Freebase Dali

Before I ask how you lumped us all together to come up with this very bad argument, I'll ask you to actually formulate an argument worthy of addressing. Let me know when you're ready.

Actually, no, there isn't, depending. I'm totally for limiting the kind of weapons people can have, within reason. I mean, I know the constitution was a major foundation for my country and there's a part about gun ownership basically being a safeguard against the very type of government that led us to create it in the first place, but for me, personally, it's not really about that so much, because I don't expect the U.S. to start turning on its own citizens like Syria or anything. At least, not any time soon. But it's not like we'd stand a chance against their drones anyway...

With that said, I do think I should at least be allowed an effective means to stand on equal footing against those more common threats who would use firearms against us that are commonly available and unable to be realistically removed from existence. These are your typical handguns, shotguns, etc. If people want to hunt with a rifle, fine. They don't really need a 30 round magazine to do so. I'm fine with all that. I just don't want things to shift to a position where we're denied any sort of arms, because the only effect that would have in America is a large increase in the number of possible victims to criminal firearm crime.

Again, we all know that simply saying "no more guns here" won't magically wipe them from existence, and I don't care if it's only a temporary period before they start becoming less common... my life and that of my family is more valuable to me than some remote percentage of chance that I might ever need to actually use a gun.
I don't care if I have to go to monthly headshrink checks and have constant background checks. I'd rather do all that than be the guy trying to survive a criminal's black market gun with a tomato and a Stephen King novel, regardless of how unlikely the encounter may be.