You're right, just like they'd be super for the legal right to own gundams if the had them.

its not armor piercing. 

also the 2A has nothing to do with sporting, so that should have no effect on its legality

And how much effort goes into reducing deaths caused by drunk driving?  Last time I checked it's super illegal to drink and drive. Oh, and drunk driving deaths have been going down for a long time now.

good we agree on that

and the same goes for the jews in nazi germany and any other oppressed group of people in similar situations

they were all powerless because they did not have the means to fight back 

and now people are being convinced that disarming themselves is the best thing to do... now why could that be?

what amazes me is that we study these events of the past and it never occurs to some people that it could happen again

because i suppose we are suppose to be "modern" and "civilised" now and "that can't happen to me" or "that can't happen here"

The world is not a utopia. I don't like nukes any more than you do but they do exist.

You're dodging my question by putting words in my mouth. A fist can be used to instill terror but it doesn't mean we should cut off everyone's hands.

Our military needs battleships to defend our country from other countries which have battleships. If the US decided that it was unethical for its troops to wield military-grade weapons while denying its citizens access to those weapons, other countries would not feel the need to abide by our rules. This is similar to the common argument that criminals would not abide by gun restricting laws, leaving law-abiding citizens vulnerable rather than protecting them.

Machines of war are an unfortunate necessity in this world. You can take the stance that our country should say to hell with that and scale back its military forces immensely, potentially leaving it somewhat vulnerable to attack. If not, if you feel that the United States should maintain an organized and sophisticated military force, then you can take the stance that common citizens should be allowed to own the very same sophisticated military technology employed by the armed forces.

The alternative is to acknowledge that civilians must be denied access to certain weapons used to arm our troops, and to have a reasonable discussion about which weapons should fall under that umbrella. This would theoretically leave the civilian population of the United States vulnerable to attack from its own armed forces. But that would be the case anyway, because the government spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year arming them with the most advanced and dangerous equipment available and training them to be as effective as possible. Most citizens couldn't afford a nuclear submarine even if it was legal to own one.

The bureaucracy is far more dangerous to the common American than the military it commands. I know servicemen and I trust them a hell of a lot more than I trust any politician.

Ahh, the tyranny argument...That would be a very good point, in 1912...

How much training does the average gun owner have? What is that gun owner going to do against an M1A2, or a predator drone...Military tech has moved so far beyond civilian armament that there is no way a civilian force could stand up to the military anymore.

you need nukes, battleships and tanks to defend america against which country? lol iraq? syria? iran? russia?

those countries wouldn't have any problems with america if america didn't mess with them first but i'm digressing

" if you feel that the United States should maintain an organized and sophisticated military force"

well i don't there's no need for it but that's irrelevent

"and to have a reasonable discussion about which weapons should fall under that umbrella. "

well fine do that... how do you assess, therefore, which weapons are inappropriate for civilians use?

if its by the lethality of the weapon in question then you should bans knives then hand guns then rifles but i'm jumping the gun here

lets hear the criteria you propose

its also super illegal to carry a gun while drunk

I don't see how the term "human rights" could ever be applied to the use of weaponry. This is an issue mostly driven by the weapon industry who are the ones benefiting of it economically and if they have managed to get the customers to actually believing it has to do with human rights, well they are laughing all the way to the bank.

"Ahh, the tyranny argument...That would be a very good point, in 1912..."

hm interesting perspective you have there makes me wonder if human nature has changed since then or if just about anything that brings about a tyranny has changed...

"Military tech has moved so far beyond civilian armament that there is no way a civilian force could stand up to the military anymore."

well i'd wager than its actually much more advanced than we think 

all under the viel of "national security"

they have to keep these developments hidden because of all the other countries out to get them.... yet they are the ones initiating the conflicts most of the time lol

but doesn't that kind of send a ping off in your mind? that you couldn't even conceptualise standing against your government should you have to?