CaptainMagic, the image of honest American folk using their assault weapons to defend themselves against the offensives of a tyrannical government gone wrong is a nice one, but unfortunately, it's a bit quaint.

We may have guns, but in case you haven't noticed, the government has tanks. And planes. And bunker busters, chemical weapons... get the drift?

The rubicon's been crossed. The government has all the power now. Nothing's going to change that now.

In the meantime, we're using our guns to kill ourselves and each other at a rate far outpacing the rest of the civilized world.

A person owning a hunting rifle, or a single, registered handgun for personal defense doesn't overly concern me. But I've yet to hear a single good reason why we shouldn't ban everything else.

The concept that an aroused public could depose an armed government by force has major flaws. A wide distribution of powerful lethal weapons could just as easily permit small groups of organized anti-government forces to turn into oppressive gangs of terrorists attempting an unpopular coup. The fall of the shah's government in Iran was not impeded by his well armed military. And the fall of communism in central Europe followed the same pattern. When an oppressive inefficient government becomes wildly unpopular the armed forces will probably join the general populace in a revolt and the military force will probably fall to the popular sentiment. At least that is the hope. Other factors may accrue that defeats this hope, but I doubt that a machine gun in the hands of every household would ensure a beneficient democratic government.

I don't necessarily think that an armed-to-the-teeth population would be capable, in this day and age, to overthrow their oppressive government. As Kevinb9n says, the military has technology far superior to any a civilian militia could muster. But in an instance where the government were to actually use nukes, tanks, and chemical weapons agianst a rebellion, don't you think the general population would think twice about the officials they had elected to office? We even refuse to use NBC's in our modern day wars overseas. Iraqi militants have managed to kill 1000 or so of our troops in the last 2 years without tanks, nukes, or much other superior technology. And in case you forgot, Al Qaeda managed to kill almost 3000 of our civilians by stealing our own technology from under our noses.

And Luke Skywalker and a bunch of rebel pilots were able to destroy the Death Star.

The possibility for a population to overthrow it's government always exists. Some situations make it harder, and some vise versa. The arms as described in the second amendment were never meant to be used. They are a deterrent. Much for the same reason our government keeps, but doesn't use, nuclear weapons. The knowledge that every citizen has the ability to keep and maintain any firearm they wish has prevented our government from overstepping it's bounds and has protected us from land invasions for the last 192 years. Terrorists and criminals are always going to have their hands on the best firearms anyway, regardless of any ban or law that is passed. That's just the way it is, the bad guys always get the guns. Why not let the good guys have them too? Home invasions, robberies, and hijackings would significantly go down if it was public knowledge that every citizen has the potential to own any firearm they desire. Bank robbers would think twice if they thought that the teller to whom they say "put the money in the bag" might have an MP5 under the counter. Home invasions would drop off if thieves thought the next corner they round would be into the barrel of an AK-47. Drive-by shootings would dip down if the gunners honestly expected someone to return the fire.

We don't need to "put guns in the hands of all citizens", not by any means. Only the people that want to own guns should have them. I don't even own any guns; I don't particularly like them, but I still don't see any reason why a law-abiding citizen, with a clean criminal history, shouldn't be able to have a weapon that rivals that of drug dealers, terrorists, the police, and the military.

There should be very strict restrictions on them, however. For example, every citizen with an automatic weapon should have to have that weapon registered with city/town hall. Furthermore, the re-registration period should be fairly short, I'm thinking three months. Buying or selling of these weapons needs to be strictly controlled, with both parties submitting to city hall the information of the sale within two or three business days. This combined with relatively frequent registration checks would make it easy to see who was playing by the rules. Make it more of a pain in the ass to upkeep on the registration and licensing of the weapon than the benefit of having the weapon in the first place. This would make sure only the most serious owners would keep and maintain automatic weapons.

I don't necessarily think they're safe to have, or should be the 'norm' for weapons owners, but given the nature of the second amendment, we should have the right to own them. Not to use, but as a deterrent.

If not, perhaps some discussion should be held to modify the second amendment, if it's purpose has become obsolete.

The statement that the civilian possession of handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles has deterred the government from misbehaving or has prevented a foreign power from attacking the mainland of the USA reveals how cockeyed your concept of the maintenance of good government and national safety really is. The assassination of Kennedy never attained an elevation to an attempt at bringing government back in line - it was always theorized as the act of a madman or perhaps an evil plot by one of various sinister groups. I find your proposal frankly wacky and in line with the desire to randomly distribute unnecessary dangerous tools to places where they can create awful accidents and stupid macho behavior.

