or be gay or poor or female.

anything besides a fetus or a wall street executive is bound to make them mad as hell.

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Thomas Jefferson 1802

I bet this right-winger knows a lot of FOUR letter words!

"To you and the hunter gentleman who spoke of buying home protection against the crazies -- Do rabid fear paranoia really help you live with people as friends, neighbors, brothers and sisters?"
I have a shotgun and pistol that I keep loaded for home defense. I also hunt. Therefore, I believe that I am one of the people that you refer to. Does my "paranoia" or my interest in guns affect my relationship with people? Yes, but only positively- going with a group of friends to go shooting is great recreation. I frequently hunt with my family.

"How many people who make that argument, that they need protection from the nuts, would shoot first and ask questions later because they freak out over thinking someone is a nut who's attacking them? (I'm not talking about a very obvious attack.)"
Judging by the people that I have met, not very many. Concealed carry license holders have one of the lowest crime rates of any group of people. They also tend to be better versed in the law, and are well trained in dealing with attackers in a justifiable way. Therefore, I would doubt that your paranoia is true.

"And guns aren't "needed for hunting." How many people hunt from NEED for food these days in this country?"
I know several people that would be hurting for money if they had to buy their meat instead of harvest it themselves. Furthermore, wild game tends to be healthier meat to eat. In addition, hunting is an important wildlife management tool used by the US fish and game biologists to control wildlife populations.

"Or if you mean a gun is a necessary tool if one wishes to hunt, that's also not true as you can bow-hunt."
Bow hunting is far harder, and much less likely to result in game. Many of those people that rely to some degree on hunting for meat throughout the year wouldn't be able to get game. In addition, it would make it much more difficult to kill the number of game necessary to manage the herds effectively.

"Yes, I know owning a gun is a constitutional right. I'm just saying something that was necessary before we had an organized militia, police and supermarkets is way out of control now."

They are still necessary for all the same reasons. The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms for three reasons- to defend our selves from criminals, invasion, and tyrannical government. While we have a police force, they can not always respond instantly to any crime. In many cases, their job is simply to photograph the dead body. A few months back, there was a shooter (using a bow and arrow no less) shooting people in downtown Houston. It took half an hour from when the shooter started shooting till when police arrived. That is in an urban setting no less. In out in the country where I live, response times could be far slower. I feel the need to be able to defend my self until the cops arrive. At the time that the constitution was written, a Militia was an armed populace that could rise up if something went wrong. Still today, that's the only militia that we have. The National Guard, which some people think are a militia are actually federally funded troops with very little state control. In addition, as the Iraq war has shown, they could potentially be off fighting on a foreign land (a use of the national guard that I don't believe to be good, but it's the way it is). This means that if the US is attacked, it is entirely possible that a good portion of the US military could be overseas and unavailable. Furthermore, if the Government was to become tyrannical, the military would do what they say. There must be an armed people to stand up for what is right. It is said that without the second amendment, there is nothing to protect the rest of the constitution.

"It's too easy for criminals to get their hands on guns, even ones owned legally by noncriminals via burglary."
Which is why it is so important that the good guys also have the ability to get guns. Gun laws are not going to stop the criminals from getting guns. They will however stop the good guys from having guns.

"As for automatic weapons being available for "collectors"...first, making those guns available to the public for any reason is nuts."
The National Firearms Act passed in 1934, and required the registration and tax of all full auto weapons, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, suppressors, and destructive devices. Since 1934, a total of 2 NFA registered (legal) weapons have been used in crime- a short barreled shotgun and a machine gun, and the machine gun was a police department owned gun issued to the cop that used it to commit a crime. Clearly, legally registered full auto weapons are not a danger to the public. Certainly, illegal full autos have been used in crime, but further anti-gun legislation is not going to stop that.

"Secondly, well, I think you can't be 100% right in the head if you're all "dude, machinery of death, instruments of killing! Awesome! I want a bunch of 'em!""
I think diving off a bridge with a bit of elastic tied to your ankles is a bit odd, but I don't try to make them stop. Shooting full auto is exciting, which is why there are many gun ranges that charge exorbitant amounts of money to let you shoot full auto weapons.

uh no it was created to ensure a standing militia against the british........... I suspect it's out of date by now don't you think?......

and if you think that having afew assault weapons will help you against your governments army keep dreaming

That's the kind of thinking that lead to VT You know...

What Germany did in the 1930s (1933 to be precise) was elect Adolf Hitler. While gun-control laws were in place at the time, Hitler didn't have to shoot his way in; 85% of the German people voted to approve his designation as "Führer und Reichskanzler." If the remaining 15% had been armed, it would have made no difference.

The German people allowed Hitler to seize power in violation of his country's constitution; they approved his dissolution of all political parties other than his, the merging of labor unions into employers' federations under Nazi control, and the abolishment of the traditional autonomy of German states. Gun control didn't come till five years later.

