Majority of Americans support assault weapons ban....

[politicallefty]

Common sense could tell you that you don't need an assault weapon.

I'm getting really sick of this argument. Gay men don't need to have consensual butt sex. Somehow I doubt that the "need" argument would convince any gay men to oppose the outcome in Lawrence v. Texas. A right is a right irrespective of need, that's why it's a right.

Constutition gives a right to wear weapons. Not a right to wear all weapons.

I think it's quite obvious that a Constitution Party avatar means fetuses and guns are more important than actual human lives. Comparing consensual sex to possession of a military-grade assault weapon is a new one, I have to admit, but you really shouldn't be too surprised.

I'd like to know why it's okay for a private citizen to own a Sigsauer MCX and not a surface-to-air missile? If you believe the former is legal and not the latter, there must be some line. What is that line and how is it in line with the Second Amendment? Unlike some of those on the right, I read the entire text of the Second Amendment, including the prefatory clause.

[politicallefty]

The Sig MCX is a carbine therefore a rife which is a type of arms, thus as it relates to the 2ND shall not be infringed upon.  Automatics(Thompson SS) have been banned since 1934 unless you owned one of the pre-banned ones which only the super rich could prob afford and or collectors.  A missile isn't something granted to you as a right to own because its not a firearm.

Fetuses are people despite the lefts love for killing the unborn and using them as spare parts.

My point stands as strong as ever. The Second Amendment only relates to what has been been passed since 1934? Your arguments are not logical at all. You are saying that only guns as you define them are arms protected by the Second Amendment? In part, I do understand you. You have no problem at all with someone like Omar Mateen being able to obtain an assault weapon and massacring people you apparently have no sympathy for. If you knew any better, you would know that the Second Amendment was never intended to be for self-defense or hunting.

I'm sure people like you believe that gay sex is as deadly as an assault weapon. No, it isn't. If you believe that, you need serious help. Trump supporters like you don't give a rat's ass if gay people or Latinos die. Yeah, it was a coincidence that a mass murder was inflicted upon a gay bar on Latin Night.

[politicallefty]

I'm fairly moderate on abortion and do not believe in fetal personhood or imposing undue burdens on women seeking abortion. Thanks for playing though. I understand that stereotyping is easier than thinking.

I'll admit it was a misfire with you and I will respectfully apologize, as I'd prefer this debate stick with the main issues at hand. I'd prefer our respective sides don't talk over each other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From how you've characterized yourself, you sound far more Libertarian than Constitution Party. Based on current jurisprudence, the Supreme Court established the right to consensual sex regardless of sex in 2003. So long as you believe in individual liberty, I cannot imagine a bigger violation of said liberty than to deny one's right to consensual sex (regardless of type or gender). It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court established an individual right to keep and bear arms.

"Arms" under the 2nd Amendment does have some definitional limits. For starters, they must be capable of being carried by a single infantryman. I know colloquially "arms" now means "weapons" generally, but the definition of "arms" contemporaneous with the passage of our constitution did have the former distinction. It's why the Articles of Confederation required each State to stockpile both arms (individual weapons) and field pieces (crew served weapons), instead of just saying arms to mean both. That would clearly exclude nukes and anthrax and missiles and tanks and all of the other large military weapons that anti-gunners think they are clever invoking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I want to say I'm glad it's taken me this long to respond to your post. I maintain my strong disagreement, but I can understand your point of view. I do not agree with you that the Second Amendment contains an absolute right. Furthermore, I do not agree that it has an individual right. If you need to understand my position, read Justice Stevens' dissent in DC v. Heller. Even accepting an individual right to bear arms, Justice Scalia's majority opinion did not declare it to be an absolute right without limits.

And I know you've posting in this topic with various memes, but ultimately, First Amendment absolutism is very different from Second Amendment absolutism. (That's not to mention your post a Rachel Maddow quote. I watch her show every day. She has fired the weapons we're talking about. She knows the weapons we're talking about and the ease by which they may be fired by even a child.)

I want to conclude this post in a positive manner and I'll try. The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution and regardless of its interpretation, I must accept that. However, even when an individual right has been established, there are always some limitations. No Constitutional right is without limit. But your side doesn't even want to discuss the issues at all.

This may surprise you, but I'd be willing to relent on another assault weapons ban. Based on what I've read recently, it would probably accomplish little. That does not mean I will give up on the gun issue and that I think guns are not the issue. I would prefer our two sides came together. I know many responsible gun owners and I do not fear them. Your side does not recognize how many people die from guns everyday, not including mass shootings. That's not an accident; it is from guns. Responsible gun owners are the not the problem. The problem is that the right extends to those that should not have the right. When you place the burden on the government in a matter like this, there will be disastrous results. Your side can't even accept relatively minor restrictions to adapt to the 21st century.

You know what, I highly doubt you yourself is going to commit mass murder. Those of us looking for some restrictions are not looking at you. Ironically, most people armed to the teeth aren't ever actually going to use their weapons. I'm afraid of the lone wolf, those that have actually committed mass murder. I recognize that we're not going to stop every potential mass shooting. That doesn't mean I don't want to prevent them as much as possible or mitigate the loss of life. If you can't accept that part of our argument, then I'll consider this debate ended here. I can accept that explicit gun bans do little (provided automatic weapons are still very much illegal). If I can accept that, why can your side not accept universal background checks to keep weapons out of illegal hands. I would also add a limit on high-capacity magazines as well. Establishing a 10-round limit on magazines would save lives in mass shootings. If you already have a mass-shooter, I would rather have legislation and restrictions in place to mitigate the casualty rate.