be new here...

Somehow, when a person becomes an employee of the govt they magically change and can be trusted.

Perhaps we should have the guns and not the govt (or we could make murder a crime and it will go away, kind of like when people say 'someone who is going to kill others would never carry a concealed weapon to a park if we make it illegal for them to do so....')

Are you suggesting that by clinging to guns you have the capability to go to war with your government?

Been there, done that. It was called the American Civil War. Never again.

But hey, welcome to du and your post count will go up quickly on this topic. If it is something you are truly passionate about check out the gungeon.

edited to add: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

Aside from the issue of slavery, the American Civil War was all about consent of the governed and an armed populace.

That "other" government you're talking about-- i.e., the Confederacy of states in rebellion-- was forged in and justified by the 2nd Amendment.

How righteous a cause the rebels believed it to be!

Now moot, of course, and for all time. Especially given the imbalance in firepower.

I used to be a deputy, I am not now - should people who were once in the govt be allowed to own guns or only people currently employed by the govt?

My family has several hunters (deer/turkey) - should they be denied the ability to put food on their table via hunting or forced to rely solely on companies to harvest meat for them?

Back in the day owning a gun was pretty normal (and they actually had shooting classes in some schools) and gun crime was not a problem, so is the real problem guns?

I don't currently own one but would like to. Crime where I live is pretty high and the cops just don't seem to care. I could hurl insults if there is a home invasion, but I don't think that would work. Having some basic tools for self defense seems like common sense to me - because I cannot rely on someone that works for the govt being here 24x7.

The idea of such a weapon is to be able to defend yourself at a distance and equalizes things - 3 big guys with knives could easily break in and kill me, ransack the house, etc - having a gun would make things much more equal.

If the only weapon I am left with is a phone with 911...well I would not feel very safe (we do have some guns in the house, but they are not mine). I am not sure why people are so against the avg person having one --- except that they have bought into the fear that everyone is a terrorist/killer waiting to happen. I tend to trust my fellow citizen more than my govt.

I do strongly advocate maximum limits on home arsenals.

I do strongly advocate shutting down the manufacture, importation and sale of new guns and ammo.

It's the sensible thing to do to turn this ship of fools around.

There's no way anyone can make a convincing case that more and more guns and ammo in society is a good thing. Prevalence of those products is *THE* problem. The more of it there is, the easier access becomes.

The incandescent bulb is more of a threat?

Why are you more afraid of the possibility of three big guys with knives than you are of one guy with a gun? Which is the more likely scenario? Who is more emboldened to invade your home or threaten you on the street?

As a matter of mere convenience, what has greater capacity for harm with the expenditure of less effort?

What can be used more impulsively to inflict personal "justice?"

the government for not recognizing he needed mental help and providing it.

They need to find and track him by night. Set a perimeter around him and deny him sleep, food, and water.

I doubt he will surrender.

Shot himself.

I read the article last night. He was found face down in a shallow stream wearing a T-shirt, blue jeans, and missing one tennis shoe...he froze to death.