if only. unfortunately americans commonly carry assault weapons to other nations and assault them. seems fair, if a few americans suffer as well.

I agree.

...whose rights are we even protecting when we allow these weapons? What happened to the rights to life and liberty.

Well spoken Clay - Very well spoken!

Makes too much sense for it to come to pass Steven. The NRA and those who tremble before it just won't allow it.

I hate to say it Abrawang, but you are absolutely correct.

We now live in an American plutocracy, controlled by corporations and the moneyed elite. They do not want to change gun laws simply because there are megabucks being made by selling assault weapons to the masses by the gun manufacturers and the Wall Street fat cats who back them.

I am a gun owner. I still have the shotgun that my father gave me when I was a teenager growing up in Northern Illinois. My dad had me go through a gun safety program. Guns were for hunting back then. Some of my most memorable experiences at that time were our many pheasant hunting trips in the fall.

But the gun ownership rules that we have now are completely different than what we had back then. Today the NRA, and other guns-for-everyone proponents, isn’t really interested in sane gun regulations or the public’s safety. They are only concerned about maximizing the bottom line for weapon manufacturers.

But the bottom line for the public is this:

“We the people” no longer have any say in the direction this country is going.

You people are insane and ignorant. What American history book have you been reading from that states the primary purpose of the second amendment is to use firearms to hunt and defend our property from domestic threats? Our forefathers designed this legislation to be a checks and balances system to the federal government. Meaning, it is our duty as American citizens to violently overthrow the united states government if it becomes tyrannical or begins to repeal important sections of the constitution. It was also the intent of our founding fathers for us to have access to the exact same types of weapons our government has access to so we would have a fair chance in this type of situation.

Now let's look at the national guard for a minute:

The national guard is (supposed to be) a free standing, independent of the federal government, state militia. The purpose of the national guard is to defend individual states from foreign invaders or our own federal government. As it is a state militia, it CANNOT be federalized for any reason. Meaning - IT CANNOT BE DEPLOYED OVERSEAS OR ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO ANYTHING, EVER.

As a provision of the patriot act, this fact was completely ignored and the only real hope we have to survive a civil war with a federal military was lost.

The point is this: We need assault weapons, training, high capacity magazines, and ammunition now more than ever. The complete and utter ignorance of the majority of Americans when it comes to the operation, proper use, and safety of firearms is wholly unacceptable, and Americans should be ashamed of it.

Most crimes involving guns utilize .22 caliber pistols. The ammo is cheap, the weapon is cheap, and it is perfect for close range gang killings.

"ASSAULT WEAPONS" ARE ALMOST NEVER USED IN GUN CRIMES.

Do some research, educate yourselves, stop following the media hype.

the ideological and political divide on the issue is total, and the solution clear to anyone who cares or is even paying attention.

Laf,

I did not say that “the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to use firearms to hunt and defend our property from domestic threats.” I said (in my comment above) that my family’s purpose for having guns when I was growing up in Northern Illinois was for hunting.

Please read the actual wording of the Second Amendment:

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

Thomas Jefferson, et al, did not want a standing army after the American Revolution. Our founders wanted the farmers to return to their farms and the merchants to return to their shops. However, they recognized the need to have armed militias, “regulated” by the federal government, in place in case the redcoats decided to come back across the pond. Your statement about it being “our duty as American citizens to violently overthrow the US government” is, in fact, contrary to the written intent of the Second Amendment.

This is clearly spelled out in all American History books. An even better source is Mortimer J. Adler’s book “We Hold These Truths – Understanding the Ideas and Ideals of the Constitution.”

