TL;DR Version:
Using the argument that it can be balanced is not a reason to add it to the game.

So i got entirely fed up with reading parts of this forum and seeing the phrase "if X Balanced"

Opinion: when "If properly balanced" is any where in your suggestion, then i disregard it.
If you could properly balance some thing so easily, it wouldn't be in a suggestion thread.

It makes me think of Chaos Theory.
SO i went over to google to make a properly balanced point.
While wasting some time digging through finding all the instances of the word "balanced" on this forum i've basically discovered that the magical black box of game development according to these people is "When X is Balanced, Y is possible." I design maps for various reasons and games. The primary reason i have stayed away from editing in this game is the fact that no matter what you do in this game, players will do one or all of the following:

A.)Ignore It.
B.)Abuse it.
C.)Hate It.
D.)Enjoy it.

No matter what "it" happens to be. You cannot balance any thing further than it has been.

Unless you make purely novelty maps like a giant pizza.

Balance, though, is an important factor of the game right now. I like the rifles because they're incredibly balanced... some of, if not the, most realistic rifle mechanics I've ever encountered in any sort of video game. There's no drop or winding, admittedly, but at the shot fog distance there wouldn't be any regardless.

So things MUST be properly balanced. Right now they are by default (everyone has the same stuff, everyone has the same chance. The only defining factor is skill). So perhaps the argument shouldn't be if something IS properly balanced, but whether or not it CAN be properly balanced. If it can't, then it should be dropped.