[Beagle8U]

"I don't wish for any guns to be banned, or hand grenades for that matter, well, ......, see where this can go."

Nor do I.

"So then, we have a complicated issue, what guns (weapons) to ban and those not to ban."

?? You posted both of those statements in the same post.

I am forced to conclude that you are making about as much sense as "lug-nuts on a birthday cake"

[Final Authority]

Do you really wish that you or I could and thereby, should, possess a live nuclear weapon? Should I have a 50 caliber machine gun nest in my front yard? Should I keep a RPG or SAM in my car just in case I have to defend myself?

That is the sense of my first sentence. I don't want anything to be banned but reasonable people have to act and agree to do reasonable things.

So, although I wish there to be no laws banning weapons, reasonable people doing reasonable things, see the need to keep things reasonable, so what you referred to as conflicting statements, weren't.

With respect to lug nuts on a birthday cake, I have never seen it or experienced it, but, I guess, it takes one to know one.

[Final Authority]

I replied to your reply without considering that you never got past the banning part of the post. If you read the entire post you would have understood my support of public gun ownership, but apparently, my first sentence threw you for a loop in the thought process. If you did not get it, I attempted to simplify the concept of taking a question or a problem to the extremes of possibilities, then considering whether or not the construct is desirable. If it isn't reasonable, then, reasonable people must consider a reasoned approach.