Lets make up a hypothetical,but improbable situation. Not too improbable Mind you governments have become tyrannical before look at Germany in the 1930's all democratically elected.

Lets say Government bans "Assault rifles" then decided it was a good idea and then bans all guns. Then lets say a few years later lets say they Ban the first amendment on the ground the fore fathers could not have seen inventions like the the internet, telephone, and tv would be invented.

Where is your checks and balancing system then.

I can actually agree with all of that. I don't agree with full on gun bans, I would just prefer the guns with bigger magazine capacities be kept out of the reach of common civilians. I wouldn't mind if, like the guy above suggested, actual war vets and soldiers and the like were allowed to keep them though. I just think it's unneeded in the long run and would cut down on gun crimes with such high death tolls.

When you read my other comment you will understand but I will say this again.
Only 3.5% of all gun crime are committed with long-rifles which the "assault rifle" is a sub-category of.

The second amendment isn't for Military vets also. Its intended for everyone who "is of sound mind and body" THIS IS YOUR RIGHT AS WELL. Why do you wish to limit yourself also?

Because I have no interest, and never had any interest, of ever owning a gun with such a high capacity because I don't feel it is needed?

>high-capacity

Why do you keep saying this? 30 rounds is a standard capacity magizine.

I will agree with you that 100 to 200 round Beta Mags need to be banned there unwieldy and have no point besides being "Tacticool" and often cause gun jams.

By "such a high capacity" I'm comparatively speaking. I'm saying I've never had any interest in owning anything with more bullet capacity than your average pistol magazine, so that is to say 6-9 shots.

You do realize that most standard pistol capacity now a days is like 17 right?

I think the only way that'll happen is if Hitler is resurrected and he hypnotizes the government but then we can go Red Dawn on THEIR asses! yeah!

Yes because the govt would give people weapons to fight them if they decide to be tyrannical.

that is why the 2nd amendment was created