That IS silly. I made the comment to highlight the disingenuous talking point you inserted at the end of a post you made that was right out of the NRA playbook. I hoped you would comment on it and you did. Now, let's see if you respond to my reply directly or just throw out a strawman, talking point, or completely pivot - which you often do.
I own a gun. I'm a hunter and also own a bow. I do NOT own a handgun, but I don't have a problem with the responsible ownership of one. I doubt I am far from the typical PA resident in this regard.
There are elements of truth in your spin above. We should devote more resources to the treatment of mental illness and other root causes of gun violence, as well as devote more resources to enforcing the laws already on the books. Your "talking points," however, reflect the attitude that ANY further gun regulation represents a threat to take away one's guns. That's ludicrous and right out of the playbook. Good luck with that in the US - pointing to the position on the extreme left is disingenuos.
There are some sensible steps we CAN take in terms of gun regulations that the majority of people in the US would get behind that have been completely stifled by the gun lobby. The AR-15 (which is not fully automatic, but can be easily modified with items sold LEGALLY at gun shows) and high-capacity magazines were not available when the 2nd Amendment was authored. Neither was a bazooka, but you still have a FAR more difficult time owning one legally than you do for an AR-15 or a handgun. Trust me, if there was a price point that would make these more accessible to the general public, you would probably see them de-regulated as well. If at some time in the future they make a laser disintegration gun that they can market for $295 a pop, watch the wheels turn in congress to get that in the public's hands quickly as well.
Increased regulation of the AR-15 is sensible. It's a weapon that has made cases of extreme loss of life much more accessible to the public. It serves no purpose except for:
* Making the gun companies 4 to 5 times more revenue than they would have without it (this number may not be exact, but it's in the ballpark and I don't care to re-research the history for the sake of this post).
* Great entertainment value for a generation that has been excused from compulsory military service and needs to satisfy their childhood dreams of playing soldier.
When you throw out the bullsh*t talking point about defending yourself against civil unrest, you (and a bunch of my friends) deserve the ridicule of using this dog-whistle argument that has been successfully branded as the defense of civil liberties by the millions and millions and millions of dollars being spent to keep the revenue stream going.