lol.
Your idiocy has already been addressed by the supreme court time and again. It has always held that the weapons available to citizens should be those available during that time.
They have? Pretty sure its not legal for private citizens to own chemical or nuclear weapons. And yes that's obvious exaggeration, because where do you draw the line? Oh but they're not really available you say? Why is that? Its almost like there's a ban on them? But gun control will never work there's too many guns! Even if you ban them they'll still be made. You don't see how the logic there is a total failure?
Serious question, where are you going to draw the line? What regulations are you ok with and what aren't? What training (and maybe certification) do you think should be required for various weapons? What do you think is ok for private citizens to have and what not?
All we're getting is conjecture and bullshit. The pro-gun people act like everyone is calling for all weapons bans, and the anti-gun people are acting like the gun people want to ok everything. That isn't the case on either side for the most part, but instead of having actual discussion we get this stupid "lol you idiot using that term" where you do nothing to explain at what level you think it is ok.
Take for instance military style "assault rifles", where people act like "well duh its illegal to have full auto ones" like they don't exist but you also openly admit it is quite easy to convert them to that, and you don't see that as enabling full auto versions with minor hassle. So going to back to your "availability" argument, if the availability of means to convert widely available semi-auto guns to full auto is also widespread, then everything is fine, because directly getting full auto versions is controlled. You really don't see how people can view that as a major loophole that makes the full auto ban effectively worthless and so they see the only way to remedy that is to also ban the weapons that are typically converted? But, then it being legal or not doesn't matter you say, so see the laws are pointless. Then why have any laws at all? Where are the lines that you draw? Or do you not draw any at all?
Seriously, I never see gun people at all actually state what they're ok with and what they aren't. Overwhelmingly gun owners support some gun control, but yet I never see any of the people mouthing off about it actually state what they're ok with. How do you expect to have an actual discussion when you're not even willing to say what your actual position is? And then you wonder why people paint you as gun nuts (and vice versa).
You say the rampant ignorance (generally more "durr fucking stupid dumbasses" is how it is stated) by gun control advocates (er I mean, commie-leftist libtards) is an issue and then you do effectively nothing to actually try and educate people on it or anything more than ridicule.
And absolutely I've been guilty of just calling people idiots on various topics, but it is generally after dealing with people that are openly belligerent first and even then I still will actually try to provide real information and facts to try and show them why I think they're an idiot. Generally what I see from both sides of this issue (although I encounter far more pro gun people, or at least people who go out of their way to make that a topic) is horrible logic arguments and insults with no attempt whatsoever to make sense of anything (and it typically immediately devolves into them just trying to call anyone that doesn't full support their belief into a caricature of how they view the opposing viewpoint, which needless to say just makes things worse).
Oh, and since I asked for people to state their beliefs, it would be disingenuous for me not to do the same. I believe that gun control would be effective and should be enacted. I am under no delusions that it will "fix" things or magically end gun violence (in any form, assaults, suicides, and spree killings with guns will still happen, I believe it will lower them though). I don't believe it will lead to an uptick in crime. I don't think gun control needs to be drastically different from what it is now, but I would like there to be some more oversight (licensing, and for what it is worth, I also wish we had stricter licensing for operating vehicles too) and a push for education and training. I would like some loopholes like the private sales' lack of background checks to be closed. I am pretty vehemently against the modern NRA which seems more interested in spreading rhetoric, FUD, and lobbying for gun manufacturers than representing the majority of moderate gun owners. I despise the means by which they've tried to block study of gun violence. I despise statements that they have been making that are in my opinion quite extreme and callous (for instance, I do not agree with their "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"; I'd rather work to prevent the bad guy from being a bad guy in the first place and I believe that a lot of the NRA's rhetoric is pointedly trying to create division among people which festers extremism and creates bad guys). I despise them trying to blame things like media and seemingly supporting trampling the 1st Amendment in order to defend the 2nd. I do not agree with their relatively recent interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I agree that mental health plays a major role (in general, but definitely with regards to gun violence either in the form of assault, suicide, or spree killings) and should absolutely be addressed. I think it is a major part of overall health and should be considered alongside physical health (which I feel like a lot of anti-gun control people tend to have views that I don't agree with in regards to health care either). I feel like generally, especially politicians only do lip service in regards to mental health and use it as a means of trying to deflect the conversation while having no actual intention of doing anything about it.