She's just discussing the anti-tyranny argument. Not gun ownership.

I don't think reductio ad absurdum is a good strategy to refute the anti-tyrrany argument.

The anti-tyrrany argument is that people should be able to resist tyrrany and attempt the violent overthrow of a tyrranical regime. Not that they should have a "tactical advantage" in their attempt to do so. The meat of the argument is that if you're willing to rationally decide that the government is treating you so badly you're willing to lay down your life to resist it, you should have access to something more effective than steak knives.

Whether you buy that interpretation or not, saying that it requires that we all have access to tanks and missiles and absurd crap like that is at least as absurd as the argument that the public option is the slippery slope to socialism. Neither engages with the question in an honest way, and it's disappointing and eye-opening to see that coming from our side of the discussion.

Suiting her needs and wants? Hmmm, I don't think she's not being fair to all gun owners, perhaps to SOME gun owners, who literally want their guns FOR THE PURPOSE of using against the US government. But it's only unfair in that it challenges that preposterous argument with the truth: your guns are no match for their tanks, fighter jets, bombers, M 19 grenade launchers, etc., UNLESS you believe we all have a right to these weapons. Pretty obvious logic there. That you're offended by it is strange.

I really do not think that Rachel Maddow used a twist or spin. In a later segment, she mentioned the (responsible gun owner) who was going to shoot Jared Loughner ,--- and thankfully---because he almost shot the wrong person!

I guess unfortunately in traumatic events--there is so much going on, that even more mistakes could happen!

Diana B

You must have missed the 5 references to the extremists' view, not all gun owners, as Rachel was only pointing out that there is a faction of individuals that adhere to that extreme interpretation of the Constitution.

"...those who go on shooting sprees are not the norm. They are either psychopaths or sociopaths who murder for sport."

If they can't get the 'sporting equipment', then there is no sport. I think Rachel makes a very sane argument here. I don't hear her talking about the 'majority of gun owners'. She is talking about making it impossible to get the 'high cap scary evil assault guns of doom and destruction'. You may make light of this all you want, but the incidence of innocent people being killed with what you scoff at is unacceptable, because nowhere in your comment did you give a reasonable, constructive reason for owning one of the above evil assault guns, except because you have the right. And that's no reason to put the rest of us in danger.

You seem to be telling Rachel that you would be in favor of a restriction of the First Amendment, but not the Second Amendment. Because if the problem is that our society glamourizes violence like it is cool and hip, then apparently you believe that the engines of that glamourization, i.e. movies, tv show, video games, Guns and Ammo magazine, etc. should be banned. That seems a bit more radical than just restricting the high capacity magazines, which seem to serve no purpose except to mow down as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.

Hyperbole is not discussing fairly, hence fixed news tactic.

I never said she was attacking gun ownership btw.

Let me entertain her notion. If in fact we did indeed have a dictator come into power. It is foolish to believe our full military would back him/her. The need for citizens to own heavy firepower is not be needed to stage successful attacks. There are plenty of people who could also use I.E.D's to inflict heave damage against the machinery of war.

There are also other tactics to be used against large standing fighting forces by smaller under armed resistance. It is happening now!

Small arms as such that she feels are the problem, do and would play a major role in protection against a enemy within type army. (I am playing devils advocate here since i do not believe this would ever happen.) Could "We the People" stand against our armed forces? Doubtful yes but impossible? No.

Like I said i am not against new gun laws, as long as they are not laws that do nothing but punish the lawful gun owners. Who have a right to mistrust government, and wish to be able to make a stand if truly needed.

Instead I'd like to see her rally for a deeper look at our culture of violence, not just a tool that is abused in it.

Other developed countries may have just as many deranged would-be assassins as the USA, but without easy access to guns, the lethality of their action is much less.

The key words of the 2nd Amendment include "well regulated Militia." Selling a semi-automatic, high-capacity, weapons to a deranged person is not intended by the 2nd Amendment.

Rachel does make a very good point. The groups that would like to take over the government are increasing(see last night show) Also, just listen to conversation on anti-government. It is volatile.

