Because your stance has morphed as discussion evolved. Look, I'm okay with you having your opinion on this. What I'm not okay with is acting as if you have some infallible logic that is unattainable for the opposition. The primary point some of us have been driving home is that you are not anti gun and you think the state has a larger propensity for handling weapons responsibly than that of individual citizens. Even though throughout history governments have shown and continue to show the propensity for killing more people in a very short time frame than any citizen is capable of achieving in a whole lifetime. You act as if you're deeply saddened over the deaths of good people, until it's your government doing the killing. This is a subject I'm probably more liberal than you on. The difference is in who I point the finger at, who I think should be disarmed, and why.
If you think that claymore mines, M60's and .50 cal machine guns should be legal (apparently without licensure?) i think we're irreconcilable on this. That's just out there.
The "state" means nothing until you specify which state. You can't compare the US with Yemen or Iraq. If I don't like the way my government is handling guns, I can sue, vote them out, run for office, there are options. 99.999% of the time when someone decides, like you're apparently advocating, that the system doesn't work and force against government is the means to oppose, you get a nitwit that shot the deputy in Houston, or McVeigh, or any number of losers that again, lack the judgment to pour piss out of a boot, much less decide who gets to live and die.
And what killing from my government are you referring to? Wth are you talking about? Take it beyond the realm of hypothetical and identify the government and their irresponsible use.
"Even though throughout history governments have shown and continue to show the propensity for killing more people in a very short time frame than any citizen is capable of achieving in a whole lifetime."
History has also shown what happens when really stupid people keep the sane people from forming government and having order, commerce, medicine, etc. Look at all the squalid shitholes where there's no government because no government is strong enough. The world has changed, Thor. If the powdered wigs n' knee britches crowd that wrote the second amendment saw today's technology, world and recent history they would say:
1. Gun rights zealots have lost their collective mind;
2. Do you
really think we were talking about semi-automatic weapons with 30 round clips?
3. We were grabbing flintlock muskets and squeezing off a round every 2 minutes. So was our enemy. We didn't have a standing army.
4. Christ, we
told you the reason for that amendment -- to maintain a militia. Now it's an anachronism. Move on.
Here's one: weaponized drones. Do you think the general public should be allowed to have weaponized drones?