[iwerk2hard]

PBR
I have to disagree with some of your logic on this issue. You seem to be too willing to compromise. Rebecca Peters, George Soros and a whole long list of anti's have made it perfectly clear that they are not willing to compromise at all. They are willing to go to any extreme to get exactly what they want and nothing less. If we start right off with a compromise, we've lost ground before we started and will have to fight even harder to hold our ground. Imagine a tug-of-war at a company picnic, blue collar on one side and white collar on the other. The white collar team suggests that because blue collar does physical labor and has bigger participants they should compromise and reduce the number on their team. Sounds like a fair compromise, consider it done. Some of the white collar team are very healthy and active, therefore a lot stronger than blue collar thought. The contest starts, white collar gains ground immediately and is picking up momentum. Blue collar calls in those who were excluded by the compromise, they try, but white collar has gained momentum. Now blue collar has a heck of a job just to stop the momentum before they can reverse it and gain back the ground they lost. Only then will they have an opportunity to win if they're not exhausted from the additional fight.
And as for the way you present some of your other arguments:

Andy, we have the right to life, liberty, and property/happiness --- so long as it does not infringe on someone else's life, liberty, happiness.

The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Note that nothing is mentioned about property, and that happiness is not listed as an unalienable right, however, the PURSUIT of Happiness is. If we want to hold our ground we will have to be sure to make accurate statements or the other side will start there to tear us apart.

Now the problem is this can be interpreted two ways
1. firearms take someone's life
2. firearms protect someone's life

I have to strongly disagree with that logic. I have several firearms and not once has any one of them even tried to take someones life or offered to protect someones life.
I think that it's angry, violent, mentally ill, uneducated, or desperate people who take peoples lives. It can also be inattentive, uneducated, careless or otherwise distracted people who cause accidents that take peoples lives. Likewise, it is people who protect peoples lives. A firearm can be used as a tool or an aid, but by itself it does not take or protect life. The same can be said for a car, baseball bat, golf club, axe, hammer, poison, fire or any of a seemingly endless list of other tools. They can all be easily used to take a life, or save a life. A firearm is usually superior to most other tools, therefore I prefer to have access to the tool of my choice when it comes to self defense, ( which, by the way is first on my list and third on yours), and I feel that every law abiding citizen of the United States of America should have the freedom to choose their tools from a virtually unrestricted assortment of suitable implements.
The next statement isn't directed at you PBR, it's directed at anyone reading this post;
If you are a member of the NRA and don't subscribe to "America's 1st Freedom" I would like to recommend that you give it a try. If you're not a member of the NRA, I strongly suggest that you join.