You're not actually addressing the question, what you're saying is the equivalent of asking "how far can you walk in the woods?" and clearly you can walk all the way through the woods, but you say "ahh, but you can only walk half way, because after that, you'd be walking out of the woods." That's semantics, and it isn't a valid argument. If what you say makes sense, then nothing should be illegal. Drugs are just objects. Land mines are just objects. Enriched plutonium is just an object. Anthrax, smallpox, lightsabers, just objects.
It has been established over and over again by our legislative, judicial, and executive branch that the second amendment allows for the regulation of firearms. The SCOTUS would not be impressed by your childish semantics, nor would they be swayed by such blatant garbage.
If only the Dalai Lama owned guns, we wouldn't be discussing this issue. The fact is that if atom bombs are not regulated, then anybody could have them. This is the issue at hand. Certain weapons fall into the wrong hands. We are engaging in a pretty straightforward debate: do the value of their ("assault rifles") legitimate functions outweigh the potential cost of legally manufactured and sold firearms that fall into the hands of psychopaths and mass murderers?
My argument is that there are no legitimate functions for an assault rifle. Using them for defense is no better than using a pistol for defense. Using them for hunting - same thing (and in many cases, using a bushmaster for hunting or protection would be much less suitable). What does that leave us with? Recreation, and I don't care if people can't shoot them for recreational reasons. And then killing a lot of human beings. So that's my argument. Notice my argument isn't a riddle.
