i had made no mention of "military grade arms". until you said i defeated my argument.

again as in other threads, you seem to have reading comprehension problems, or you just arent reading my posts. 

my entire line of comments to Mr. Kahn were about how weapons bans and magazine bans would have no effect or a negative effect on crime. i then went on to explain why.

then he went on and said, (paraphrase) "i still dont think people should have weapons of war"

i said what war was fought with AR-15s.

then you said i defeated my own argument.

well wars arent fought with .22 pistols either, is that a reason people shouldnt own them?

i couldnt care less if someone wanted to protect themselves with an Ar-15, a Remmington 700, a Glock 19, a Smith and Wesson .38 special, or a freakin rock. my argument, is they should be allowed to.

But the only way that you can justify not being outpowered by a tyrannical government is to be allowed to have military grade weapons. Even BEFORE you said that, your quote basically accounted to "AR-15s wouldn't serve us any good in a war". So, what's the point of them? Why are you pushing to keep them legal if they're not going to provide any added purpose WHEN they are needed?

Gun lovers make the US sound like a war zone more dangerous than Afghanistan. What's the deal with them anyway? Are they a bunch of paranoid crazies, and should be locked up in an asylum; or hillbillies that still think the American civil war is going on, and should be locked up in an asylum?

are you deliberately not reading what i write or does it come naturally.

my argument, is that i follow the constitution. meaning no firearm should be banned.

i have made many ponts debunking gun-grabbing statists. among them is that the AR-15 is a weapon of war, or only belong on the battlefield.

they are not, but even if they were we should be and are allowed to have them.

people have the right to self defense, it matters not the tool the use.

you dont have any coherent basis for your argument

Then you'll see that the constitution permisses the right to keep and bear arms, through a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

So, when am I expecting flyers for mail order Trident missiles, or Hydrogen thermonuclear bombs?

ah... so you do have a reading comprehension problem. the 2A says nothing about a militia being the one that have the right to keep and bear arms. it says it is the right of the people (which does include that militia)

im still waiting for the argument of why we shouldnt have Ar-15s, or how i defeated my own argument on why we should be allowed to have Ar-15.

And people wonder why there is such a thing as a constitutionalist. lol After reading this quote, it seems clear to me that the opposite end of the spectrum on this debate is as authoritarian as ever. 

+1 - my hat's off to you

I do believe that the word you want is COMPREHENSION. If you're going to criticise somebody, at least don't make your point look ridiculous in the process.

Nevertheless, personally, where are my nukes? Why can't I have them? You said you were all for defending yourself "no matter what the tool you use"

You said you were a follower of the constitution, right? Thermonuclear arms are still arms, right? Don't go soft on me now....

sorry typing between reps... didnt realize grammar and spelling counted when arguing constitutional rights.

anyway you arent an american, so you should be asking your country that.

and im arguing right now, guns, not nukes. we can have the discussion on nukes if you want but right now the whole conversation has been about small arms.

so again how did i defeat my argument on why we should have Ar-15s, and why should they be banned?