I highly recommend that you read Adler’s book to gain insight into the reasoning behind the written words in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Steven

Not used in competitions? So 3-Gun competitions don't count or did you purposely omit that? Moving on to the Assault weapons ban of '94 that worked so well.... In those 10 years you could still get an assault rifle under the pretext of a pre-ban firearm. In essence if it was made before the restriction date you could transfer it. So was there really a ban? Madness to be carried by non military personnel? Are you referring to the same military personnel that tortured prisoners at Gitmo, or maybe the ones that urinated on dead Taliban fighters? So civilians are some how less responsible? I think you may need to do a tad bit of real research.
So putting heavy handed regulations on firearms is the key? I don't think I have to point out too much history to show gun control doesn't help....or maybe I do. The short hand history: Hitler,(Jews were disbarred the use of firearms), Stalin(Gypsies,and any political undesirables disbarred firearms), the list goes on and if you want more i have them. Lets move to today and what different countries have in place. Well you would think a violent place would have lax gun laws and a safe place would have tight control, according to you at least.... So in the violent place line up lets start with something cut and dry; Libya. The former regime outlawed the possession of firearms; took advantage of the defenseless populous, they finally had enough and revolted. Next we have Mexico. Violence runs rampant and mass killings happen as much 3 times a week. Well they must have weak gun laws....WRONG. Research a little and find that Mexico only allows firearms in none military calibers and a max of 10 per person. If you ask a mexican or 10 they all say that the government has mounds of paperwork and delays the process so much it takes half a year or more. HMMM sounds familiar to me. most of them said it was way easier to buy guns illegally from Zeta mafiosos or other drug cartel members. That sounds like none criminals worried about personal protection buying illegal guns from criminals all because of overbearing regulations. What about the other end of the spectrum you say? Well Switzerland comes to mind. they have a country similar to that of what the founding fathers had envisioned. No standing army, every citizen armed and trained for military service. So what about the OK coral type gun battles? Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents. So if you lived there would you be after the government to register kitchen blades and have a large amount of paperwork to buy butter knifes? Well Jhonny that's all nice but that's not America.
"Strict gun laws are about as effective as strict drug laws...It pains me to say this, but the NRA seems to be right: The cities and states that have the toughest gun laws have the most murder and mayhem." - Mike Royko, Chicago Tribune. In every city that has high gun violence they are almost always committed with pistols and almost always illegal firearms. There is also a direct correlation between high crime and poor economic conditions, police budget cuts, and educational funding cuts. Wait so uneducated poor people may turn to crime and use illegal firearms violently? That doesn't sound similar to Mexico at all...
So the original writers of the constitution had no intent for future generations of americans to rebel against the government, especially if the congress started stripping away the rights guaranteed by the constitution? So what do you think Thomas Jefferson meant by this:
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."
Thomas Jefferson
Or this:
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
Or this:
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
Or maybe this guy:
"They that give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

But why would you need the same guns the government has, we don't have to worry anymore.... Native Americans kicked off their land, Japanese-americans interned during World War 2, Federal reserve enacted illegally, more recently the patriot Act and N.D.A.A. 2012 (namely indefinite detention of american citizens deemed to be terrorists by the President(its in the acctual wording read it)). Yup no reasons at all to be worried and question your government.
Finally so lets say a law does pass and you get your way. Do you really think people won't be able to get assault rifles or high capacity magazines?
Maybe a better question is can a person buy illegal drugs?


Final quotes for fun:
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

Paranoia strikes deep.

Paranoia or a healthy distrust of government. The same spirit of distrust that you in no way can deny that the founding fathers had.
If you want to believe that the every thing the government does is rainbows and unicorns then go ahead. Want to outlaw assault rifles, knock your self out. Will it change anything? Not really, legal gun owners will still find ways to get assault rifles, illegal guns will still circulate, crazies will still kill people. "Ya but they won't have access to extreme weapons." Sure but do you really think that when some one has gone off the deep end and plans mass murder they think "Hmmm i can't buy that gun, so I guess I don't really need to kill anybody... lets see whats on the View today." They either get it illegally or they use other means, I.E. home made explosives. You know, the ones that no one seems to care about that colorado man had in his apartment. Which if he hadn't had a gun, he would probably have used instead. The truth is that if someone wants to kill a lot of people they will do it one way or another, and pushing for more restrictions on one thing or another
won't change that.

