the majority of data suggests that human nature is (somewhat) more naturally sympathetic to conservatism.
By this do you mean that more people lean towards conservatism than liberalism?
In some respects, yes. There are a lot of fuzzy areas here and it is a big topic so I'll just make a couple of examples. Realistically, though, this would be a huge subject to get into, as the basic breakdown between right and left (as in America) does not neatly match up with our biological divisions, which means that there is a lot of overlap on the issues.
The first place to start is with our natural motivations. That humans are, strictly speaking and by nature, not altruistic, is not often disputed anymore. Instead, we follow a reciprocal system that is inherently self-serving. This does not mean that we cannot
be altruistic, but rather than the fundamental psychological motivators are not. You can see this in the bias we all seem to have toward our own families and groups, and in many of us towards our own 'type' of person. That is, folks tend to favour kith & kin over strangers and strange lands. This definitely affects large abstractions, like 'the human race' or 'people in China', which are absurdly difficult for many people to empathise with. It is also reflected on a molecular level by the image of the 'selfish gene', but the analogy is a bit awkward and I think I'll cop out for now.
Either way, it is increasingly apparent that problems of discrimination and the inability to think in terms of future generations or distant countries are more the natural state of affairs in our brains, and it is culture that seems to be most critical in helping us to override such programming and become better humans. But it is also apparent that the differences in political orientation people share,
i.e. their facility with abstract reasoning and ability to empathise more broadly, is--at least in part--
genetic. Meaning that some people are naturally more disposed towards what we Americans (strangely) call liberalism, and others--perhaps a majority--who lean more towards conservatism. This is, at base, probably less an issue of political philosophy than it is of human reasoning and neurological differences. That is an opinion derived from recent research, anyroad.
That the most functional governments are conservative?
Not exactly, though yes in one specific example. State socialism was a disastrous failure because basic human motivators are not linked to the success of the nation, but rather to the self and family. Governments which operate along more selfish lines,
i.e. according to market forces, are more likely to reflect the natural state of affairs. This does not, of course, mean that socialism is 'bad', but rather that we have to develop aspects of it progressively, and not expect people to be--by nature--such perfectly good animals that if we only remove the oppressive systems our goodness will shine through. This is a standard belief of Marxists and most anarchists, and explains the disastrous history of revolutionary socialism---and, by extension, the relative success of things like the Scandinavian social model, which was brought on gradually and in collaboration with basic social freedoms.
That the human race is becoming more conservative as time passes?
Most emphatically no. Culture, the amazing wild card that trumps human nature, is increasingly more open, generous, and committed to ideals like equality and freedom. Just look at the collapse of venerable institutions like slavery. It is still possible, in my opinion, to be a Utopian in some respects, but the creation of a better world will require taking our biological motivations into account, and should as a consequence be a more gradual (read: non-revolutionary) process.
But really, why would you need multiple weapons with armor-piercing rounds? Hunted many deer wearing kevlar, have you?
Ahhhh!!! the old "Armor piercing ammo" lie. NEWS FLASH FOR THE GUN IGNORANT!!! Almost ALL rifle ammo is capable of piercing body armor, which is designed to stop PISTOL bullets. 
(The body armor that CAN stop rifle bullets is VERY heavy and expensive)
Thank you for the sidebar. Had almost nothing to do with the question posed. Care to try again?
Nice attempt at deflection here, but you brought up the issue of armor-piercing rounds, and I answered it.
Actually, the deflection here is yours, and you did not at first answer the question. Read it again: "Why would you need multiple weapons with". The question is about the
guns, not about the ammunition they use. The ammunition type here serves a descriptive purpose,
i.e. it defines the type of gun, but the question was about
gun ownership.
No wonder you have to have morthaur do all your debating for you.
He doesn't need my help to see through shoddy reasoning. If you want to debate or argue, as opposed merely to polemicising, you need to read the questions more carefully. And this---
.............but doesn't really add much to your (increasingly shortening) arguments,
I try not to waste my time on those who don't debate in good faith. 
is just sad. You are either being deeply disingenuous or do not understand how to argue. As I would like to see and/or participate in a real debate on the
issues, I am hoping that you will get your head on straight and come back in with a real point to make. Devolving into insults when someone calls you on a bullshit strategy is pretty puerile...
