[zbigreddogz]

Your attempt to carry the discussion to absurd levels does not address the issue.

No, it is exactly what is at issue here.

You were arguing that the 2nd Amendment was absolute, and that by suggesting any restrictions on weapons, I was violating it. By taking that arguement to its logical end (i.e. no weapons whatsoever are restricted), and having you agree that in that case, it wouldn't be, I have proven that it isn't absolute.

Now, we can debate on where to draw the line all day long. But I have proven that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what you claimed it meant.

[jmc813]

By taking that arguement to its logical end (i.e. no weapons whatsoever are restricted), and having you agree that in that case, it wouldn't be, I have proven that it isn't absolute.

There is a difference between arms and weapons. To favor any restrictions on arms makes you a gun-grabber.