[CWMV]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Firearms as toys, for sport, as a hobby, as a collectable or for hunting all seem reasonable and relatively sane.

The idea that when the tea baggers and Palin takeover the US government and as a result the US military, a popular uprising of patriotic Americans armed with assault rifles and hand guns will be able to oust them is just insanity.

Then what exactly do you believe our second amendment is about? It has nothing to do with any of the things you mentioned.
Its the guarantee that our other liberties will not be violated.
For instance the first major pushes for gun control here came in the south, by democrats to keep newly freed slaves from purchasing firearms to defend themselves and their liberty from organizations like the KKK which were heavily southern democrat in composition.

Im not fond of the Tea Party, but no need to be juvenile about them.

Originally Posted by Zorin

There is a HUGE difference between knowing how to handle a gun and having your personal arsenal at home to be abused at will.

So perhaps get off your high moral ground and take CWMV's outdated quotations from men who never knew modern societies with you.

WE, the poeple who are against fire arms being kept in the hands of civilians, have actually learned from history and embrace the non-violent means of modern democracy, which have been developed by mankind as a lesson learned from history.

For a group of guys that didn't know the modern world they sure did a bang up job at building the foundations of the worlds only remaining superpower eh? Its reasonable to believe that as they advocated the civilian ownership of military grade weaponry at the time they would do so even in the modern era.
The beautiful thing about their vision is that it is based in liberty, the definition of which has changed little since their era.
To be free is to accept the consequences of your actions and those around you. You punish people for breaking the law when it happens, trying to punish people by infringing on their intrinsic human rights so that they are incapable of committing crimes is a totalitarian measure.

Reasonable limits would be, for example, the right to flail your arms about at will until you hit someone in the nose at which point you are in violation of the law and dealt with accordingly. What you would have the government do is cut off everyone's arms so that they cant injure anyone at all.
That's not a trade I'm happy with.

The only other thing I question is this assertion that modern democracy is non violent. There are always going to be those that are violent and resort to violence to get their way. It is the single constant through human history. In fact these peaceful democracies are the source of a great deal of the worlds aggression. Iraq and Libya anyone?
The way you would have peace is by having the monopoly of arms held by the government. History has also shown us time and time again that this condition is not healthy for the freedom of the people.
People fear the government=totalitarian rule. Government fears the people=freedom. Simple equation.