Summations Only

Seriously? Think back to the last time you were so mad at someone you literally saw red. Fine motor tasks? Perfect recollection of random data? Would you say that typifies your capabilities and mental state at that time? Fine, so, we're all just handwaving.

All of this talk about what is easier to access in the 'heat of the moment' and whether guns promote violence or not is completely irrelevant.The issue of whether a citizenry should be allowed to arm itself or not comes down to one very simple point: It is against the very principles of democracy to empower a government over its people.

The government has access to fighter jets, surface to air missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nukes.... etc. etc.What weapons do you think the citzenry should have access to?

If you guys are this ignorant about guns and gun topics, but you think you know what you are talking about...how many other topics on here do you not have a clue about either?

All firearms. We are a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is not Syria where our President is of a certain minortiy tribe that is allied with our religious adversaries, and is recieving weapons from them to use against us.

Why?Why not (for example) bazookas?

I don't think unlocking a cabinet constitutes a fine motor task. Nor does remembering a short string of numbers really constitute anything particularly difficult. And to answer the question the last time that happened was the first and only time I've completed the construction of a card pyramid using a complete pack of cards - so yeah, I think fine motor skills were in working order.Maybe I'm the exception, but as the figures I posted indicate - somehow people overcome these difficulties you are thinking of enough times to make shooting someone in the course of an argument a major player in the overall homicide statistics while stabbing someone in the same general circumstances is rarer.

Whatever would be necessary to defend against an armed government.

Then you've never lived in any thing like a democracy. At best, you and your circle of friends have the ability to gather up enough firepower to hold off the municipal establishment for a while. Then help gets called in. Not even Justice Scalia would interpret the constitution in a way that allows citizens the bazookas, tanks and body armor that would allow opposing the a state government let alone the feds.You live in a representative democracy because you and your buddies control the legislature and the executive branch via the ballot box. And in the US, at least since the 1900s or so, when government officials get voted out, they don't grab firearms and oppose the citizens; they just pack their @#$% and leave office.In fact, we can cite a number of instances in our history when people have taken up arms in order to oppose democratic processes (e.g. Wilmington insurrection of 1898). I don't see anything particularly democratic about that.I wonder how it would have worked out if Vivien Malone had tried to shoot her way into the University of Alabama.

Should everyone be able to defend themselves against an armed government? The Mafia, for example, is it desirable that they should have enough weaponry to stand off Uncle Sam?

Uh, wait a sec. I assure you, body armor is perfectly legal provided you're not a felon. And why shouldn't it be? Regardless of your view on whether the Second Amendment preserves the right of the people to ensure the vulnerability of their government, I can't think of any legal or democratic principle by which the government has a right to mandate the vulnerability of the people.Whatever you think about guns, ballistic vests definitely would have saved lives in Aurora and unlike a handgun, wouldn't have posed any threat to anyone else. A government that regulates the right of law-abiding citizens to not be shot is surely one that has overstepped its bounds.

I'm aware of the U.S. government's oppressive hypocrisy. A piece of paper is not control. If they are following the rules. My own research, however, has shown me that tyrants are less than observant of rules respecting democratic process. Instances like the Wilmington Insurrection aren't oppositions to democratic processes; they are examples of democratic processes. That's because you haven't studied your Greek word derivations.Jon

All people should be equally empowered.That's the point of a democracy.

You make a valid point about vests. And you are right about federal law. But there are federal restrictions. For example export laws prevent selling body armor to at least some lawful immigrants within the US who would have enjoy most rights under the constitution. And some states do restrict the sale of body armor to face to face transactions. It is difficult to see how such laws could fall afoul of the 2nd amendment regardless unless we somehow get 9 CreationistJons on the SCt.I still think the position that you cannot have democracy if you cannot forcibly overthrow or resist the government is silly. Perhaps I did go a bit overboard in expressing that.

*boogle*I don't imagine there's much point in discussing this with you. The Wilmington Insurrection was a massacre triggered by a perceived insult to white women during which people were killed for racist reasons, the only black owned newspaper was burned, and the lawfully elected government was removed.If democracy includes allowing a bunch of racists to overthrow the lawfully elected government despite being a minority in Wilmington, then perhaps we needn't consider democracy something to aspire to.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.