We have long since passed that point.

Merry Christmas.

Dismissing the importance of the 2nd amendment because you don't own a gun is like dismissing the 1st amendment because you don't own a television station. Don't ever think that you can attack the constitution on one front, and have it held sacred on the others. It's either [capital]The Constitution[/capital], or a flimsy set of guidelines written in pencil. No middle ground. We're not talking about some "no donkey riding on Sunday" law in some backwater -- these are the basics upon which all of this country's laws are based.

And the 2nd amendment guarantees the safety of the rest, in the final analysis.

How quickly we forget. Rights are NOT granted by the government ... we get them automatically (versions vary whether that's at birth or before), and the bill of rights keeps the government from messing with them.

I'm not dismissing the importance of the second amendment because I don't own a gun. I'm saying the 2nd Amendment is at best a tool to guarantee the other amendments. If you had to choose between owning a gun and freedom of assembly, speech, religion, the press and petitioning of grievances, which would you choose?

The guns that actively protect the Constitution are in the hands of the soldiers who have taken an oath to do so. Civilians who are not naturalized citizens have not taken that oath. The guns might be nice to have. They may even provide protection in the event of a breakdown of society, but they would not provide protection againsts tanks and automatic weapons.

I certainly wouldn't want to have to make that choice.

Actually, the guns that protect the constitution are in the hands of the citizens. The gov't has a certain impetus to avoid living by the constitution in some ways, after all it is a significant check on its powers. It was the possession of those firearms by the civilians and used by them against the monarchy that made the constitution possible. And as to the tanks and automatic weapons those aren't necessarily as much of an advantage as you might think. At least not in a stand up fight. Just ask the Mujahideen. Throw in the factor of a much more likely unified and supplied resistance. There are a lot more guns available to citizens than the military can bring to bear. Especially if that military is going to spend all of its time elsewhere...

That's why the military is spending umpteen billions on robots and autonomous fighting machines........quickly destroy ANY group of people, even Americans. :(

And let's not forget about monkeywrenchers and the 5th column too.

Who fought in inaccesible regions. The US highway system was designed for the rapid deployment of forces.

Also notice that most of the damage done by insurgents is from bombs, not guns. Any group of insurgents who attempted to fight using guns would be wiped out by artillery, helicopters, or unmanned drones.

The whole point of an insurgency is not to get in a stand up fight. The guns that do the most damage are used by snipers. The only defense insurgents have is to blend in to the population. That's hard to do carrying a rifle. Handguns might be useful. Shotguns would be suicide.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a heroic struggle, just a doomed one unless there was a split in the military or the intervention of an outside nation.

Also consider that an oppressive government would be backed by a significant portion of the population, either Red or Blue depending on which fringe took power, who would be equally armed.

UG was right in that the only way to prevent the rise of an authoritarian government is to watch for it and stop it before it forms. That means paying attention to what is happening in Washington. Right now because of 9/11 and a one party government, we are putting a lot of unchecked power back into the executive branch. Fear makes us do things like that.

Oh I didn't say it wouldn't be ugly. :)

I think that unless it happens quite a way down the road after significant changes in the US population it might not turn out like anyone expects, even me. Can anyone out there do a comparison of our current civilian vs gov't arms levels against any other times in history? I know guns and swords aren't the same thing but it's a same vs same comparison as long as you don't consider nukes.

In the ridiculously unlikely event that we have some kind of military-vs-populace clash in my lifetime, my privately owned guns won't keep me from getting killed by a tank. They will, however, make a terrific racket -- each clang representing a firmly upraised middle finger.

In the meantime, they're good for fun times with the family and to put meat in the freezer, and they represent my freedom. If I break the law with them, I lose that freedom. Until then, hands off.

If the shit goes down, forget the cap in your ass. We've learned its IEDs all around.

Correction, if you break the law, or someone claims you did, you lose them until you satisfy the local law enforcers. :(

Sad but true, xoxoxoBruce. And that gradual erosion of a basic right is what concerns me. No one is going to say "Okay, all guns are outlawed as of right now" It's a continuous process that might look something like this:

The right to own a weapon for self defense is inherent, and not to be infringed upon by the government.

Well, not just any weapon, but guns are at least protected by the Bill of Rights.

Okay, guns are still legal, but they can't fire too quickly.

Oh, and they can't be easily hidden on your person.

Hm. They can't hold too many rounds either. Or have a handle that protrudes below the stock. Or have a detachable stock.

Okay they can have 2 of the 3. But if they have more, they're "assault weapons". Can't own assault weapons, you know.

That barrel's too short -- can't have that kind of grip with that kind of barrel. Only crooks use those.

Got any guns left? Fine. You can have them in your home, but only if you register them with us. Oh, and don't have them in your car. Need to take them to the shooting range? You have to drive around city X -- if you drive through it, you're committing a felony.

Your ex-girlfriend said you hit her. Is that true? No? Well, until you can prove otherwise, we get your guns.

Good job, you cleared your name. But I think the law now should be that if you ever go to jail for domestic problems (not convicted, just go to jail), you can never own a firearm.

Oh by the way, neither can anyone who lives in your house.

What kind of politics/religion/club is that? That sounds dangerous. No guns for you. Maybe we'll even send in a tank to enforce it. Woah, you put that lantern too close to our tank. Sorry about your "compound".

Let's see, where do we stand...you can own a gun, but you have to tell the government what kind and how many. If it's cosmetically similar to something I associate with war or maybe saw in a movie, it's verboten. Likewise, it can only be of X dimensions, hold Y amount of ammunition, and when you pull the trigger, only Z number of rounds per minute can come out the barrel. Which has to be between 14 and 24 inches. Unless it's a pistol. Then it has to be 3-12 inches. Cuz, you know, the safety of the populace and all that.

Got it? Good.

Oh wait, some douchenozzle left one loaded where his baby could reach it. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11! The rest of you........you're leaving YOUR guns loaded around kids too, aren't you? Oh me. I knew we shouldn't have let "the gun problem" get out of control. You know what? This is a civilized society, what's the point of these barbaric objects, anyway? They practically jump off the table to maim and kill the innocent. We can't let the whining of one special interest lobby keep us from saving our people from such evil things.
------------------------------------------------------
Ding, guns get taken away. One more right flushed down the tubes. By the time I got done rambling, I realized that someone COULD, in fact, say "Okay, all guns are outlawed from now on."

Oh well, at least that would stop the criminals from getting their hands on them. :right:

[/ramble]

Step one: find an unguarded stockpile of explosive munitions and raid it.

Step two: wait a minute, not done with step one yet. :neutral:

Look on the bright side mrnoodle. At least noone can shoot you in the head for coming to close to a military convoy or bomb your house because suspicious looking people may have run into it.

As for the slippery slope argument, I wish the people who are willing to apply it to even full automatic weapons would apply the same logic to flag burning and other free speech issues.

No disgruntled worker ever walked into his office and talked his coworkers to death.