Okay, we're definitely not going to have this argument😅 Suffice it to say, the Declaration of Independence isn't proof of Gods existence. Never mind that rights come from God. It is a document, written by men, with the word "God" in it. Again, if the basis for your argument is the belief that God is sitting on a cloud demanding that Americans have all the semi-automatics they want, this conversation will get very absurd very quickly.
Yes, there's no limiting principle for any age-restrictions. That's just the way it is. Sadly, we can't do any better as human beings. In some states the age of consent is 16, in others 18, in others it depends on various strange exceptions. There is no magical age where everybody becomes mature enough to consent to sex. But we still have an age of consent, because picking a line in the sand is better than not picking one. Personally, I think a pretty good rule of thumb is, if you're not responsible enough to buy alcohol, you're not responsible enough to buy a semi-automatic weapon.
I'm glad you brought up the military. The military enforces gun controls that are vastly more stringent than anything we've discussed so far. If civilians were held to the same standards as the marines when it came to gun training, skill maintenance and storage, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'll let this former rifle/pistol coach for the marine corps make the case. Please do watch it, it's illuminating. (https://twitter.com/LifeIndiscreet/status/1530579942651600896?s=20&t=fsGlwTPtEtvrHV6WdtBW_Q).
Yeah, you're right, I said rate of fire, but wrapped up in that is obviously magazine size, It was in my head but I didn't express it. If a gun can fire 50 rounds a second but the magazine only holds 5 rounds, then we don't have the same problem. So yes, I should have been clearer, magazine size + rate of fire is the issue.
I think the real issue here is that you're hung up on this idea of "a gang of guys" breaking into your home, all armed to the teeth presumably, and you John Wick-ing your way out of the situation. How many times has this happened in your life so far? You want to have unrestricted access to guns, based on an almost laughably unrealistic hypothetical. And so you're resistant to tackling the very real problem of unhinged people getting the same access and using it to murder innocent people.
When somebody proposes something that will make that situation a little better, even it doesn't fix it completely, you are tempted to dismiss it because it might put you "at a disadvantage" in your hypothetical situation. And you'd rather avoid that than avoid the deaths of people you don't know, because it's hard to see them as real people when they have no connection to you.
But here's the reality:
You will almost certainly never have a "gang of guys" break into your home with or without guns (I certainly hope you don't). If you do, they will almost certainly shoot you first. If anybody gets shot with your gun, statistically speaking, it's most likely to be you or a member of your household.
Yes, these guys are deranged. You'll get absolutely no argument from me there. But what are you suggesting? That people who have contact with the police for violent crimes are denied access to guns? If so, I'm completely on board with that! Sounds like a great idea.
