[JediJones]

Once again, you're interpreting what's there your own way. Deciding that armies are equivalent to WMDs is a nice interpretation, but clearly not intended by the constitution since WMDs didn't exist then. I could just as easily say that assault weapons are not what the founders intended to be covered, and would be the equivalent of starting a private army. Like I said, you can always argue that anything not invented at that time isn't covered by the amendment. So O'Reilly's position is not invalid on constitutional terms, it's just an opinion based on practicality and common sense. If you want to convince me or I assume him, you'll have to prove why the unfettered ownership of assault weapons benefits our country.

[Bogey78O]

A rifle is functionally no different from the musket. Same principle, same lethal probability (a bullet kills the same as a musket ball), and same basic design.

A nuclear weapon is not an arm (you missed that point entirely). Just the same as Weaponized Anthrax is not the same as the common cold culture.

You also miss that your argument could easily be applied to radio and TV broadcasts. That's why it's almost a truism that the gun grabbers can't win an honest debate.

[Woahhs]

Deciding that armies are equivalent to WMDs is a nice interpretation, but clearly not intended by the constitution since WMDs didn't exist then.

An Army is a WMD by definition. If you don't understand that, no rational debate is possible.

[dbwz]

If you want to convince me or I assume him, you'll have to prove why the unfettered ownership of assault weapons benefits our country.

I guess I must have missed the part where O'Reilly, or anyone else for that matter, explained why ownership of these weapons is a bad thing.

So you, or somebody, tell me - why shouldn't I be able to own modern weapons?