N2, you need to stop going to those meetings...or change your choice or reading material.

Last I checked neither Vintek or I want to take you guns away. We probably lean to your side. But you, the NRA, and other groups are not scoring any points with the radical talk. If anything you are beginning to convince me that we should confiscate everyone's guns just to draw out the nutcases plotting the next revolution.

Honestly, wow, N2. I have a few acquaintances and one family member through marriage that have come out of the woodwork with the recent discussions that are scarily pro-gun and sound a lot like you. I really am worried about what one of them might do in the future, in the name of protesting a tyrannical government (as defined by them).

One of my biggest problems with guns in public places overall is that I believe they impinge on my freedom and rights. I don't want guns around me, period. I don't care if you're a criminal or a law-abiding citizen.

Which freedom and/or right do you believe is being impinged?

Well, life, for one.

So the presence of a gun deprives you of life? Does the presence of a knife do the same? How about the presence of a heavy club, or a car?

Where do police and military fit into this? Do their firearms impinge on your freedom and rights as well?

VinTek and DH, we'll have to agree to disagree about whether registration could be a stepping-stone to confiscation. But one thing I missed is whether either of you are in favor of federal/universal registration of firearms, and if so, what you think it would accomplish.

In looking for support of it, I found this interesting page:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration_ca.html

The truth is, I don't know. I don't believe that gun registration would have prevented the Sandy Hook incident, as the guns used there were duly registered.

The thing is, I want what I think most would agree would be reasonable: that guns be kept out of the hands of people who would use them for ill: those who have violent criminal records or who have mental problems that could result in violent behavior.

And that's what democracy is about: having a discussion about what might work to prevent such incidents without infringing on the rights of others. It's fine that some people don't want gun rights curtailed in any way. That's their opinion and they have a right to that opinion. What's disturbing is when people don't want others to even discuss the issue (or any issue they disagree with). I find that un-American.

We're Americans. We hold sacred the Rule of Law. We debate. We pass laws. And if the laws are bad, we repeal them. We have elections every 2 years for the House representatives, 4 years for Presidents, and 6 years for Senators, so we can change our government if we don't agree with it.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It's not set in stone. We've had 27 Amendments to it. But the words "We the People" are so important that they are the start of that document. Laws are passed by the Legislative Branch, signed by the Administrative Branch (usually; there is such a thing as a Congressional override), and upheld by the Judicial Branch to stick. So when a group of people disrespect that whole process, don't even want it to be debated in the Legislature duly elected via a process laid out by the Constitution, it makes me wonder what they're really about.

Those are ridiculous comparisons.

I realize my view is a bit extreme. If I had it my way, I would not ban guns but would ban them from public places (obviously aside from police, etc). That being said, I know that is not realistic and have no problems with current concealed carry laws.

I am not in favor of national, state, or local registration of guns because I don't think it will do any good.

At the same time, I am not afraid of it either. I own a couple of guns. I would not be worried that registering them would be a prelude to anything.

Like I said, I probably lean pretty far to the right on this. But this line of argument that has come up lately suggesting that we need guns to protect us from a tyrannical government is concerning to me. Nothing has happened to suggest that the US government is tyrannical. Bush was many things but not a tyrant. Barack is many things but not a tyrant. The entire reason we have this political stalemate in Washington is because no group has enough power to get their way. That's a good thing and almost as opposite to tyranny as you can get. So when I hear people talk about tyranny from our government it makes me think they are ignorant and paranoid and that undermines any other arguments they might make.

But, let's say our government was behaving tyrannically. That still would not, in my opinion, be a reason that people should own guns. We cherish our democratic system. In a democracy the way to correct problems is through the ballot box. The way to challenge laws you don't agree with is through the courts, not by shooting at the "government agents" who come to enforce them.

Quite frankly, tyrants are the people who believe otherwise and convince enough idiots to go along with them that they rise to positions of power. Hitler, Castro, Chavez, Pol Pot, Mussolini, and all the others tyrants you can probably name all came to power by convincing the populous that they were being wronged, usually by some other group. I hear the same kind of rhetoric being slung about by certain groups in this country (you need to own guns because the liberals are oppressing you by giving health care to everyone...). And it concerns me how many people are convinced by it!

How are they ridiculous? All the listed objects can be used to kill. The comparisons are certainly no more ridiculous than your claim that the presence of a gun deprives you of life.

Just out of curiosity, why would you allow the police to have guns? Do you think they are less likely to use them to commit violence? Too bad you can't ask the cop who killed his wife and kid lately then shot himself, or the husband of Lacy Peterson. The vast majority of cops do not do things like that but then the vast majority of the rest of us don't either.

Or maybe it's because you think cops are better trained in their use. I suspect that avid shooters have far more knowledge and experience with firearms than the average cop. (And I am not just speculating here. I once had the opportunity to go through part of the firearms training part of a police academy course. It dealt mostly with the law and with situational issues and relatively little with safety or proficiency. But those courses likely vary. Most cops will probably tell you they worry far more about responding to a domestic violence call because there will be kitchen knives and confusion than an armed robbery call where the situation and threats are more clear.)

Maybe you think cops are less likely to have accidents. I have not seen recent statistics but 15-20 years ago cops were far more likely to be involved in the accidental shooting of themselves or a family member.

Perhaps it's just because you recognize that cops might need guns to protect themselves while doing their job. I think they do. But so do many other people -anyone who carries valuable merchandise or cash might, jewelers for example - and a case has been made recently for teachers. I've personally been shot at just doing my job as an engineer on a relatively noncontroversial project many years ago. You might be surprised how common that is for engineers and other workers on power plants, chemical plants, and so forth. I know for a fact that, at least as recently as a few years ago it was common for some construction sites/workers to be armed, or at least to have guns in their trucks, especially on certain types of projects or in remote areas. Given that the vast majority of cops never draw their weapon or are shot at in their career (which is good), I think the case for them needing them is weaker than for a lot of jobs.

So seriously, why do you make an exception for police?

Personally I don't think every whacko who wants to should be able to carry a gun but I don't have any problem with open (or concealed) carry by people who have undergone basic training and qualification. It is about understanding them and being sane.