If we armed citizens with weapons of massive destruction that have emotions that run rampant and are wanting to prepare for a government take over, would you really want people to have weapons that use emotions as a compass to lead you in war, of any kind. Think about it! You do not have to have a mental illness to have your emotions run rampant. It happens everyday, gun violence. The evidence is overwhelming. Please pay attention and connect the dots... Please do not let your passion for gun ownership come before human life. Would at least think about what people are saying on gun violence.

I believe we can change gun laws that would uphold the 2nd Amendment.

I appreciate Rachael's persistence on the issue, she is not throwing up her hands. I hear over and over how we can not change the gun laws, its unapproachable. NRA does not control our government the people do. Ballots are the action to take. Americans need to come forward and let it be known how they feel about gun violence and take a vote. NRA can spend millions but the power of the people kicks butt. :) Let keep the conversation going! Peace EEJ

I have a question for you all.

In terms of public safety which is deadlier in the United States, A car or a gun?

(disclaimer we all should know statistics are not a true representation of fact, but for argument sake I am forced to use them)

www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

&

www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

So is it safe to presume automobiles should all be restricted and governed?

Also i do see the flaw in my argument, I don't pretend to be a know it all solve it now type of guy. As i said earlier i am not opposed to new laws on guns just opposed to knee jerk laws.

How often is a automobile deliberately used as a murder weapon? And they are regulated.

Please be specific, knee jerk laws? I would like to hear your argument and I am listening.

Every time someone speeds, drives drunk, deliberately runs a red light/ stop sign and kills another. You are responsible for the taking of a life. (murder or manslaughter, the results the same) And they are not regulated why do you need a car that goes faster then 70 mph? Why do we need cars that are build for speed, cheaply, or unsafely? Sure not exactly the same thing but cars kill more then guns. As a safety issue they are also a menace, no? Apples and oranges i agree but the point i am making is the actions of a few should not condemn them all.

You know knee jerk, this is right and any argument against it is wrong. Also I stated multiple times I am not against new laws. I could give a rat's ass about the capacity of rounds, but you know damn well that will change nothing, and then it will be (as has been being discussed) other more radical restrictions. The Assault rifle ban of the 90's did nothing to quell gun crimes.

Let me quote a couple of wise men before i go, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"You never can know what tomorrow will bring"

Yes, knew jerk or I like to say, humans creating havoc in everyday life. Also, the time does not usually fit the crime. Temporary safety is not a good choice for me but I hope you would still be there if I need you. We are a Union, but we are so fragmented from each other. I don't want to be afraid anymore. Do you? talk later need to get busy. take care EEJ

Sorry Joe, but I have to cry BS on your argument comparing guns and automobiles.

First of all, Don is correct, there are laws that regulate cars. I don't know about where you live, but here in Arizona there are far more laws regarding automobiles than there are for guns.

I have to have a license to operate a motor vehicle. I don't need one for carrying a gun. I have to take a test proving I can actually operate the vehicle, but I don't have to take a test to show I have any skill in handling a gun.

Having better gun control laws won't prevent gun violence? Of course it won't. Any more than laws making drunk driving illegal stops drunk driving, but that's not an argument for removing laws that do make it illegal to climb behind the wheel while drunk. Seems we could at the very least make it a bit more inconvenient to obtain the extended magazine for the more unbalanced among us.

Sorry, but guns or extended magazines have nothing to do a car, nor with penis size, for that matter!

I actually wrote an Open Letter to Charlton Heston back in 2001 (satirical, of course), making this exact same argument:

"WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE" - AN OPEN LETTER TO CHARLTON HESTON

March 8, 2001
RE: My Second Amendment Rights

Dear Mr. Heston:

I am writing to demand that you resign your post as President of the National Rifle Association. Like most actors, you talk a good game, but like many politicians, you refuse to follow through. You are not doing your job.

You have asserted that I have a right to self-defense, that I have this right whoever the aggressor against me is, and that I have the right to use "any means necessary." How lovely of you. I am pleased to hear you admit it.

