a well regulated militia

[LordSludge]

Wow, I step away for a couple days to get some work done and see what happens!

Guess I probably should clarify that I'm not totally anti-gun or anything -- I have a .22 in my closet -- but I do lean more towards the left on this one. (FWIW, I'm a liberal libertarian, if that makes any sense to you...) I genuinely feel that I do so in the interest of my own personal safety and the safety of people I love, just as I assume everyone else does. As such, it seems like we could all arrive at a consensus, but I know I'm dreaming...

Just want to make a few points:

1. "Arms", in the second amendment debate, are for some reason assumed by gun-rights advocates to be handguns and semi-auto assault rifles. It's an arbitrary definition. ASSUMING "arms" equals hand-carried weapons (which I've still not convinced of), that still includes not just handguns and semi-auto assault rifles, but also shoulder-fired rockets, fully automatic midi-guns, sachel grenades, suitcase nukes -- are these not also protected under the 2nd Amendment? It's just that much more potential for mass murder, if you ask me. Sure, NYC would be MUCH safer with 3 million suitcase nukes trundling about in the hands of Joe American... Imagine the damage a disgruntled ex-employee could do -- prolly take out an entire city block and kill thousands. Hurray for arms rights!! Hah, good luck defending yourself against that one.

Gun rights groups assert that the "right to arms" is absolute, but that's a fantasy. We would all do well to lose the absolutist fanatacism, recognize that the line is indeed arbitrary, and boil it down to WHERE that line should be drawn and why -- which is actually a determination of just how much killing power Joe American should have.

(In effect, though, the gun control vs. gun rights debate do that for us. It's just frustrating, for both sides, to not have a clear definition that lasts more than a coupla years.)

Again, though, I really do think the US constitution intended us to be free to own ANY weapon, without restriction. But, bright as they were, even they could not have forseen the destructive power of modern weaponry.

2. The assertion that more guns always make society safer is just wrong. In Denmark (my wife's native country) a few years ago, a policeman was shot and killed. It was a *huge*shock -- the first time it had happened in the entire country in like 10 years, if not ever, and it was easily the top story in the country for several days. (Law officers getting shot is, sadly, a pretty common occurance here in the States.) Nobody has guns over there. The violent crime rate is 1/10th what it is here in the US. You can walk through the middle of downtown Copenhagen at 2:00am without fear for your personal safety. (After living here for nearly 10 years, my wife still doesn't understand that it's a BAD IDEA to do that in a US city.)

Of course Danish culture is different than US culture. And no doubt there are situations where more guns equals less crime. But to assert as fact that it's always true (dunno that anyone here is, but it's certainly implied) just stinks of fanaticism.

3. The notion that citizens should have weapons specifically so that they can ignore laws with which they disagree is, well, disturbing. Somebody look up the definition of "criminal" for me. Or are you only a criminal if you break a law that you agree with? (huh???)

Oh well. Good debate!!