“Paranoia or a 'healthy distrust of government'?" Are you serious?

The gun nuts would love to convince us that their paranoia is merely a “healthy distrust of government,” while they stockpile their extended-magazine 9MM Glocks, AK47s, M16s, and grenade launchers in order to blow away the next person (or group of persons) who looks at them the wrong way.

It is “paranoia” my friend – plain and simple.

I can see now that your actual knowledge of gun ownership, people who own them, and the culture that goes with it are very uninformed and skewed. You obviously didn't read any of the information that I posted. So because a person owns a fire arm they are nuts? or only if they own an assault rifle? So if i own a Remington 700 bolt action rifle is that ok with you? If so does that make me less prone to go off the deep end? So by your definition does that make the founding fathers crazy hillbilly gun crazy violence prone looney toons? And if you have a moment find me some evidence that supports your claim that gun owners are going to shoot everyone who disagrees with them? Come to think of it you were not up in arms about this until something bad happened. So every time that a drunk driver kills a family by running them off the road will you as equally post on that issue for more strict laws on drunk driving, since that is the number one reason for accidental death in the U.S.? Will you as equally once you get your way be the one to walk into places like: La rue Tactical, Daniel Defense, Tory Industries, Eotech , Trijicon, Bushmaster, Rock River Arms, Etc. and fire people from those companies because they will no longer be needed? Those companies which have added jobs and increased business even during a recession. Oh and were the hell did you get the idea that we could buy grenade launchers legally? I mean seriously ...that statement really showed how uniformed and slanted your view is. So keep on believing "Gun Zealots" are evil narrow minded country boys who will shoot you if you look at them wrong. I didn't buy a gun until 2 years ago when a drunk homeless man walked into my bar after hours while i was cleaning. He had a large blade in his hand covered in blood which I then realized was his own, he had been cutting himself. He said in a slurred voice while waving the blade around " I'm gonna f#$king kill every one here!" I got him to leave by yelling I had a gun and would shoot if he advanced on me. Truth is i didn't have one. I live and work in a trendy part of Portland Or. I know a couple of artist that have studios in the area that also have guns because they have had the same thing happen to them. One of which has an AK-47. these are all peaceable people, who care about protecting themselves. On the topic of government distrust, let me ask you this, has the government ever lied to us? If the answer is yes then it is fair to then question the motives of certain actions and statements they take.

I give up Matt. Your mind is so warped by the paranoiac proaganda of the NRA that it is impossible for anyone to penetrate your "I love my gun" way of thinking.

Sleep well my friend, with your 357 Magnum tucked under your pillow. Please know that the rest of us are seeking rational harmony in our travels through this human experience.

Matt should be able to have all the licensed guns he wants.

If he has a single bullet for any of them that he does not as well have a license to possess he must forfeit his guns for destruction.

Fiction can be fun, but I prefer the historical and current data section. I'm guessing you would have been fine with me getting stabbed by the bum. If i had said "I have a SPOON AND MARTINI GLASS!!" that would have been just as effective... The NRA may at one point been a good organization but now its about money and politics. I personally distrust them and am not a member. .357 magnums are terrible self defense gun, too much recoil. I'm happy that you and your drum circle were born in this century and not the 1700s. the outcome of the revolution may have been different. Regardless of your opinion try to remember how your country was formed. PLEASEEEE come on dude, I'll throw in some ganja. Aslo ask the miners in South Africa if there are paranoid of government police....well minus the 34 dead. NOT in our country! Ken State....
OKKKK so I get a license for bullets now. Wait for it....... didn't change anything just made me pay the feds more money for something. hope that $ isn't used to bail out wall street. SOOOO what we have is a Gun crazy hillbilly Yosemite Sam(Me) and a Flower child hippie unicorn carebear(you). I'm not going to surrender my guns and you don't want me to have them. so lets find a middle ground on this. Should people be allowed to own these types of guns? I believe so, you do not. so where can we met on this? the current gun laws do not have a background check into someones mental health history. It has been published that the Batman guy was seeing a psychiatrist. that may have stopped him if it had been on the background check process. A safety training class, with exemption to military and police(they already get that training) should be mandatory for first time buyers nation wide.
Straw sales are a big problem for everybody. they make gun owners look bad and they get more guns in the hands of gangs. there should be more sever punishment for those individuals.....
More thought later...