If that is the way you feel, then why, Mr. Heston, aren't you working to secure my Second Amendment rights? As you well know, Amendment II says nothing about "guns" or "rifles", but rather, about "arms". Guns are ridiculously obsolete in our modern world. With religious fundamentalists seizing power in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States -- Afghanistan is rumored to have access to nuclear bomb components, and the United States and Pakistan certainly do -- how am I to protect myself and my family with a pitiful little Barrett .50 caliber M82A1? It may fire armor-piercing and incendiary ammunition, Sir, but it is no deterrent against an adversary with nukes, and certainly offers me no real protection.

I am also outraged that you are not working, right now, to see that the overly-restrictive treaties America has signed with other nations which prevent me from legally possessing chemical and biological weapons are overturned. This is a personal sovereignty issue. I never waived my right to keep any of these Arms.

And please, do not insult my intelligence with talk that my government has these weapons, and can deter or retaliate against aggressors on my behalf. What claptrap! That is no different than saying my First Amendment freedoms are protected when my government speaks for me.

As you have so wisely pointed out, Mr. Heston, my right to armed self-protection is supreme, and of more urgent importance than my right to freedom of speech or of religion. If I won't trust the government to do my talking or worshipping for me, what makes you think I would trust them to stand guard for me? I wouldn't! It has often been said, "If you want something done right, do it yourself." Well, I want this thing done right!

So, I issue an ultimatum to you today. Either put up, or shut up. Either get busy securing my right to bear Arms, ALL ARMS, or step down from your post, and allow that hallowed seat to be filled by someone who won't cave to the liberals. Either do your duty, or resign and let a leader who loves Amendment II as much as I do assume the Office of President of the NRA.

Sincerely,
The Diva

I believe weapons of mass destruction(includes assault weapons) are used by people to annihilate. Are you saying people should not make the weapons in the first place or leave up to the people to decide and take the responsibility. You talk as though this is a situation that is either true or false, black and white thinking. People are the gray. This is a complex problem, but problems can be solved. Give me a solution to people killing people or is this not your problem. Gun control is only part of a temporary solution and many other issues are closely related to this. Defending your constitutional right is about self preservation, this is beyond that.

DQ, jump over to the "Another logical extreme: .." thread; chime in on my comments. Maybe you can state it better. I'm gettin NO traction for our little movement. ;-)

Hum, another logical extreme. Just trying to keep the balance.:) As for traction you need to first hit the road, get out of the ditch...

Every morning I relieve myself of my true weapon of mass destruction in the toilet - not without a little warfare during the night that might discourage some of the enemy - but woe unto you if I should become irregular!

US CODE

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 § 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The official classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

• The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia. The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
• The reserve militia or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft)
• A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, often politicized.

_______________________________

I don't know if this takes into account previous military discharge status or criminal convictions, but it looks like "All the young dudes" are it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#The_reserve_militia

Again I say go to the ballots, it is very powerful way to make change. Why is it so important to have a militia in the modern world? If militia is not well armed they would lose the war, if they were well armed...annihilation and there would be nothing left to take over. I hear and see the rights to bear arms. Is this an argument to preserve a constitutional right, to protect the constitution or is this about pride and ego. I am not seeing merit for a militia in the world we live in today. Gun control would limit your right to prepare for government take over? I say again...annihilation. Rights would not be an issue any more.

I believe gun control would actually help the militia because the group would show that it is working towards a solution and keeps guns out of the hand of those who are not responsible. Is the militia responsible.? I would hope so. Lets keep the conversation going. Peace..it really is the way.

i agree!! no one is wanting to take away their guns or their right to protect their families or even stop them from hunting

So please explain to me jeff, why is national crime its lowest since the 1960's? please explain to me also how the 1994 assault weapons ban had any effect on violent crime in the United States involving firearms.

It is my professional opinion (as a former soldier, gunsmith, and armorer), that a deranged lunatic can reload several 10 round magazines just as quick as shooting a 30 round magazine.

I believe that people (including myself) own 30 round magazines simply because they can. that simple. I am a avid shooter and enjoy destroying paper. For practical purposes, larger magazines make a weapon unwieldly and heavy, and offer marginal firepower when compared to accurate fire from a weapon with a smaller magazine.

