Now who's "paternalistic", Tom. My, my.

"Cute, but as you well know the reason for the Second Amendment was not to give us something to hunt deer with, and only an idiot tries to defend it on that basis. The reason was to be able to defend ourselves from those who think we really should be someone else's property."

There is a myth popular in some circles which tries to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment. The gov't can and does pass perfectly constitutional laws which infringe upon private ownership of guns. The reason the NRA fights legislation is that the laws passed would be constitutional.

Second, those guns ain't gonna help against the gov't. If the gov't want's you it's gonna getcha. Have you noticed how effective AK-47s are against tanks in Palestine?

"The Mac 10 or Uzi is not for Bambi. Bambi never threatened my home, family, or freedom. The Mac 10 or Uzi is for shooting men. Frankly, there are better guns for the job under normal circumstances."

Suspect this was an innocent mis-statement. "Normal circumstances" for me doesn't include "shooting men". (By the way, the FBI reports that 25 friends and family members are killed for every burglar done in by guns in the home. Talk about "friendly fire" - any military commander who suffered losses like that would be pretty irritated.)

"It is not that amazing that those whose root political philosophy is that all people should be the property of the State vehemently object to this."

There you go again. Who and where did anyone say that they believed "all people should be property of the State"? However, you are more property than you might think. Try owning land without paying the State for it every year in the form of property taxes. You can own a car, but try driving it off your own property, which is purchased from the State, without paying a licensing fee. Then try buying fuel without paying tax. In fact, try buying almost anything without paying a tax on it in most states.

Try doing anything politically unpopular. Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge?

Nope, your worst fears have been realized, and since we were all raised with it we all think it's normal, don't even see these as infringements upon freedom. They may be relatively small infringements, and they are infringements.

"Almost every tyranny in history has had a top priority of disarming its citizens, serfs, slaves, peons, what have you. How many societies allowed only the elite or ruling classes to carry certain arms? Or any arms at all? Why do you think this was so? Why is it so now?"

Do you really, really believe that this gov't would worry about the citizenry having light arms if it determined a military occupation were necessary? Have you ever seen artillery, tanks, APCs, helicopters, and airplanes work over and then take over an area? Picture this - an M1 Abrams shows up at the end of your block, drives down the street, over the curb and up to your front door. You have your basic whatever you think you need to keep the gov't from imposing tyranny.

Do you think the folks in the tank are the least bit worried about your AK-47s? No more than the Israeli tanks in Palestine are. (I don't understand why the Arabs haven't given the Palestinians anything effective against tanks. Those folks aren't well armed, at all.)

Now, let's say you've been farsighted enough to make some mines you've planted in your driveway and front yard. "Whump", and you blow the tread off the tank. Showed them.

What do you think the next 3 tanks are going to do to your house? I suspect you have about 1 1/2 seconds to sell it before you're going to lose money.

And, my guess is that if there's a penalty for owning those weapons, you're going to be doing your best to eat them. The last thing you'll be doing is "protecting what's yours" by blasting away at the tank. Nope, if the gov't wants you, it'll get you, with or without your dandy little "weapons of relatively mass destruction in a kindergarten or Post Office."

"Has it occurred to anyone how many thousands of guns of all sorts are sold at gun shows that are not used in crimes? Including all those awful military weapons?"

Interesting statement. Has it occurred to anyone how many thousands of nuclear weapons of all sorts there are which haven't been used against civilian targets? How much poison gas Saddam has that he hasn't used against the Kurds, or anyone? Or how many tanks, or pieces of artillery, or mortars, or land mines, or RPGs have never been used in anger? If your kid is "plugged" with a Glock, it will be OK, because the vast majority of Glocks haven't been used to shoot your kid. Nice thinking.

"A sensible gun policy is one that puts reliable and appropriate weapons in the hands of as many decent people as possible. Preferably with the right to carry concealed. If a gun law is thwarting this, then it's not a good one."

I'm not saying there shouldn't be guns out there. I have 'em, and have even shot one of 'em. The others I never have, though have put thousands of rounds through the types in the deep, dark, dim, distant past.

And, I don't know how much I want my life or health, or that of my loved ones, at the tender mercies, at the whims, of those folks I've seen at gun shows. They also have the right to drink, to get drunk, and some of them may have judgement might be marginal at best anyway. I think a few of them may even be involved in something more than your basic Everclear. I really don't want those folks to be able to mow down a classroom full of kids before someone can take them out, I know that for sure. I don't think that kind of weapon will do any good against the gov't, either. So restrictions are reasonable.

Ya gotta wonder about the type of mentality that thinks they need a fully-automatic weapon. Usually they say they don't need it except to use against the other guy, who is very bad. Hell, they are the other guy.

Arf