Initially, but for ground and naval artillery, secessionist Brits and Brit royals were evenly matched when it came to the technological level of their weapons. A successful, armed uprising by dissidents, who take up arms then are named militants, against their British government was conceivable.

It is a wholly irrational argument to try to make today that rifle/shotgun/pistol armed citizenry of a modern highly weaponized government enjoy their freedoms because they are a citizenry comprised of (almost exclusively right-wing militarist) members whose love affair with guns has relatively nothing to really do with legal hunting or home/community security but very much to do with the idea that a well-armed citizenry can make for a well-armed citizen militia that, theoretically, in itself can be enough to keep their extremely hight-tech, well-armed, well-manned government/nation from doing something they (again, primarily right-ring, near exclusively white, often racist, militaristic and not clearly rational) don't like such as come between armed citizens and their guns.

The game is afoot.
Completely agree with first statement. The Revolutionaries lacked heavy and light artillery pieces and had almost no navy to speak of. They also had very few forges or production facilities with which to produce cannons and mortars. Their personal firearms and equipment were ad hock at best. Their training was sub par to almost all European armies. When the declaration was received by British parliament and king George there was little worry that they defeat a rag tag army of peasants and farmers. The British army of the time was the strongest army in the world. Yet through all this they won and secured their independence. Trough out history there are many examples of poorly equipped and trained common citizen soldiers defeating larger, better trained, better equipped, armies. "right wing" ....When Eric Holder was toying with the idea of an assault weapons ban, 65 democrats sent him a letter warning him not to do so. Not the conservative right wing bible thumping gun zealot republicans. I understand your point and agree. The government isn't scared of people having a couple civilian Ar-15s on hand. They will do what the do regardless. What they are scared of is information. Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, the internet, cell phones,etc. Remember some of the images from around the country during the occupy protests? Some of them didn't paint a great picture for the police. The first amendment is what keeps your government in check. Your freedom to pass information to others, to voice criticism of elected officials or policy. The second is there as kind of a firewall in case it veers of the deep end into totalitarianism.
"exclusively white" well... we should probably call Gallup Inc. and inform them that their data is incorrect, because according to their studied as of 07/20/2012 white Americans made up only 44% of the total number of gun owners.
"often racist" damn now I'm really in trouble.. how am I going to break this to my Filipino girl friend or her mixed family for that matter? Does that mean my Tongan coworker hates whites? My Japanese friend with guns must be racist too. The Samoan bouncers with guns are probably all filled with racial animosity.
Lets get back to the problem solving part. Violence is an issue in this country that's for sure but were is it coming from? Blaming guns, and those who own them is like blaming the fry cook at McDonald's for making people fat. I think we need to look at the cultural and societal aspects of this more. Why over the last 20 or so years have violent actions by people increased? Have we lost our values? Is the family unit falling apart? Is it educational decline?

I don't think their will be much of a point in explaining to you that the purpose of purpose of the Second Amendment is so people can protect themselves from a potential tyranny by government. There is probably no point either is explaining to you how Afghan Gorillas have for decades resisted large government forces with small arms.

So I will ask you this.... How do YOU propose to disarm ME. Like most of my countrymen I am willing to die fighting to protect my individual freedom. Are you?

Unarmed people have never been very successful at disarming armed people. In fact unarmed people usually end up as slaves.