<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.

The "myth" is on your side. Even the most cursory study of statements written by the Founding Fathers and others show their belief that the right of an individual to bear arms is an important safeguard against tyranny. Not even the anti-gun guys try the "National Guard" gag any more.

The government has passed hundreds of laws that would have dropped the jaws of the authors of the Bill of Rights. Whether something is "constitutional" or not is a lot more flexible than it used to be, depending on the makeup of the Supreme Court.

Have you noticed how effective AK-47s are against tanks in Palestine?

One hell of a lot more effective than rocks. Just out of curiosity, how do you think the Palestinians feel about the Israelis confiscating their weapons? As someone concerned about weapons in the hands of private individuals, do you approve of these actions by the Israeli Army? Why or why not?

"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.)



Not a misstatement. Aside from hunting, a gun is precisely for blowing the guts out of anyone who threatens my home and family. That's why you have one. What the hell would you use one for under "normal circumstances," pounding nails? You do target shooting so you will be able to effectively blow the guts out of your attacker. Of course, firing the weapon should be a last resort. Like nuclear weapons, the most effective and desirable use of a gun is as a deterrent, to frighten away or discourage an attacker. An ideal society is where every honest citizen packs heat, and never needs it.

Don't know where you got the statistic--the number I've seen by antigun groups is "43 times more likely." In any case, the statistic is misleading. It includes suicides (37 out of 43), and does not include any of the vast majority of cases where a gun is used for deterring a crime without actually killing the criminal.

"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.



I am totally flabbergasted that you are physically capable of combining your first statement with the rest of the paragraph without having some kind of fatal "irony implosion." To coin a phrase, cripes!

You've justified an armed citizenry almost better than I could have.

"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."



Again, you make my case better than I could. The good news is that if the shit hits the fan someday, instead of one government thug with a pistol hauling my legally-disarmed ass off to the camps, they'll have to use three tanks. Multiply that by a hundred million citizens. Imposing a tyranny don't look like such a piece of cake anymore, does it?

"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.



Are you sure you're on the side you think you are? The looneys will ALWAYS have the weapons. The reason that you're not radioactive gas right now is that the good guys have nukes too. The reason Saddam hasn't killed everyone in the Arabian peninsula is because he is facing civilized nations armed to the teeth. And I would hope that if someone is trying to "plug" my kid, that she is surrounded with good people, official or civilian, who are firing back. This is highly preferable to her dying screaming under a desk in a school where no decent person is permitted a weapon. See following.

"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.



The goal of the people I am fighting, which from the evidence I've read so far doesn't really seem to include you, is the total disarmament of the civilian population of the United States. No handguns. No rifles. No nothing. They are doing this step by step to avoid the wrath of Americans, but this is the end goal.

Remember, the crazy person with a gun should ideally be facing a large number of reasonable people with guns, not just a bunch of disarmed targets. In every massacre, the lunatic typically strides with confidence through his targets, taking his time, knowing that he will probably not face any kind of resistance. Why don't people see this?