Well, why not? We let insane communist dictators have them, we let Pakistan have them. What is wrong with Iran? The idea that Iran or North Korea will ever get sufficient nuclear capability to more than a pinprick of harm to the US before we wipe them off the map is ridiculous.
If you want that to be your argument, then maybe you shouldn't use that inane statement immediately after your nuclear weapon analogy. It's been almost 67 years next month and we're still waiting for one of the many other countries in the world with nuclear weapons to use them. While I disapprove of our use of the nuclear bombs on Japan, there are many arguments in support of that action that undercut your assertion that they will automatically be used in the worst way possible.

I really hope this is sort of parody, otherwise: It's the law of the land, Dumbass, not a religious tract or a scientific proposal. If you don't like what it says, you change it through the proscribed methods, you don't just go around ignoring it. That piece of paper outlaws slavery, lets women vote

Unfortunately no. The wild west had a much lower murder rate, and no one opened fire on rooms full of people, because they WERE afraid of getting shot back.


Burglars don't expect to get caught! That's the point of burglar, as opposed to armed robbery. You are plainly too ignorant to be offering opinions, let alone whether or not it's your business. Even setting aside the absurd claim that burglars often or usually carry guns, or that they do so out of fear of the homeowners, there is the mind-blowing lack of moral or ethical reasoning behind your claim. Homeowners have every right to protect their homes, and no one, under any circumstances should be required to forgo some action because it will be deleterious to the well-being of those who break the law. The first official who tries to enforce a law like that, is exactly the sort of person everyone should turn their guns against.

You're a moron. Homeowners don't get guns because they fear burglars with guns, they get guns for ANY burglar! Armed or unarmed! Preferably the latter! No one in their right mind wants a fair fight, and if every homeowner knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that no burglar would every carry a gun, they would STILL purchase guns to protect their homes, just like armed robbers would STILL carry guns if they knew no victim would be carrying one on their person!

By your retarded logic, the guy in Colorado only brought a rifle into the theater, because he expected the other patrons to have rifles of their own.


Who has a six-barrel gun?!?! WTF are you talking about?

Anyway, the purpose of the Second Amendment is not to have guns for hunting or sports. Arguably, the first clause of the Second Amendment could be used to SUPPORT a ban on hunting or sports weapons. That clause cites that the purpose of the ban on infringing the people's weapon rights is to secure a free state. The Second Amendment not only permits cop-killer bullets and combat weaponry, it all but mandates their ownership. The whole point of the Second Amendment is to turn your weapons against the government and its agents and officials in order to prevent their infringement of your other natural and civil rights. The second amendment does not cover hunting or sport weapons, because water fowl, deer, clay pigeons and paper targets do not constitute threats to civil liberties, to "the security of a free state." Therefore, the only Constitutionally-sanctioned use of firearms is armed rebellion. However, the precise wording of the amendment means no excuses, ifs, ands or buts. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Therefore, any law infringing on those rights, for whatever reason, is unconstitutional. A place like a movie theater, being a privately-owned establishment, has the right to refuse entry to those bearing arms, and even to have its own employees or authorized agents use arms against those who fail to comply, but the Constitution forbids the government from doing anything about either situation.

So the only mass murderers can be the dedicated and patient kind? Meanwhile, putting authorization for weapons in the hands of the very people the weapons are legally intended to be used against. That's like asking the soldiers deployed abroad to get permission from al-Quaeda to carry weapons.