The Easiest Linguistic Argument Against Gun Regulation

Doesn't matter. Their argument is not based on reason, logic, nor a proper understanding of / respect for linguistics; especially that used in Colonial America in the late 1700's. Believe me, I've tried to teach them the historical distinction of the word "regulation" to no avail. It's not merely that they don't understand, it's that they don't WANT to understand. They don't want their erroneous biases and interpretations challenged.

Furthermore, at its core, their arguments are anything but rational. They're thinly-veiled attempts (and these days, they're barely even that anymore) to hide their true motive; the desire to disarm the citizens so they can push forward their totalitarian agenda of absolute control. They want the people disarmed so as to remove the major obstacle to their desired power grab. Pure and simple.

It's no more complicated than this: they want power, people with guns are a deterrent to their goal, and - thus - they want that deterrent removed...by any means necessary if they had their druthers. I've spent years arguing with them in online comments sections until it finally dawned on me: I'm not dealing with people who have any respect for civil discourse and the rules of rational argumentation. There is no coming to a realization of an objective truth where they're concerned (such as the right of a sentient being to defend its existence) because they reject objective truth.

Rather, I'm dealing with people who are passive-aggressively evil, who fantasize about disarming people such as myself, and then enslaving and/or killing us. The only things stopping them are (A) the fact that we're still armed and (B) they're cowards. Don't waste breath on them anymore. Call them what they are - evil, closeted, wanna-be totalitarians - and then move on.