You guys both have to trim the quote trees.

Funny, you all seem to be for the amount of arms that YOU would like, but when it comes for the amount of arms I'D like, you can't give two shits about that. Interesting, hmm..

My nationality makes no difference. If I raised the point as an American citizen, your point holds no water. If you really want, I could ask one of my US friends to ask you the same question to make my point. The point is still as legitimate. Your puny little small arms would make no difference against a tyrannical government in war. If you say that I have the right to defend myself with whatever I choose, and I choose nukes, you cannot come back with "uh...I'll get back to you on that one...".

Once again, if AR-15s cannot be used for the purpose that gun critics claim it's for (to fight a tyrannical government in war), then what's the point of them? You even mentioned yourself that they haven't been used in any war...

we arent even arguing the same thing. your so spastic.

you asked why you arent allowed nukes, i said take that up with your own government.

I, as well as everybody else in this thread have been arguing small arms, and why so called "assault weapons" shouldnt be banned.

you claimed i had defeated my own argument for being allowed to own Ar-15, and other such small arms.

now, since you cant back up your claim, you start talking about nukes, and why you a non american isnt allowed to own one.

if you want to argue the ownership of nukes we can. there are constitutional arguments both for and against the ownership of such weapons, but before we get into that, you mustnt obfuscate the issue of small arm ownership.

and please stop blatantly misrepresenting what i said, or at least improve your reading comprehension (spelled it right, happy?). i nver once said an Ar-15 wouldnt work to defend against a tyrannical government. and even if that were the case, that somehow Ar-15s are completely innefective at fighting tyranny, it would matter. per your argument having a rock or a baseball bat for self defense should be illegal, because they wouldnt be very effective at fighting tyranny. 

Do I need an American friend to ask you the exact same question, or are you prepared NOT to answer the question, in light of highlighting your own hypocrisy?

Mr Khan, could you please ask this guy why you cannot have YOUR nukes? It appears he's only wanting to resort arguing the matter with Americans.

You said (and I quote) please tell me what war was ever fought with an Ar-15. You want to argue that point? Scroll up the thread a little..You can't have it both ways, saying it's an not a fit weapon for war (your argument with Mr Khan), and then saying "oh but it WOULD work in a war against a tyrannical government". Bullshit! Will AR-15s work against drones? Will they work against tanks? Will they work against ICBMs?

you asked why you arent allowed to have nukes. answer: because you are australian

why am i not allowed to? answer: because the supreme court has ruled so. 

happy? no can we go go back to the small arms topic, insteading of bloviating and obfuscating.

Mr. Khan said so called "assault weapons" are weapons of war. they arent. can the be used to kill somebody, somebody perhaps in a war? yes.

just because a weapon wasnt designed for war or used in war doesnt mean A) its not constitutionally protected or B) not useful in a war.

you dont even have a coherent premise. it is quite aggravating.  

Good, then I'm sure if the supreme court rules that you're not allowed to use AR-15s and semi-automatics, then I'm sure that you wont question that either, right?

A ROCK could kill someone on the battlegeround. That's not my point. My point is, whether it's a rock or an AR-15, if the government wanted YOUR ass on a platter, they can easily do it. No amount of AR-15s you posess will stop that.

The problem is, you can stand up here on your soapbox, waving your AR-15 and saying you're right, that you can defend yourself no matter what, until you get a cruise missile jammed up your ass...then your so called "logical" argument just looks plan hilarious.

dear God, can you at least argue one coherent subject. 

So you are saying because the government can kill me with a cruise missile, thats an argument on why shouldnt be allowed to have Ar-15s.... but Remmington 700 are still perfectly acceptable, right?

my whole argument has been why AR-15s are legal and should be legal, and why banning them will either have no effect on crime, or increase it.

Very well....

Besides taking out a tyrannical government, name something else where you would need to shoot x amount of rounds per second, where single shots wont do the job...

EDIT: Actually...

Why am I arguing this anymore? You just admitted that you'll abide by what the supreme court says you can have, so I expect to hear no more complaint if they ban semi-automatic weapons.

self defense: multiple attackers. an attacker not going down on the first shot. you missing a shot. warning shot.

sporting use: practice, plinking, competition shooting.

there are numerous examples of people needing mulitple shots and or AR-15 type weapon to defend themselves. heres just a few, the koreans defending their shops with AR-15 during the LA riots, a police officers son defending himself and little sitter by shooting an intruder with his dads AR-15 while his dad was away. Now a very recent example is the Georgia woman I spoke of you shot just one intruder 5 times, with her 5 shot revolver. and the guy still survived and got away (latter captured by the police). no what if she had missed, what if there were 2 or more intruders. it took her all 5 shots with her gun to stop one guy. i know i certainly wouldnt want to be limited to 7 or so shots to defend myself and my family.

None of those REQUIRE fast shooting weapons. I said the NEED to shoot so many rounds per second..

So why would you abide by the supreme court law to ban nukes, but would not allow a similar ban from them on semi-automatics?