By the nature of the second amendment, choosing my weapon is my decision and mine alone. Any attempt by the government to tell me I cannot bear arms is a direct violation of the second amendment. I'm not telling you anything you shouldn't already know by reading the constitution. If liberals against the right to bear arms have a complaint, they should take their argument directly to the bill of rights itself, and stop trying to pass backwards bans that undermine the goals of the founding fathers, who never had the insight to put in a clause banning automatic weapons since they weren't invented until 100 years after the last one of them died. I'm not trying to take a side on the issue, just pointing out that the way it is now, anti-assault weapons bans violate the constitution. The way "arms" are written in is very vague, since technology has expanded the definition of what "arms" are.

The way I see it, we have two choices. 1: We leave it the way it is and continue with the assumption that "arms" means "arms", and that all hand-held weapons are defined as "arms". Or 2: We amend the constitution to specifically disallow "arms" that fire a certain number of rounds within a certain time span, or can hold X amount of ammunition, or whatever we come up with to define "assault" weapon.

I never meant to imply that everyone needs to have a machine gun. I only meant to state the fact that those trying to ban them have the wrong approach, and should start their fight where it began, with good ol' amendment #2.

If you are genuinely concerned that the citizens of the country should possess a force countervailing the oppressive power of central government you must come to the conclusion that the forces available in small arms is totally inadequate. The SUV is a small step towards a powerful vehicle needed for the mission. It should be upgraded to, at minimum, the power of a fast lightweight armored vehicle with a mounted howitzer and a remote controlled 30 caliber machine gun. Perhaps it should run on tracks and be amphibious. I am reasonably sure that there anough people in the country enthusiastic about the possession of such a machine to sustain sales. Beyond that, to maintain a viable threat against high taxes and government corruption, independent community committees should be each given a small atomic bomb of Hiroshima power which should be sufficient. Children in schools should immediately be forced to play video games training them in military tactics. This should be very popular. This, of course, is not sufficient but it is a realistic beginning in realizing your dream.

By the rhetorical sarcasm in your previous post, sand, implying that I'm some sort of militant lunatic, clearly parallel with your viewpoint that everyone against gun-bans is a right-wing extremist whose ideas shouldn't be considered, It is clear to me that you haven't been reading what I've said at all besides the first couple lines in each post.

Taking the liberty to quote my own posts:

"if terrorists want machine guns badly enough, having a law on the books isn't going to stop them"

"Am I asking for a call to arms to overthrow the government? No"

"I don't particularly like [machine guns]"

"...given the nature of the second amendment, we should have the right to own them...If not, perhaps some discussion should be held to modify the second amendment, if it's purpose has become obsolete"

"I never meant to imply that everyone needs to have a machine gun. I only meant to state the fact that those trying to ban them have the wrong approach, and should start their fight where it began, with good ol' amendment #2"

These quotes of mine seem very in-line with this "dream" you think I have about machine gun mounted SUV's (sarcasm intended). If you had stopped trying to classify me based on my initial ideas, you'd have realized that your description of what you think I am is in stark contrast to what I've actually said. I'm not a typical conservative. In fact, I'm not a conservative at all, I'm a registered Democrat. I respect your point of view, and even offered the compromise that if automatic weapons truly don't belong in the hands of civilians, then we as a culture should take the correct steps to get rid of them by modifying the constitution. The founding fathers didn't write our government in stone, it is designed to evolve as our technology and beliefs do. Therefore we should better define the "arms" that the second amendment allows, since it can be argued that the second amendment protects machine guns. I argued this point, but unlike many that would do the same, I did not argue that this is the way it SHOULD be. I simply argued what the intentions of the past were, and how those intentions would apply to the present, and ultimately, the future.

I wanted to bring up this issue to simply ask "why are liberals agianst guns?" I didn't post this debate so that people that disagree with me could put words in my mouth or ideals in my head.

Since by now you're clearly not paying attention, I've written a short story to entertain other viewers of this page.

Once there was a little penguin named Helmut. The truck came down the street too! If only they knew where the diamonds were. She counted to seven. And they always were. The End.

This is a direct quote from your post:

Militia? Security of a free state? I hear no mention of " huntin' rifles" in that passage. In fact, nowhere in the constitution is there any mention of a "right to hunt." Simply put, the founding fathers had enough insight to leave a clause in their paperwork to make sure the civil power always can overpower the government. The second amendment isn't there to protect your hunting rights, nor is it there to protect us from invasion. The second amendment exists for the sole purpose of protecting us from our own politics. Our ability as civilians to rival the military's firepower is what prevents dictators from permanantly turning the USA into a police state.

