"Should all arms be legal?"
You're shifting goal posts. The original title of your thread is "Do you support ANY gun-control laws?" Setting aside for the moment that your question and attached poll are poorly worded, attempting to push the discussion in a direction outside of the original question isn't going to yield terribly helpful answers. Of course, at this point it's quite obvious that was not your intention in the first place.
Where else could this conversation go? It's the fault of the person asking the questions that the answer is "yes" no matter how high the stakes get?
Yeah, it pretty much is your fault. You asked a stupid question couched in some sort of politically unviable bizarro world, and got answers just as bizarre and politically unviable. Despite the fact that WMD's, RPG's, grenades, other forms of ordnance or even machine guns are not likely to ever be legalized at all, you continue to press the issue, no doubt out of the same sort of mindless need for theatrics that one would generally find embodied in the typical fan of Jerry Springer, rather than actually attempting to debate or examine the effectiveness of current gun policy.
It's interesting how the straight-shootin', plain-spoken, absolutist mentality usually does break down at some point.
*Yawn*
Almost everyone draws the line somewhere. Some people just get upset having this fact pointed out to them.
I'm interested in drawing the line at what is politically viable, and what advances the interests of those who wish to exercise a fundamental civil right. Histrionics about
ZOMG YOU GUYZ WANT NUKES!!!!!111!!ONE!! don't actually accomplish anything. Rather, they're plainly detrimental, especially when current laws can and do result in innocent people being prosecuted for what amount to petty violations of arbitrary regulations.
My advice: If you're going to be an extremist, at least be a proud extremist.
*shrugs* In this day and age, one hardly has to take a position as radical as "I want to own a rocket launcher" to be considered an extremist. No doubt some of the competition firearms I own would cause your monocle to shatter.
Don't get your panties in a wad when someone points out the troubling implications of your extremism by asking a series of simple, relevant questions.
Except that the point that you fail to grasp is that your questions about WMD's and such are,
by their very political unlikeliness, wholly irrelevant. All you're interested in is asking a bunch of ridiculous questions so you can get some sort of cheap thrill from points of view that you find so shocking.
Because at some point 99% of people are going to think you're insane anyway.
If 99% of people think that being thrown in jail for, say, putting a pistol grip on a rifle is fair or just, plainly the inmates are running the asylum.
And by finally drawing a line at, say, ICBMs, you're not only perceived as insane,
Again, I point out that you're the one who brought nukes up. I just called you on your plainly idiotic argument. Perhaps I should have called you on it earlier.
...but you've also lost your membership in the Absolute Society of Absolutists. Lose-lose.
Yes. Because Heller was lose-lose. As was the recent 9th Circuit ruling in favor of incorporation of the 2nd Amendment under the 14th.
But, hey, reading up on court rulings is
hard work. Why do that when, instead, you can just show up and troll an internet forum chumming the water with ridiculous fantasies for the LULZ.
