Quote:No, I first judge whether or not the law infringes on rights. You are the one claiming the effectiveness in banning firearms and NY did that for a large number of firearms which are still used today in crimes, in fact, their penalties are much higher yet it still isn't that much of a deterrent.
How do you judge whether it is "much of a deterrent"? I asked you specifically about the effectiveness of the law. Are you saying you judge the effectiveness by your concept of human rights (the pursuit of handguns), and make up the facts to suit?
Quote:The Founding Fathers were not fools.
So where did your concept of conventional, unconventional and imaginary weapons come from? You cannot even define this universal human right. You invent entirely arbitrary limitations on the right, based on the US constitution and the time it was written, then pretend these rights are universal and timeless.
Quote:They could foresee the advancements in technology which is the reason why they said arms, not muskets, cannons and pistols.
They could forsee nuclear weapons, so they deliberately avoided restricting the rights they were inventing?
Quote:I said the right to keep and bear arms, being a right has always been there. The US Constitution merely guarantees the right, it doesn't give you the right.
The funny thing is, this "universal" human right is largely confined to American gun nuts. If it wasn't for the US constitution, you would not be proclaiming it.