[jaguar]

Unless *she'd* had immediate access to a gun, of course. Then we wouldn't have had to wait for his remorse to take over.

Thank you for illustrating an argument for gun control. Instead of a situation which ended peacefully it would have ended with a death if *either* of them had had a gun and possibly 2 deaths. People always have a capability to kill, the better the available weaponry the more likely deaths will occur.

Seems pretty clear that handguns and long guns fall under that rubric.

yup, and tanks, nukes, chemical weapons, grenades, rocket launchers.......

I'm not going to play "slippery slope" with you about drawing a line somewhere between a slingshot and a Minuteman warhead, because we'll end up playing the old Salami Game. That's where somebody steals your salami one slice at a time, and nothing happens, because one slice of salami isn't worth fighting over. Pretty soon, there's nothing left but the string, and that's not worth fighting over either.

Summerised to: I can't acutally deny this one.

Out of question, why do you want an assult rifle, personal protection? Killing wildlife?

Your proposed scenario of a Marine assult on a subdivision sounds like something an elementary school kid would draw in crayon, but do you really think there's a battallion available for every town in the country? Do you really think they'd have much unit cohesion once they started to get orders to assault their own people? And how long do you think their weapons would remain completely in government hands? (The Vietcong at one point were issued handmade single-shot weapons--little more than zip guns--the purpose of which was to take out *one* enemy soldier by sniping, thereby arming the shooter.)

Congratulations for defeating your own point. Firstly i'd point out that over 3 million Vietnamese died to 50,000 US soldiers. If the govt dissolved to the point where the vast majority of the population was in open insurrection many other things would happen before it dissolved into armed conflict anyway, its silly to even argue it. It is also point out that militas which were very popular in the 90s were carefuly scrutinised by the govt, i'm sure if any had started posing a serious threat they would have started dissipearing too.

Well, it *does* exist, and I don't think it's obsolete. Just because *you* don't personally like this particular part of the Constitution doesn't invalidate it, thank goodness.

Visa Versa.