Liberals are winning the gun debate

With that being said, I will now address the tired old argument that because there were not certain technologies during the time of the founding fathers, these technologies are not covered by the Constitution. Just like the internet. It wasn't around so it's not covered by the First Amendment. Neither is TV or telephones. .. Why should we be allowed any arms today? They weren't around when the Constitution was written. The Founding Fathers clearly intended that we only be allowed muskets. And you, the great mind-reader that you are, know exactly what the founders intended and exactly which weapons they thought we should and shouldn't have. How can you say that I am reading something into the Constitution? That is exactly what you have done. I am taking it literally and you are reading in your interpretation that there are certain arms we shouldn't have. Does the Second Amendment state that we have the right to keep and bear arms unless they are capable of mass destruction? Or does it say that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Who is reading things into the Constitution? ?? Sure seems like you are. I know that you and the Founding Fathers were pen pals and they told you all their thoughts and feelings on the country and they told you they wouldn't approve of assault rifles or anything else going on in the country today. Unfortunately other people also have their opinions on what the Founding Fathers intended and it might not match up with yours. Now I am curious in your diatribe about LGBT if you personally think these people should be denied rights because in your mind the Founding Fathers wouldn't approve of them just like they don't approve of Uzi's. Please o almighty medium, speak to those long gone and tell us their thoughts. That's just a digression anyway. .. topic for another debate I suppose. Actually I don't wince at your definition of the term. The reason for these weapons is effective killing of others often en mass. They are designed for combat and that is their sole practical purpose. Now let's talk about the BULL, as you put it. You make a good point. No government has ever gone "rogue" (I prefer the term tyrannical) and oppressed it's citizens. And they certainly don't disarm the population before they become oppressive. If this stupid idea were to come true the last thing they would do is disarm the populace. Oh wait, hold on. Here's a quick list of tyrannical dictators that took over the reins of power in government just in the last century: Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Franco, Gadhafi, Hussein, Mao Zedong, Pinochet, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Kim-Jong-Un, Duvalier. .. It's not a comprehensive list I am sure I left some out but I think it makes the point. And you think it is a bogus argument that has been around since George Washington. .. That's exactly right! It has been around since George Washington who led an armed revolt against a tyrannical government! The basis of our country is exactly what you scoff at. Also great point. We don't need the weapons the government has. We just need the courage to get mown down by the millions when revolting because we don't have the same armaments. .. 20 million rioters with pistols vs 1.5 million active duty military who wins that fight? It's incredible that you could say in one sentence "You don't need weapons of Mass killing in the hands of citizens. It just isn't necessary and should not have been allowed in the first place. " and then turn around and say "As to the realities of life there is NO GUN PROBLEM. " The double-think that is going on in your mind must just make your head spin. Unless you just posted some random guys argument just to troll or something. HAHAHAHAHA a gun problem doesn't exist but we don't need scary assault guns. "Yeah we got problems. .. but GUNS, is not the problem" and at the same time "we need strict regulations on guns" hahahahaha wow you are cracking me up. To sum it up YES. The Second Amendment as it is written does give me the right to bear any arm and that right shall not be infringed. You are INFERRING that it doesn't. Whatever is going on in-between your ears is indefensible.