So, Spear, your position would advocate for everyone to be armed at all times, including with assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, since the crime rate has decreased? Ipso facto the crime rate has decreased since assault rifles and high-capacity clips are legal, right?

Might there be other, more provable factors involved in crime reduction, like better equipment and data access for law enforcement?

To say you own 30-round magazines because you can gets to the meat of all this -- if YOU can so can people like Loughner. Doesn't seem worth it just for your 'convenience', does it, really?

Nero1-0, because there are so many other factors, but not because the ban expired.

and never did i imply it lowered because of the ban. My point is that it neither lowered faster or rose because of the ban, thus the ban was a colossal failure and a unnecessary waste of money and time. I have a hard time supporting ineffective, wasteful legislation.

I'd say "is he single", but you know ;-)

He is also very handsome. He watches Rachel and Keith, he supported DADT repeal and he thinks most of the GOP are fos when it comes to military issues.

But more to the point of the blog post, I hear the 82nd airborne has MRAPs, M4s, M203 grenade launchers, etc. Let's remember that they're on our side, they've sworn to defend the Constitution and this country from all enemies foreign and domestic.

is he interested in old men?

@Lee Not that I know of but of course it's possible. :D

Sun Tzu covers this. It is why we dumped more bombs on Viet Nam than were used in the whole of WW2 and still got chased out, why Afghanistan is known as "the Graveyard of Empires." The reason is area knowledge. If you aren't familiar with the terrain or have competent guides in the area you are going to war in, your technological advantage doesn't count for nearly as much. It is why the British had their butts handed to them because they we using the rules that they were familiar with...some generals even forced the the constuction of roads for their armies to march down. By comparison, the American soldiers used tactics more similar to the Viet Cong...hit and run guerilla tactics.

Those who bring up Iraq and Vietnam as examples of inferior forces defeating or causing great problems for the US military are missing the point. In both of those situations, the US declared war, (or actually, were too disingenuous to do so, but the effect was the same), on those nations. In the revolutionist scenario in the US, that is very unlikely to occur. Therefore, unlike Iraq and Vietnam, where the insurgents were able to motivate large sectors of the population by pointing out this very fact, anyone wanting to revolt against the supposed tyranny of the US government would find it hard to add any but the most diehard adherents to their cause. The vast majority of citizens would either actively oppose the revolutionaries, or at the very least, not aid them in any way. Of course, on the other hand, the government might find that some military units would refuse to fire on fellow US citizens. After all, it's a lot different shooting someone who looks like Aunt Daisy or sister Sue than it is to kill someone named Rasool or Vang. The Chinese found that out during Tianenmen Square.

In the end, I think the folks who parade around on the weekends in camo, pretending they are real live soldiers because they are part of some militia group are fooling themselves. A well-timed Predator strike could decimate any militia group in a matter of seconds, leaving a smoking crater in their place.

it's a lot different shooting someone who looks like Aunt Daisy or sister Sue

It already happened, dude. Don't think there will never be another civil war.

That was more citizen killing citizen, as the US army before the war was actually pretty small. It's easy to get neighbors to kill neighbors. However, I think it is a lot harder to get professional soldiers to kill people in their home countries, especially in a democracy. We have seen it happen all to often in places like Latin America and other places, but we have largely been spared that experience. The only thing that even comes close in modern times was the killing of Kent State students by the National Guard.

@Uffdaguy:

In the name of clarity, I never imagined any revolution being a small group of paranoid idiots. I'm saying that if things ever got to the point that a large percentage of the population felt the need to take up arms, it would be a lot harder to suppress than the original post describes. I never said I thought it would be the Teabaggers who are angry because they don't want the government to be involved in their Medicare (champions of base irony that they are.) Things would have to degenerate to a point where even reasonable people would be okay with revolution. Also, any armed insurrection would be citizen killing citizen. It's called civil war, because it's fought by civilians. My my post was mostly about not underestimating Americans' ability to destroy stuff. For better or for worse, we're pretty much the World Champions of breaking things.

