No no, it was written by...like generations of storytellers. It must be a very extended version to hold all those signatured

They did that already. Doing the second step to 69 is just their way of saying "We did understand that our problems are coming from tax fraud and corruption, but it is easier to keep everybody working longer, than to rethink our taxation system to make it work equally for everybody."

First of all, go and tell that opinion to a 60 year-old carpenter, steelworker, or any other physically challenging job. Those guys literaly are wrecking their bodies for a minimum pension in the end and I don't see how 69 year old guys should be doing such jobs.
Secondly, the system doesn't work anymore, because
a) our government has payed the reunification of Germany from our retirement money and wasn't able to balance it due to the two following financial crisises.
b) loads of people have jobs that pay so badly that their pension will not be sufficient to survive no matter how long they'll be working and
c) because the current form of capitalism has shifted trillions towards the rich, who then do their utmost to evade taxes.

They're funding for buckets with water.

Yeah, crazy, but in fact, that's a good idea. We could clap some alien ass!
Internet, assemble!

Cet

Today, the government has tanks and drones, which might not end in your favorite when you're showing up with a 9mm.
Why can't those people stand to the fact that they want guns, because they think guns are cool? From my point of view, that is the only reason.

That's a good calculation to your point and I understand your way of argumentation. I understand that black market is a horrendous problem in countries with many guns around and that black market prices in the US are a joke compared to e.g. Europe or Australia.
But it's leading away from my point.
I am pretty sure that there is no need for anyone to own guns, looking at the lifes of everybody I know, people survive greatly without them. I am more in doubt about the reasons that gun owners are repetitively putting out there, when questioned why they want a gun. Protection against burglars is highly questionable, because the responsible gun owner will need to open a safe, load the gun, face the burglar and shoot somebody who came to take his TV, all of which has to happen in the middle of the night, most likely. Protection aginst tyranny or "the government" was possibly a good idea, when both citizens and government had the same weapons.

That is the question I was talking about. I mean, ok, when you desire to own a gun and act responsibly, lock it in a safe etc. Fine. But I think almost military grade weapons is taking it to a level that's frightening.

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges".
That's what Wiki says. Isn't AR the abbreviation for Assault Rifle?
But anyway, I'm not here to define words, I am questionning the purpose of said rifles in private homes.