My comment only indicated the type of public owned artillery that might be effective in confronting a restrictive government. I took your initiative suggestion seriously. If you don't think it is wise, I assume you have changed your mind.

I only have one thing to add. A pro-gun control stance is a conservative populist stance. I say this, because the only reason that people tend to be pro-gun control is that of public safety. How is being pro-gun control different from being pro-Patriot Act? Both sacrifice freedom and basic rights for everone's public safety. Yeah, I know that there are some differences, but I wanted to give you some food for thought. (For conservatives, think of being opposed to gun control as having a particular liberal stance.)

Gun control does not address the cause of violence--distrust and a lack of opportunity. Liberals waste way too much effort on this issue, which will not have a meaningful impact on our society.

Guns can be useful for resisting tyranny, but any plan needs to start with non-violent actions such as a general strike. Guns are a last resort.

The gun contol debate passed the point of being too shrill for civil, intelligent interaction quite some time ago, and has now, typically, entered the name-calling stage. Both sides are wrong.

"Banning guns" isn't the issue, controlling behavior is. If anti-gun liberals and gun-toting conservatives had more than a couple of functioning brain cells, they'd realize that the way to CONTROL the use of guns is to require gun owners to carry "gun liability insurance." Let the insurance companies carry the expense of tracking who owns what.

An example of the pointlessness of gun control issue is the assault weapons ban- it didn't control the sale, ownership, or manufacture of fully-automatic weapons; then as now, such ownership simply requires a special Federal license (expensive, and really not that easy to obtain). The assault weapons ban simply prohibited the sale of "military-styled" weapons and large-capacity magazines. It mentioned nothing about rates of fire or automatic operation, just that a pistol-grip on a rifle made it an "assault weapon." I'm personally insulted that politicians believe we're stupid enough to buy into that particular load of excrement, and angry at my fellow citizens who did buy into it.

And the gun-toting crowd has its own faults:

"Bank robbers would think twice...

[If bank robbers were really capable of thought, they wouldn't be robbing banks. Liquor stores are much less protected, and it's a local crime. Bank robbery captures the attention of Federal agencies.]

"...if they thought that the teller to whom they say "put the money in the bag" might have an MP5 under the counter...

[Actually, the MP5 would be the first thing they attempted to steal, then the money- that is, if there was any actual thinking going on.]

"Home invasions would drop off if thieves thought the next corner they round would be into the barrel of an AK-47. Drive-by shootings would dip down if the gunners honestly expected someone to return the fire."

If violent criminals actually had the foresight to see those consequences, it would only serve to increase the excitement level- which is a big part of why they commit crimes.

A dozen years ago, I owned more than thirty handguns (mostly revolvers) and an even greater number of "long guns" (mostly bolt-action rifles and pump-action shotguns). I spent three or four afternoons a week at a local shooting range, putting holes in paper targets. I sold off most of my collection, and the guns I use at the shooting range are stored there in a locker that I rent.

I was never under the delusion that having firearms in my home made me safer. In fact, they increased the danger, and the liklihood that someone would try to steal them made me inquire about my liability in the event they were stolen and used for a violent crime. That's when I realized the pointlessness of the entire debate.

Despite the misleading liberal anti-gun rhetoric, cars still kill many more people than guns, or in fact, all other kinds of violent death combined. The last figures I saw were 12,000 homicides in the US annually, and over 45,000 automobile-related deaths.

If the government tried to take our cars away, we wouldn't need guns to overthrow the government- but we would certainly put a stop to that!!

And yet, cars aren't protected by the Constitution- not a hint of it. Somehow, the government manages to control our use of them, by taxing them, and, more effectively, by requiring us to carry insurance on them.

Never mind, go back at each others' throats again.

While your thinking that everyone should be armed you might want to think about one of those times you cut off some rough looking fellow with a temper problem on the road. Some people are just to irresponsable to own fire arms. What does anyone really need a fully auto weapon for? Try hitting a target when the recoil raises your barrel tip a couple inches each shot. The high cost of the weapon and difficulty in obtaining a licenses is a good start in keeping full autos out of the hands of all but serious collecters. the m-16 by the way is semi-auto or 3-round burst not true full auto. As for home defense, a shotgun will always be your best bet, massive damage at close range but not likely to hit the neighbors house. Over throw the government? Lets not be silly here, you can dream of that while your planning to bomb some southern churches. They got nukes and we voted them into office. I'm a democrat and I own several handguns and a assult type weapon. If your considering using a weapon against a person you most likely shouldnt have one, and if you have one and are in need of using it against some one youd better not think long or it may be used on you. The 2nds great when your dealing with less than one person to the square mile but thats not where we live anymore. those who can show themselfs fit to have arms should have that right but many people simply arent. some gun control is nessacary.