On the brighter side, since we have non-violent revolution built into the system, things will probably never really get too bad, since we get to revolt or side with the Federals every 2 years. In Oregon, since all voting is done by mail, I get to engage in paper revolution early, and from the comfort of my own home. I also have the time to google the heck out of everyone before I vote for anyone.

I'm not a big believer in a revolution against the federal government. Americans are way too lazy, apathetic and ignorant to go through the inconvenience of actually picking up guns and heading for DC with torches leading the way. My concern is more about small armed groups that could make some trouble for many others over a single issue, (abortion, for example, where we have seen assassinations and bombings).

By the way, I agree we are the world champions of breaking things, for better or worse.

The second amendment gives all americians the right to have the ability to protect ourselves and over-through the Government if things ever get that bad.

Really? Prove it.

Covah, they hardly ever make any serious attempt to seriously prove it (in my experience), they just do a lot of hand-waving and in effect saying "But that's what the 2nd amendment says!" I've observed those people and their rhetoric for many years, and I am convinced that they are simply using the 2nd amendment as a flimsy excuse to rationalize trying to take power if they choose to. I'm also convinced that they fully expect most of the military to support them.

I'm also convinced that they fully expect most of the military to support them.

I think that's the point Rachel missed. Not only do the whackos maintain this delusion that they'll one day rise up against our tyrannical government, but hey believe that far from having to defeat the military, they will be joined by the military.

While the political discourse most likely did not motivate this disturbed man, it has motivated others. There are several examples of this, look them up. Most were caught before inflicting damage on the scale we seen in Arizona, but we've been lucky so far.

Rep Paul Brown, Rick Perry, Sharon Angle, Allen West/ Joyce Kaufman, Michelle Bachman--- and I guess, probably Glenn Beck?

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/36445/

Yeah, Glenn Beck too.

So benjamin franklin never indended for america to advance technologically? i find that hard to believe...

Nero, you are simply twisting words. How do you filter "The framers could not have known how technological advancement would change the face of war." to "So benjamin franklin never intended for america to advance technologically?"

On a side note, there is a button on your computer called the "Shift" key, and it allows you to capitalize names, places, etc.

I recall what you said, the framers could not have known how technological advancement would change the fact of war. What no ne seems willing to accept is that the Second Amendment has suffered from diminished relevance in the modern era.

Given the intellectual prowess of benjamin franklin and the founding fathers, i remain extremely skeptical that they were doubtful of technological advancement, to include warfare (which would be horribly ironic since such skepticism contradicts the enlightenment thinking).

In 2011, with the world's economic and military powerhouse still engaged in a guerilla war in two countries about the size of an american state, the concept of a "militia" opposing a modern military makes the 2nd amendment still relevant. Interestingly enough, nations with thermonuclear arsenals (such as the US and Russia), have been involved, or are currently involved, in guerilla warfare that seems to yield no victory, despite overwhelming superiority in firepower, economic support, and sophistication of armaments. Given these facts, the 2nd amendment is obviously still relevant in the modern world.

Yes, i am aware of the shift key. Though i do not understand why this is relevant to the issue at hand.

Yes the 2nd amendment was intended as a check against a tyrannical government, though it is easy, and faulty, to compare a revolution against a tyrannical government to a small act of random violence over a issue (such as healthcare or abortion) that can be agreed upon with reason. Yes, there are small groups of extremists that rediculously relish over violence against "socialism". Though take into consideration that we have a government that can listen to our calls without warrant, detain and imprison american citizens indefinetely, engage in violent imperialism worldwide, and demonize those who expose their atrocious acts to the world, i think you and i have bigger things to be afraid of than a couple of military wannabes in camouflage.

if you think i am twisting words, then i apologize for my unclear message. It has been a pleasure debating this issue and nice to see some civilized disagreement (or agreements to disagree ;)

Forgive me for not being facetious for a moment, but Brian has brains!! I hate to be so pro-rational!! so i'll shut up now!

Semi-automatic guns are repeating rifles and handguns. You just said you were raised in a house that had handguns. Why did your family need semi-automatic weapons?

Perhaps I should have been more clear or perhaps you're being deliberately obtuse:-/

I'm genuinely confused my this post. With the exception of revolvers, all handguns are semi-automatic. Except for machine pistols which can be burst fire or fully automatic.

