[quote name='Temporaryscars']Do you really think the purpose of the second amendment is for hunting and self protection? Our founding fathers just got done fighting a revolution, one that wouldn't have been possible were it not for the right to bear arms. The sole purpose of that right is to protect us from tyrants. Self protection and especially hunting are secondary. The second you started saying that guns should be restricted to those secondary causes made your argument null and void because it ignores the very reason why we have the right in the first place.
Also, your assertion that a gun would cause more destruction than a bomb is ridiculous. I think he would have done much more damage with a bomb. Or maybe he'd just make Molotov cocktails. Imagine the damage he would have done if he had just started fire-bombing the theater. Or maybe he would just wait for the movie to get out, take a gigantic SUV and mow down a crowd of people (whether or not that would have killed 14 people is debatable).
Are you going to outlaw alcohol and cars next? It's completely ridiculous to believe that just because something is made illegal, then the problems associated with it will disappear. How did that work for drugs? It's really hard to get drugs considering they're illegal, right? Wrong. Just look at any state/city with restrictive gun laws, they have some of the highest crime stats in the country.
Gun laws don't work. All it does it keep people who actually give a crap about laws from protecting themselves from the ones that don't.[/QUOTE]
First off. I did not assert a gun does more damage. I asserted a bomb could do the same type of damage. I said after that it would more difficult. A Molotov cocktail would be in the same arena as a bomb. Also, you claim a car could be used. Sure it could but again in this case it could not. This was a confined space not subject to a car being driven through it.
Second. You automatically jumped ALL OVER ban ban ban. I never said that. I never said anything about changing the law. I said a discussion about how powerful our weapons have become needs to be had but of course you hear nothing but I want to take away your guns....even though I OWN a gun.
Third. You want to to say my restrictions on guns (they were not restrictions, they were my opinion on proper usage) null the argument because I ignore the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. Well then if you want to go there then it makes your argument even more ridiculous. If the idea was to form a militia or as some would argue to protect ourselves from ourselves (ie own government) then why not allow RPGs? OR tanks? This only proves my point that the original writing of the Amendment was during a time when guns WERE the bomb, grenade, tank, etc etc. To say an armed society is somehow safe from its government is laughable in today's age. We see what a government can do with just a small military in other countries. Imagine what the greatest army on earth could do. You kid yourself into thinking having a gun makes you safer against that.