flynn23 wrote:
First let's put aside the idea that the citizens of this country control anything for a second.

Good point.

flynn23 wrote:
Using your logic, when does it end? If there's no limit, then there's no limit, and that's the problem I have with this idea.

I still think fully automatic military-style firearms, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, sound suppressors, all types of blades and clubs, etc. should be legal for individual citizens to own, without special taxes, fees, or registration requirements, but I do not go so far as to advocate "no limits." Unfortunately, at the time the Constitution was written, there was no need for limits, so none were addressed. Even the cannons of the day could do only minimal damage. Because of advances in technology, I think the Second Amendment could afford to be clarified by another amendment. WMD (specifically, CBRN) did not exist (nor were they even conceived of by most) at the time the Constitution was written, and I would favor making a distinction between conventional arms and WMD.

It's certainly not that I trust the government more than I trust the people, but if WMD are going to exist (a point for another debate), it makes more sense to leave the maintenance of those weapons to an authorized government agency. As long as the people still have access to conventional weapons, I can live with that. Besides, I'm not convinced there's a rational scenario in which the people could use WMD against a tyrannical government without destroying themselves in the process (which is not the case with conventional weapons). Very powerful explosive and incendiary weapons (which, though subject to debate, could include anything from shoulder-fired rocket launchers to the MOAB) could also be included in WMD (CBRNE).

The flip side of your question is "Where do the limitations end?" What many refer to as "common sense" and "reasonable" restrictions on our rights are often anything but reasonable (D.C. v. Heller). Runaway restrictions could end up being more dangerous than runaway freedoms.

flynn23 wrote:
I don't see that fitting into the idea that they just getting the right tool for the job to protect themselves. There's many ways to secure yourself from being raided by a group of thugs and few of them even require a weapon.

Maybe, but others might disagree with your assessment or your methods of dealing with those situations. That doesn't seem like enough justification to start limiting other citizens' rights.

flynn23 wrote:
I do agree that the spirit of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the government never got too cocky or too powerful to pull one over on its citizens without reprisal. And to this end, I could even see the need to have serious fire power that might match up with the State's arsenal. It wasn't about protection or providing then, because that was a GIVEN in the 1700's. But if you think that's a check and balance that hasn't already been circumvented for oh, the last 150 years, then I want what you're smoking.

You're preaching to the choir, there. While I blame that mainly on apathy and ignorance on the part of the people over many decades, that's no reason to justify giving up our remaining rights. We should be working to reverse the trend.

flynn23 wrote:
The US has if not the highest, certainly close to the highest, personal ownership of weapons in the world. That doesn't seem to stop the abuse of the people by the folks "voted" as our representatives.

Again, we agree about the problem itself. Unfortunately, when the people voluntarily give up their freedoms, there's not much that can be done. The issue of physical force is irrelevant when we don't even exercise the power of the vote to "throw the bums out" when they exceed their authority. Both major parties consistently violate whichever individual rights don't fit their visions (weapons, religion, marriage, spying, eminent domain, etc.), and we keep voting for them, because most voters don't care about all of our rights, just some of them.

RE: Guns for Safety? Dream On, Scalia. - washingtonpost.com