Personally, I'm in favor of the high-capacity magazine ban. I like my Militia well-regulated.

I usually suffer from that after a big bowl of chili

All that is fine, but it does not take a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round clip to defend yourself. There needs to be sensible laws that restrict weapons such as these, along with background checks and restrictions for certain people such as felons and the mentally unstable. Like all other rights, the right to bear arms should not be absolute. Rules and regulations aimed at making this country a safer place for it's law abiding citizens while still protecting the rights of it's people are possible. I don't think the right to bear arms and curbing gun violence are mutually exclusive. We just need more mature leadership on the issue, and better informed citizenry.

So should I be able to buy a bazooka at Wal-Mart? Black bears are pretty big, and I am afraid that my 30/30 wouldn't be able to stop one, but a bazooka would definitely work to keep me safe.

My point is simply that we already have restrictions on arms, and EVERYONE (including gun rights advocates) accepts the fact that you can't purchase an M1 tank, missile launcher, etc. What needs to be done, is some more COMMON SENSE regulations to weapons (which is what they are talking about on the left: banning assault weapon sales & 30 round clips).

No one is trying to take the right to own a gun away, we are just trying to restrict the number of shots you can fire at an innocent civilian before reloading if you "go off the deep end".

That is the beauty of living in the United States: i may not need a 30 round magazine but i can legally own one. Similar to me not "needing" a porsche but i have the freedom to own one (and i do :)

Bazookas and high explosives are banned by federal ATF regulations, though that doesnt prevent certain crazies from improvising devises given the proper materials and ingredients.

For the argument against 30 round magazines, a marginally trained shooter can reload 10 round magazines within seconds, though this does not take shot placement into consideration. A highly trained marksman with a bolt-action rifle can be devastatingly effective (such example is the kennedy assassination, which was done with a Italian Carcano rifle).

Thank you Nero,

You have proven my point that gun rights advocates are lying to themselves. You admit that bazookas and high explosives are banned, and do not seem to bat an eyelash to defend that. I will assume it is because you are intelligent, and common sense dictates that a citizen has no constructive need to own those kinds of destructive weapons.

For the 30 round clip vs a Porsche, I will ask you this: Do you need to pass a course or qualify for the purchase of the clip? That is where the difference is, as you must complete a competency test to be afforded the privilege to drive a car (plus you are comparing a $20 purchase to a $40,000 purchase). There is no testing for competency on purchasing a gun.

As far as defending the 30 round magazines, I will ask you this specific question: If the shooter in Tucson had to reload after 17 shots instead of 33, would there have been more or less carnage?

lying to ourselves? from a tactical perspective, please explain to me how is it any different to have a gun pointed at you that is loaded with a 10 round or 30 round magazine? there is no difference. In fact, much more death statistically is dealt at the hands of revolvers (which are slow to reload and hold six cartridges) or smaller semi-automatic pistols (that still hold 6-8 rounds in a magazine). I prefer to stick with reason rather than emotionalism when it comes to firearms.

btw, heavy arms and explosives are attainable through special licensing and restriction. One can purchase parts kits for a mk 19 automatic grenade launcher, though the government keeps heavy accountability for the grenades (making it nearly impossible to fire).

The reason why i defend "high capacity" magazines is because besides looking scarier, a AR15 with a 30 round magazine is no more deadly beyond 300 meters than a hunting rifle. In addition to the reputation among the few as "black machines of death", "assault weapons" (defined as semi-automatic rifles with magazines larger than 10 rounds) are utilized in less than 1/6 of 1% of all firearms crimes in the US. Real frightening (lol). Considering that police are armed with such weapons (even belt-fed machine guns in a few cases), body armor, night vision, armored vehicles, and helicopters, even the most violent criminal obtains no advantage in a firefight with such a well-equipped force.

