HoHoHoNowIHaveA

Rights are taken all of the time.

This is not a Libertarian issue which loves to take major policy issues and apply niche cases to decide them.

Your right to steal property has been removed; it does not automatically threaten your right to vote.

Debate the main issue on the main points otherwise you are simply bikeshedding.

You said organ harvesting would be a net benefit to society; my argument is that it would not since we are killing a member of society purposefully.

confiscating an assault rifle would not instill the same fear as the Government killing your neighbor for his liver.

A weapon which has it's primary application in the rapid suppression and/or killing of human beings not game or target shooting.

A weapon suited to military maneuvers of a fire team, platoon or larger formation attack.[1]

A weapon which falls outside the boundaries of reasonable use for home protection and includes modified components or additional lethality, magazine capacity or militarised amendments.[2]

[1] Military personnel are highly unlikely to conduct offensive action utilising sidearms. Sidearms are considered a defensive weapon system.

In addition, ammunition greater than the calibre 5.56mm is designed to kill human beings whilst 5.56 mm ammunition and below is designed to injure and maim but ultimately limit loss of life. Injury of military opponents on the battlefield is a greater asset than destruction.

[2] Home deterrence is as equally likely to be achieved whilst brandishing a single shot hunting rifle, sidearm or shotgun.

Assault weapons hold a symbolic value and are key terrain in the moral battlefield.

The weapon itself represents the worst attitudes of the pro-gun lobby and form the crux of the argument about reasonable firearm protection.

It's not a net gain for the populace since they will live in perpetual fear of being the next harvesting target.

False analogy; not even close to the same thing.

If your premise is that less guns does not make people safer...

...then you inversely arguing that more guns does not make people unsafer.

Which is not true. More firearms makes for an inherently more dangerous society. Less firearms does indeed equal greater safety.

Your premise is only applicable to US states.

It is not applicable to nation-states which demonstrate considerable effect in reducing gun-related homicides. Even more so when discounting individual lone-wolf attacks of a terrorist nature (Brevik, Norway).

I could post sources but they are beyond dispute at this stage. (United Kingdom, Japan, Australia and most of the Western world).

Evidence is also lent by the nation-states with lax gun control legislation which dominate the league table of gun-related homicides, of which, the USA is one.

Am a sociopath and have been subjected to numerous psychological assessments. Can tell you none of your points apply.

Whether cheating on a spouse, an exam or stealing none of your points matter a jot.

You couldn't even imagine the emotional void through which I view the world. Almost every smile and kind word is purely to gain some advantage.

Every apology is merely an attempt to continue the activities.

True story.

Any time I am not stealing/manipulating/cheating is purely because of a cost-benefit calculation not because of any empathy.