I'm one of those "rough-looking fellows," what scares me is a petite little woman with a large pistol and anger issues...

First, as this is a political post, I'll get my leanings out in the open. I'm a libertarian with conservative leanings. My feeling on gun/weapon control is that as long as you don't demonstrate dangerous behavior(criminal, insane, or excessivly negligent/unsafe behavior), you should be able to own and carry what you want/can afford.

Kevin, Sand: While indeed, taking out our military would be a difficult task, the fact remains that in any major revolt against the government that the military would most likely splinter as well. Also, our military is rather dependant upon the civilian population for supplies. A tank without available refuel isn't moving far. Using tanks and bombs on our own country would destroy the same infrastructure that they need to support themselves. Oh, and our civilian arms status was one of the reasons Japan didn't try a ground invasion of the states. Something about "a rifle behind every blade of grass"...

And Kevin, as far as 'A person owning a hunting rifle, or a single, registered handgun for personal defense' not concering you, well, I'lll point out that that first gun is the enabler. You can cause just as much trouble with one gun as you can a dozen. It's not like you can use more than one effectivly at a time, and reloads are lighter than a whole another gun. And another word for 'hunting rifle' is 'sniper rifle'. Hunting rifles are both more powerful and accurate than your standard assault rifle.

Captainmagic, you support heavy regulation? Registration in townhalls? Are you aware that Germany had that prior to WWII, and that those lists were used to confiscate arms prior to the opening of the deathcamps? It's happened time and again. The Khmer Rouge confiscated arms as well, before sending their murder-teams through.

Beaugrand, you might feel that having firearms in your house detracts from your safety, but I feel the exact opposite. I keep a firearm loaded and ready to fire at all times when I'm at home. I carry one with me, 'just in case'. I do have a permit.

Finally, are all of you aware that it has been determined time and time again that the police are not responsable for your protection? That's right, you could have a murderer breaking down your door, and they don't have to send anyone. Heck, you can even have a restraining order against him and the police still don't have to respond. Let's say that they do respond, but it's going to take them 3 minutes to get there. Do you know what kind of damage can be done in 180 seconds, with a weapon as simple as an ice pick, knife, bat, or your generic hammer?

I support the right of anybody to defend themselves, with lethal force if necessary, and with the most effective tool they choose for the purpose.

If it's been determined that they can't be trusted with the tools of self-defense, they belong in an institution.

Criminals obtain and hold arsenals that would rival most police and military units. Gun control is a diversion that politicians use to distract the public away from real issues confronting us.

If you understand how the language was used by the authors, and if you study the times & ideas & thoughts of the founders, you MAY come to figure out that your pop understanding of MILITIA is inadequate.

It is high time we re-visited the right to bear arms as established by the bill of rights. But the original meaning is much more clear than many modern agenda people wish.

No, a well-armed citizenry can no longer "check" the governement. Times have changed, the constituion can change, too.

i feel that i can describe myself in the same manner you have, and i completely agree with your statements, kudos, but i must point out that you are simply repeating a widely known idea, but i thank you for bringing it to this forum.

What has individual assault rifle ownership done to prevent the erosion of our freedoms under the current administration ?

The typical gun owner can't even keep criminals out of his own neighborhood. When he sees trouble, he calls a realtor. How then is he going to overthrow a dictatorship ? Any attempt to organize would be detected, labelled terrorist, and aborted (stomped on) by government.

Gun control is about background checks - nothing more. Why ? Because gun merchants know they reduce gun sales ($$$$).

I too am predominately liberal in my opinions and I also agree with you on the issue of the right to bear arms. I believe I should have the right to protect myself with weapons and/or just have them. I personally own several guns and don't want them taken away.With out this right I would feel alot less secure and become even more suspicious of the government

I consider myself a liberal. I do believe in gun control. However, I also believe in limiting its application to handguns, assault weapons, and certain other exotic weaponry--that is, weapons primarily designed to injure or kill people. I have no problem with rifles, shotguns or other long arms. Though these too can be used maliciously, they are also conspicuous (unlike handguns) and less dangerous than "heavier" weapons in the hands of most.

I probably hold these particular beliefs because where I live, most people do not openly possess firearms. I would also say that people around here place enough trust in authorities to not consider ever raising arms against them, criminals being the obvious exception.