Yes, gun owners have to pass a background check and call from the local sheriff. This is not 100% effective, though there is state and federal legislation in effect that makes firearms violations serious offenses. As anybody who spends a long time on the road can attest, driver's education seriously lacks and there are those who i deem hopelessly incompetent and hold a driver's license.

your question is impossible to answer because i was not there. As far as proving the validity of banning "high cap" magazines, it fails to do so. When properly trained, a marginally trained handgun user can reload a 10 round magazine within seconds. Shot placement is more important than quantities of copper put down range. Remember that the Kennedy assassination was conducted with a bolt-action rifle.

ask cheney's victim! he didn't need a magazine or a book for that matter!

No one, and I mean no one is suggesting people should not be allowed to defend themselves. This is just another example of gun rights' advocated not debating the topic in good faith. Almost all Americans would agree that we should have the right to defend ourselves, and that the right is guaranteed us by the 2nd Amendment. However, that right is not absolute. I think we can all agree that some people cannot share in that right, i.e. felons and mentally ill. We SHOULD also be able to agree that there is no need for 30 round clips and AK-47's, but people continue to insist that somehow men in the 18th century decided that everyone in this country has that right. Well, that is just irrational, irresponsible, and plain ridiculous.

If we need to allow everyone to arm themselves for self protection, then why waste the money we spend on cops? After all, if we are going to make protection of our families and properties our own responsibility, then what role do the police have? You already pay for protection that is usually far better than that you could provide for yourself.

No one is coming for your gun safe, relax. You state "without offering up solutions", which is a farce. Banning assault weapons & extended magazine clips is the first solution the Democrats have come up with. You can still go to the local sporting goods store and buy a gun, and leave with it that day. That is not going to change.

What you need to realize is that gun controls and restrictions have been accepted by all sides of the political argument for years. I have never heard the NRA advocating for personal nuclear weapons or access to IED's for citizens. This shows that even the most fervent protectors of gun rights accept that there is a boundary on what the average citizen should be allowed to possess as far as firepower.

You people just don't get. You are arguing from an emotional level and not a practical level and you are projecting. My statement is coming from someone (me) that thinks guns are one of mankinds worst inventions, someone that does not and will not own a gun and thinks they are for the mentally stupid and weak.

I am referring to pure logic of a concept. What you are advocating more dangerous and stupid than the alternative of everyone having nukes, for instance. What you are advocating can lead to a far worse scenario for mankind than everyone having nukes. That is what the 2nd Amendment realizes and what they understood at that time. Because of the time that has passed, people have lost that understanding through complacency. Wake up!

Last line of defense? Really?? Do you fear those Canadians up there? Is that what they're up to on those long winter nights? Or maybe its the Mexicans. Have no fear. The illegals already here have had long experience with the corrupt Mexican army. If the Mexican army surged North, our illegals wouldn't need any guns. They would kill them with their bare hands.

If being honest (and non-violent) is a problem with you, Rachel, then I feel sorry for you, cause you (generic) are only misleading people. Mine is just an opinion and if my opinion is that someone is being a moron and I voice that opinion (without violence) then the problem is not mine, it is the problem of those that have a problem with it. Saying otherwise is only misleading and can often be more harmful than being honest. Yes, I believe white lies are harmful as they misrepresent the truth which can lead to an inappropriate conclusion for the person on the receiving end and they may learn nothing.

The person that this was directed at was only being antagonistic with their comment. You should realize that. They are called trolls.

are trolls like illegal aliens? - I feel facetiousness building up in me like my bowels are ready to burst - watch out - it's startin to smell in here! I may have a case of biological warfare - or word barf coming - hold onn!!!!

No one is talking about overturning the 2nd Amendment. Stop spreading fear and lies. I do agree, however, that people whom argue the 2nd Amendment is for hunters alone do not understand the topic. I keep seeing references to Afghanistan, which I find as an interesting analogy. The mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet Union was trained and armed by the United States, so I'd argue that's a little bit different than a citizen militia here in this country. Their weapons may have been inferior to Soviet tanks, but their training was not.

"No one is talking about overturning the 2nd Amendment. Stop spreading fear and lies."

There is an element to the left that "does" want to be rid of the amendment and, for them, it is their primary objective in politics. Like far too many political issues, this one has become a battle between extremes. This one issue political mindset is what makes representing the left similar to herding cats and detracts from the overall ability of Dem lawmakers to forward progressive policy.

