Guns: how much longer will it take ....

TAVR? Pace Maker? Open Heart?

Keep in mind the fact that we've already won.

Cars are a necessity of civilian life in America. Guns are not, and as more and more Americans have come to understand that, the percentage of households that own guns has been dropping steadily over the past 50 years, from half of them to just below a third, and yet the number of guns currently owned by Americans is larger than ever before – which means that fewer and fewer people are buying more and more guns.

Cars are a necessity of civilian life in America. Guns are not . . .

the utter hypocrisy of wanting to get rid of guns while keeping silent about all of the deaths caused by alcohol

the utter hypocrisy of wanting to get rid of guns while keeping silent about all of the deaths caused by alcohol

Alcohol deaths are either self inflicted . . .

You cant purposefully use alcohol as a weapon of mass murder.

There's isn't a right and wrong to how someone feels about weapons that can take away their lives with little to no say on their part.

That said - the difference I posted was as a whole (eg. Cats and dogs have 4 legs, a tail, whiskers, sharp teeth, heart, lungs, intestines... and a great deal more in common. It is the differences that define which is which).

You are still making a false conclusion. The constitutionality of pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and retractable stocks is not continget on the constitutionality of a gun that there is no justification for outlawing.

Yes there is.

Yes. The courts are the authority in regard to the legality of the laws of the nation. Unofficial arguments supported with facts and logic do not override the courts' authority in regard to their arguments in regard to the legality of the laws of the nation.

This does not negate the fact that your statement that “that means arms that are sufficient for repelling a foreign invasion. That means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home” is merely an assertion of opinion.

True, but if a claim of yours is merely an opinion then any factualness within the claim would be irrelevant to the fact that the claim is merely an opinion.

Wrong. Recorded history is constantly being reassessed, reevaluated and reinterpreted.

The closest we'll get to a productive discussion of your conclusions is to acknowledge that your conclusions are opinions derived from what you understand recorded history says.

Sure, among other things.

Sure, but the claim that, "that means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home,” is merely an assertion of opinion.

"The fact that the Second Amendment says that the job of the militia is the security of the nation", is one thing: a statement of fact; the claim that that, "means the militia has the right to have weapons that are appropriate for repelling a foreign invasion," is another thing: an assetion of opinion based on interpratation of the statement of fact;

and the conlusion that these support the claim that "that means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons, as well as the right to keep them at home," is yet another thing that is mere conjecture based on the first thing: the statement of fact, and the second thing: an assertion of opinion based on interpretation of the satement of fact.

He’s a sociopath.

I hope those parents will be charged with something.