A gun-grabber argument you may see

Stevens non-repeating... 1 shot or 2 shot per minute. Barely quality enough for hunting. And not even close to 1 per household...
And used in defense of our country... not 500 million dollars of sales each year as hype to arm citizens against each other over an illusionary spector of 'crime'... more innocent people have died by the gun than the entire British contigient sent to America... more innocent people have died by the gun than died in atomic bomb attacks... more innocent people have died without once repelling either a foriegn invasion or and internal insurgent revolution.
In fact: Forty-one percent of Republicans say they own a gun, compared with 27% of independents and 23% of Democrats

Stevens http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

Gun Ownership and Use in America
www.gallup.com
How many Americans personally own guns, and what do they use them for? A recent ...

Krieger When the Second Amendment was written that was also one of the most advanced weapons available.

Our founding fathers also continued to write about why they wrote the amendments and included them. The purpose of the amendments is very clear.

Stevens If that was true... there wouldn't be these discussions.

John ‎"non-repeating...
1 shot or 2 shot per minute.
Barely quality enough for hunting.
And not even close to 1 per household..."

Are directly contradictory to:

"And used in defense of our country"

You couldn't defend the country from an army loaded up with compound bows using those conditions.

Stevens Athough I usually don't repeat myself from one post to another... (please excuse)
The 2nd is an Amendment allowing the formation of a well order milita for the purpose of protecting against foriegn invasions... how many of those? Why... none.
Also for the protection of an insurgent revolution... how many of those? Again... none.
The rest is just good for gun sales.
But here's the thing:
The 2nd is an Amendment. A change or rather a revocation of an Amendment requires a passage through Congress to begin with and at least 31 states to agree to change it. It takes years. THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

John ‎"The 2nd is an Amendment allowing the formation of a well order milita for the purpose of protecting against foriegn invasions... how many of those? Why... none."

1) Revolutionary War by: The British Empire
2) War of 1812 by: The British Empire
3) American Civil War by: The Confederate States of America
4) Second World War by: The Japanese (They invaded the Aleutian Islands)

"Also for the protection of an insurgent revolution... how many of those? Again... none."

Um, the Civil War? Also the Whiskey Rebellion, Shays' Rebellion, the Dorr Rebellion, the Cordova Rebellion, Bleeding Kansas, and many more.

Given your thorough ignorance of history, why would any opinion you'd have on the topic of the second amendment be valid?

Stevens correct... in others I said in 200 hundred years. But I don't think the War btween the states qualifies... that was against secession, not revolution. Nice try though...
The Whiskey Rebellion was actually tax evasion.
Shay's also was about taxes, not revolution...
Dorr was the only one convicted of treason... hardly a revolution
The Cordova Rebellion was actually in the Republic of Texas, not the United States
Bleeding Kansas was a slave issue... not revolution...

Given your thorough ignorance of history, why would any opinion you'd have on the topic of the second amendment be valid?

John ‎" in others I said in 200 hundred years"

The Japanese invaded the Aleutians 70 years ago. So, wrong again.

The Civil War was a war where invading Confederate armies were marching through the North. Or invading Union armies were marching through the South, depending on where you were living. If you're living in your house, wouldn't you want to be able to defend it from marauders and deserters, even if you wouldn't be able to directly oppose the main force?

Yes, the other rebellions had reasons. That doesn't mean they aren't rebellions. Every rebellion, every single conflict ever, has had a cause. They were armed conflicts on U.S. soil.

Stevens And, as I missed it... the Revoultionary War was what? 10 years before the Constitution? It was a revolt against England... not the United States, which did not exist.

John I realize that after anything bad happens, we immediately try to see what we can do to make ourselves think we can keep it from happening again.

Gun laws would not have prevented this. The guy knew how to make explosives. He did make explosives. Nothing stopped him from using homemade explosives to blow up the entire theater.

More people in the movie theater who carry would have just been more people shooting, more people getting shot, and probably innocent CCW carriers getting shot by cops.

Better mental health screening wouldn't have helped, there was no real sign before this happened that it was going to happen. He didn't have a history of this like Jared Loughner, as far as we know. He seemed to be a brilliant scientist.

So what can be done about this, to keep it from ever happening again? Nothing. You won't stop spree killings from ever happening. They haven't stopped in the rest of the world. 2011 Liège attack in Belgium, the 2011 Norway attacks by Breivik, another 2011 spree in the Netherlands, a spree in 2010 in Slovakia, the Cumbria shootings in England in 2010, the 2009 Sello mall shooting in Finland, and the Wittenden school shootings in Germany. These things happen.

Stevens Angels on the head of a pin... and you know it.

John ‎...so you made a statement demonstrably and factually wrong, and that means you're right?

Anyway, since he's not my idiot friend, I went ahead and blocked him. It's clear the argument's not going anywhere, and that he's an idiot.

I think it was the result of a lot of personal growing on my part when I developed the ability to just walk away from a pointless and time-consuming internet argument.

Idiots. I'll argue my case but they're not getting my rifles even if they legislate them from my hands.

You will see gun grabbers praise the Founders to the skies for their wisdom in creating the Bill Of Rights, but when it comes to the 2nd amendment, they assume Washington and co. were drooling idiots.
I mean seriously, we are talking about men who were educated and realized that weaponry would change in the future. They obviously knew that missile weapons evolved from the rock to the spear to the bow to the gun. They were living in a time when the weapons of war were evolving at an incredible rate. In their own war to throw of English rule they saw a submarine used in war for the first time ( the Turtle ), a breechloading rifle ( the Fergueson rifle ), and the introduction of sniper rifles. Of course they realized that weapons carried by citizens of the U.S.A. 220 years later would be radically different than the flintlock muskets of their day.
An anti can twist the words of the constitution all goddam day long but in the end the intent of the Founders concerning private ownership of firearms was clear- it was not to be infringed upon. The fact that American citizens have purchased and carried personal firearms for the last two centuries without undue interference from the Federal government should make it glaringly obvious what the Founders intended when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Had somebody tell me "frankly, our ancestors did fine without semi autos and I think we can too. People can practice more..."

I said "Our ancestors did fine without bolt action rifles or lever action rifles or pump action shotguns or revolvers. Go back far enough, and they did fine without black powder muskets."