Spotting these extremist gun grabbers is easy. Their level of passion is only matched by their technical ignorance in the subject as they call for a "Glock ban" and other such nonsensical ramblings. It is the presence and volume of their irrational demands that makes many on the right dig in philosophically and reject ANY reasonable measure. The right sees this effort as an incrementalism that has the complete elimination of guns as it's end game.

mikeem, you find references to afghanistan interesting? its no surprise that there is a significant population of veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who fought the mujahideen and learned their tactics. In addition to that, a significant number of those veterans are also gun owners. In a essence, much of the "militia" is already trained and experienced.

I also disagree strongly that restrictions on the 2nd amendment are solely to blame on the left. The issue of violence and unrest can be simmered down with reason and logic, not emotionalism and blame. In regards to the tragedy in Arizona, i find it absolutely mindboggling that people do not blame the shooter and instead intend on blaming gun laws, psychology, the college, and politicians.

well maybe someone is at least thinking about overthrowing the 2nd amendment :-)

Why are people on that side of the argument so dense? NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!!! Sensible gun laws that are being pursued do not include stripping gun owners of their rights to own weapons and protect themselves.

The right claims the left wants to take away your guns so you will not be able to defend yourself from socialism. They say so straight out. The right claims health insurance reform is a government take-over. Republicans at the highest level claim to oppose health insurance reform as an "expansion of government". Why would anyone oppose the expansion of government unless they felt it is evil and illegitimate? Republicans from President Bush to right-wing Supreme Court justices to elected representatives see the federal government as an illegitimate construct imposed on the traditional ruling class by force of arms in a peasant insurrection.

In a war, civil or other, subterfuges are legitimate. That is why Republicans lie all the time.

"or at least minimized, by the judicious application of reasonable restrictions." should read "or at least could have been minimized, by the judicious application of reasonable restrictions"

Sorry for the lack of proof reading. Got in a hurry.

+1

all centrist americans support a assault weapons ban? not hardly. The reason for lack of support for such a ban is because it simply will not work. Restricting the rights of the compliant do nothing to prevent the chaos of the malevolent.

We are not tyrannic? the united states spends more on defense annually than the 10 nations under it combined. The military/security complex is so deeply rooted within our political base that our nation is kept in a constant state of war in order to facilitate bankers that have seized our government in a silent coup. The United States lost its republic as soon as we became the sole military power on the planet. As we become entangled in increasingly expensive wars (in terms of money and casualties), the advantages gained from being at war yield smaller and smaller rewards (if there is such a thing). Ever wonder why we are ascending from where we were? we continually lie to ourselves because the truth is too painful to bear.

With these facts aside, we are very far from the free republic we brag about arrogantly. Our own arrogance, apathy, and greed have pushed us to our demise, all in the while being trapped in a delusional fantasy that we stand for freedom, justice, and equality.

unfortunately you tend to be correct in your synopsis of america the beautiful - i'm not proud to be american any more - don't know if i ever was - since i recognized most of these despicable traits you mention at the beginning of the vietnam war - we haven't improved as a national entity - but ironically we seem to slowly improve in human rights - go figure - i will forever degrade the 2nd amendment and its' avid followers - who defend it tooth and nail - but i won't be around much longer - so when it comes to "columbines" "touscons" et al - i really lose my ability to feel remorse - just pity - the country gets what it deserves - the little children who die - get what our country gives them - i at least can rest easy without a guilty conscience that i was in any way complicit in the deaths of all these human beings - lucky me! - i'm not going to miss either this country or much of man-kind when i take my leave - it's a cruel place that tends to make itself worse by all means possible - so - carry on!!! but don't be surprised by my outbursts of being obnoxious, offensive and outrageous - seems rational thinking is no less eloquent or effective!

so good night folks - i gotta take a crap!!!

Scatological profanity, the final refuge of the broken-hearted. I understand lee. Don't worry about it. It is actually a well respected tradition among humanists and satirists, you are in excellent company.The scandal your words cause are not half as important as the unspoken protests that spark them.