I'm not saying tyrants don't love gun control; of course they do. I am saying that relying on gun ownership to prevent tyranny is like relying on your lucky penny to prevent poverty -- not much more than superstition.

Although a nation that possesses AK-47s and access to the Internet may not truly be free, it's guaranteed that a conquered nation or oppressed minority will possess neither firearms nor freedom of information.

If nothing else, the right to bear arms is a sobering reminder that the U.S. hasn't yet been conquered (in a non-economic sense, anyway).

History has shown that the proper way to conquer a nation is to flood it with riches, milk interest payments and buy up key assets during the boom cycle, wait for a natural 'stress' (disaster, war, etc.), and finally provide services to the desperate society in the bust cycle while buying back assets for pennies on the dollar. Rinse, lather, repeat, until (guns or no) the nation collapses (usually into a bloody civil war).

Foreign nations then swoop in and, with the gratitude of the starving and demoralized people, impose the new order.

And the skilled warriors? If there's any dissent, historically, the lucky half of them are paid in food, water, and shelter to kill the other half. Problem solved.

At the time The Flintlocks owned by individuals in the US were the equivalent of fully automatic rifles today. It wasn't until the 1930s that there as any more regulation for a machine gun than a flintlock. If we follow the founders intent joe public could buy a shiny new grenade launcher, and it is only since the 1986 machine gun ban that he isn't able to.

"What about my right to life and hapiness? Getting a gun should not be easier than getting a drivers license. To protect your personal liberty, you would not want someone who can't pass a basic driving test barreling down the road at you 70mph. Same thing with guns. Show me you know the basics and won't shoot me or my friends by accident and I fell that's enough to protect my liberty."

It's reassuring to know that you won't be killed on the highways because motorists are licensed.

Show me how how drivers' licenses have reduced the carnage on our highways and I'll consider your crack brained scheme for a gun licensing.

There are roughly 250 million cars in the US and 240 million privately owned guns. You are much more likely to die from an automobile than from a gun (suicides and murder included). When you look at accidental death the rates aren't anywhere near each other. In 2006 44,700 people in the US died in motor vehicle accidents. In that same year only 680 people died from firearms accidents. http://www.nsc.org/lrs/injuriesinamerica08.aspx

It's really a misconception, envouraged by the feds and the media, that self defense from hoodlums and drugies are why people need guns, or why they should stay legal.

First off, the major reason why so many gang members and drug related types have guns is because of the profits involved with drug prohibition creating a black market, just like with alcohol prohibition--they can afford the guns with these obscene profits and need em to controll their turf and settle disputes since they are engaged in a criminal activity that in a sane world would be a simple business transaction between consenting adults, and the people who sold the drugs would be businessmen, not young punks and sociopaths--but I digress.

The reason guns are needed in society is not to protect you from your neighbors or fellow citizens(though they come in handy for that) and not for hunting(which is, imho, an unnecessary and cruel activity untill and unless we can no longer get meat and fabrics from a store, or if you have no income and must hunt to survive) but to protect yourself from the powers that be. That is why we HAVE a 2nd ammendment, the same reason as the 1st ammendment, and most others, to protect the people from the government, a necessary evil that has grown far beyond it's constitutionally alotted size and scope by slow accretion of power that belongs to the states and the people.

Although the feds won't admit it, the powers of government in our constitutional republic(we've never been a democracy, the founders feared it as mob rule) are supposed to be limited to foreign policy and regulation of interstate trade. if a power is not EXPRESSLY granted by the constituiton, the feds don't have that power--period. Now they have some how convinced most people that the reverse is true: that if a certain civil right is not expressly granted then IT doesn't exist. This fascist trend will only get worse before it gets any better because not many will really fight it untill it becomes almost apocalyptic, and then it may well be too late.

I agree that citizens should be well trained in handling a firearm for safety and security, they should also be trained in civics and basic constitutional law and how our republic is SUPPOSED to function, but I doubt that this is ever going to be on the agenda of anyone with power. Remember, government exists to gain and wield power, and even those who believe they are doing good and helping the people want the power to force that help--wanted or not--on those people. There are NO exceptions. Gov't is a slightly beneficial parasite that must be tolerated but watched like a hawk and smacked on the nose with a proverbial newspaper every once in a while, it is NOT parent to support, control and decide what's best for it's "children"--whether they like it or not.

Regardless of the lethality of guns, they are needed to protect our liberty untill and unless we reach utopia(an unlikely scenario given what we know of human nature), besides, as someone pointed out: cars are lethal, should they be banned? what about blunt instruments? Sharp instruments? Should sky diving be outlawed with drugs to protect us from ourselves? How about legislation requiring us all to wear fullbody nerf suits at all times to protect us from the dangers of every day life? Dammit, are we "free" or not? The only limits to a person's rights are that they don't violate ANOTHER PERSON'S rights of life, liberty and property.

At least that's my opinion, I could be wrong=)

Criminals will still find guns, banned or not.
I would rather go down shooting then have some crack head try and rob me.

No amount of belief establishes a fact...belief is vain.