Happy to see that this forum has returned to civil discourse. I'm not so sure that these kind of discussions could ever lead to people changing their minds, but understanding an opposing viewpoint a little better is always healthy. In the States I think we have lost our ability to tackle issues with this kind of understanding. Instead we just feed each other's anger and frustration. If only we could tackle all the big issues like this... taxes, military spending, health care, environmental protection, abortion, "spreading democracy," LGBT rights... Instead it all just becomes reality TV.

I'm sorry, I'm really trying to understand your argument. Are you saying that drunk driving should be unregulated, or that less people would die from it if it were unregulated? Or are you saying that the same amount of people would die from it whether or not it were regulated? Either way, there are plenty of statistics that would say such government regulations have saved many lives.

And thank you for proving the last sentence of my last post.

When one is defending guns with no room for reasonable debate or compromise, and when one is on the extreme of one side of a debate even when there is plenty of room to have a middle ground conversation, yet one describes others as intolerant or elitist, it comes off as rather innocuous.

1. The Constitution Debate. An unarguably thoughtful group of people launched a new nation with this document more than 2 centuries ago. They explicitly desired that this document be malleable over time. Even 90 years ago, I would consider myself an irresponsible patriarch if i was not armed to protect my family. In the modern world, however, with gun technology that unquestionably far surpasses any of our forefather's wildest dreams, the right to bear arms infringes on my rights to feel safe in my own country.

2. Automobile Accident Debate. More people die from car accidents than guns every day. Government regulations on seatbelts save nearly 9500 people each year. Other government regulations on automobiles and traffic save even more. A ban on assault weapons would do little to infringe on anyone's right to bear arms in order to protect one's family or hunt—unless they really want to shoot up a deer.

3. Hypothetical Debates. Bringing up hypothetical debates like, "are Chinese missing out on certain rights by not having access to guns?" or, "should we also have the right to buy disintegrating laser guns?" are not attacks against any philosophy. This is how people debate and this is how people philosophize. But extremists have no room for debate and only wish to rant about how right they are.

funny how the most intolerant tend to call others intolerant

Hey blobbles, if I've learned anything through this thread, it's that rationalization has little to do with the argument at hand. It's more about feelings, beliefs and fears. There appears to be no place for reasoning.

But an interesting movie idea comes to mind. What happens when armed Americans try to overthrow the US government? I would imagine drones would play a pretty significant role. I gots to get me one of thems to defend my freedoms.