Ho-hum:
"Oh, BTW, you are arguing *possession*, not *use*. The two are different things."
Possession predicates use. One does not encumber oneself with objects for which they have no utility. If you do, see a doctor. Just what use do you intend to put them to? Certainly, personal defense and sport are legitimate reasons to own a firearm (and these uses don't rquire things such as bayonet lugs or full-auto capability, do they?), or do you believe it is a good idea to just let anyone own and stockpile weapons just because "they want to"?
""The fact is that the very laws you regard as an infringement of your rights were constituted, debated and passed by democratically-elected legislatures."
They are still illegal."
Ah, so now laws enacted by constitutional means (whether at the state or federal level) are illegal? In that case, I choose to invalidate those Amendments to the constitution and all laws I personally find suspect (for example, I should have the right to walk up to you on the street and pummel you with a baseball bat because, well, the lasw regarding asault and battery were illegally passed, by your logic). Simply amazing! I'll bet you screamed like a stuck pig when the mayor of San Francisco abrogated those duly-enacted laws when he decided, all on his own, that he had the right and authority to marry gay couples, and about his disregard for the people's voice. Apparently, you have no issue with doing so of your own volition. Again, you keep proving my points about fascism for me.
"Why? It wasn't before when there was less regulation. Freedom isn't safe."
No, freedom is not a guarentee and it does require an engaged and active population to keep it that way, however, the conditions of the past bear no resemblance to the conditions of the present, in many aspects. As they say on Wall Street, "past performance is no guarentee of future returns." Perhaps in the past we had a more responsible, more civic-minded, or more genteel society, but we'll never know (besides, they had other things to shoot at them rather than each other; food, Indians, et. al.). I'm sure the government didn't keep crime/firearms records and statistics in 1789, or 1879, to the same extent that we do now, so we'll never really know if it was really any more peaceful then than it is now. My money says no, since human nature never changes. We'd like to believe differently, though.
"I'm not aware of a specific accredited field called "Western Civilization" (not history and not literature, but what - a survey degree?) nor do I take an MA as being indicative of anything. When you have at least an MS in a real field, we'll talk."
Western Civilization is the study of Western (defined as Western European, derived from and conditioned by the civilizations of Ancient Greece, Rome, the great European Empires, etc, and their offshoots, like the United States) history, culture, languages, arts and sciences, philosophy, religion, and politics. In short, it is the study of the traditions and institions which form the bedrock foundation of modern American and European politics, society and culture. As such, it is CERTAINLY a real field, and has been for several centuries.