Sigh, I think that sometimes liberals argue just to hear themselves talk.

I wanna own a nuclear weapon. It's an arm. I have the right to bear it. Question: Why can't I? -- Paul

Very simply, you are confusing ordnance with arms. Nuclear devices, tanks, rockets, and bombs are ordnance that cannot be deployed by hand. An arm is a weapon that can be carried for defense. During the colonial period that meant rifles, pistols, swords, and knives. If you want more evidence on what is meant by 'arms', and some case law behind the subject, click here.

Why do you continue to claim "if the founding fathers said something, it's was true then and it is true today. -- Paul

As discussed in the above link, there are three schools of thought on this subject. The "living document" school that think the constitution should interpreted based on the current social beliefs, the "framer's intent" school that hopes to decipher what the framers were trying to accomplish, and the "textualism" school that reads the literal text of the document. I subscribe the the "textualism" school because of its objectivity. It reads the law for what it actually says, and doesn't try to decipher what the intention is, or what the "meaning of the moment" is.

...If you take away guns, less people are gonna get killed. That's a pretty ballsy statement, but I stand by it. Question: ...Do you hate people? Do you just wanna see more people get killed? -- Paul
...You fail to point out that if everyone can carry a concealed weapon, the attackers will have them as well. -- Ruston

First, I hate to sound cliche, but if you criminalize guns, than only criminals will own guns. Lets look at the different scenarios: Only the government has guns; only the government and criminals have guns; everybody has guns. Now, the only two realistic scenarios are only the government and criminals have guns, and everybody has guns. If you outlaw guns, criminals are NOT going to line up and turn in their guns. In fact, gun registration doesn't even apply to criminals, since the Supreme Court has ruled that forcing convicts, who aren't allowed to own guns anyway, to register was a violation of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Ruston, I hope you don't honestly believe that banning guns keeps them out of the hands of criminals? If someone is going out to attack and rape a woman, do you honestly think he's going to leave his gun at home because it's illegal to carry it? Compare a gun ban to the ban on drugs. No amount of enforcement has been able to keep drugs off our streets. You can find illegal drugs in any sizable city in the US, even though they have been banned for decades. Banning guns only affects those that obey the law, and they aren't a threat any way.

Second, I don't hate people. I hate criminals. If you've ever had a gun stuck in your face or had somebody take something from you by force, you should know what I mean. Statistics show that concealed carry is a proper deterrent against crime, and that simply brandishing a firearm is typically enough to thwart an attack. Firearms are used defensively over 2 million times per year.

Oh, and your point about SUVs and Big Macs is a non-sequitur as well, big boy. -- Paul

Actually, it isn't. When Ruston said that the internet never killed anyone, he implied that guns have. Personifying an inanimate object like a gun is quite comparable to blaming SUVs for car accidents, and blaming Big Mac's for obesity. Voluntary human actions are required to fire a gun, drive a car, and consume a Big Mac, thus the references have a relationship.

So our homicide rate is almost 4 times higher than the EU rate. Why? I'll definitely concede that there are many theories. Mine? Availability of handguns in the States. ....My chances of being killed by a handgun are far less here than in the States and that helps me sleep at night. -- Paul

You should have said there are many 'factors', not 'theories'. Also, you cannot look at raw statistics to determine your chances of being murdered. That implies that murder is random, and has no other dependencies. For instance, if you walk through West Philly with 20's hanging out of your pocket, you are much more likely to be murdered than if you don't. Also, factors like poverty, and strict drug laws and enforcement weigh in. These factors yield a higher rate of gang violence and inner city murder. For the sake of the argument lets say that there are also 4 times as many gang members or illegal drug users in the US. Would that mean that you are 4 times more likely to join a street gang, or use illegal drugs? I doubt it.

I am opposed to Steve's view that anyone and everyone should be able to carry concealed weapons, no matter how deadly. -- Ruston

Ruston, I never said that, nor did I mean to imply it. Please don't put words into my mouth. By the way, Vermont is the only state in the 50 that allows private citizens (who haven't lost the right through conviction or mental illness) to carry concealed firearms without a background check and/or training.

Say an attacker mugs a woman to steal her purse. If she is allowed to carry a gun, she will pull it out on the attacker. The attacker, in turn, will pull out his... I'm sorry, but I'd rather see a mugging take place than see a murder. -- Ruston

Try telling that to someone who's been raped. Try telling your wife, sister, or mother that you'd rather see them raped, violated, or killed than use a firearm to defend themselves. The simple fact is that if someone attacks you, you don't know what their intentions are. Predators are evil people who prey on the weak and innocent. I have no problem with a victim pulling out a gun and striking him DRT. (dead right there)

Also, if somebody attacks me, and I pull out my gun, I'm damn well going to use it. They'd better already have their gun out, because there will be no "and then they pull theirs." There is only me pulling mine, and them hitting the ground.

... you fail to see that others will use the gun for improper means. That would take away MY right to live, and I don't want that. -- Ruston

You speak as though guns have a mystical power to corrupt people. I've got news for you, others already use guns for improper means. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of criminals have already lost their right bear arms, which invalidates your whole premise. Letting honest people carry firearms doesn't violate your right to live. I have been a gun owner for more than a decade, and had a carry permit in Georgia. By your thinking, it is amazing that I've never deprived anyone of their right to live. As an honest gun owner, I only pose a threat to criminals, and those who would try to deprive me of my right to life, liberty and property. You only need to be worried if you are thinking about breaking into my home or attacking me.