[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Which pretty much falls in line what what monir said = perception.

But there is a clear distinction here - in one you blame the root cause of of said death - the driver who decided to get drunk and get in a car, yet in the other you're blaming the tool - the gun the criminal used.

Again, I understand the sentiment, but is it a good way to craft your policies based on emotions?

Laws are not particularly logical things, they stem from people's feeling of right and wrong.

It is the evil person whose responsible for the gun death, and not the gun itself, but it's impossible for us to cure the evil that lies in men's hearts. The next best thing is to neuter people so they lack the means to carry out their intended plans.

A lot of it comes down to a difference of opinion, one group views gun ownership as a right, the other as a privilege, similar to driving a car. If you were a known reckless driver, who had caused many car related deaths and accidents in the past, most people would argue that that person should not be allowed to use a car. Likewise, if you're a person likely to have evil intentions (EG by being mentally ill, or a known criminal), then those people should be restricted from having privilege of owning a gun to deal death with.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

How many times do I have to tell you it is not my definition.
It is SCOTUS that set the bar in US vs. Miller, not I.
Nerve gas is not used by miltia forces.

So if SCOTUS wished they could set the bar to include "assault weapons" (whatever it chooses to define that to be).

Tryanny comes in many forms, not just the so called "tyranny of the majority."
And there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" that is a propaganda term like Edward Bernays' "Torches of Freedom." Same type of nonsense.

People refer to a certain class of weapons as "assault weapons". It might be a bit nebulous, but my point is that if we can define nerve gas as "not being a militia weapon" we can define anything as not being a militia weapon. SCOTUS could choose to define just pitchforks as being a "militia weapon". That Firearms are a "militia weapon" and Nerve Gas isn't is quite arbitrary.

And why shouldn't people be able to keep Nerve Gas? It's not the Nerve Gas that kills, it's the person that released the Nerve Gas. Why shouldn't law abiding citizens be allowed to use Nerve Gas to defend their homes and families?

I agree, which is why there is such a need in this country to reinvigorate the actual (Article 1, Section 8) militia, so as to put an end to what remains of the paramilitary groups like the Aryan Nations and such.

I would personally feel that any militia group should be strictly affiliated with the government, but your miller case disagrees with that (any armed group can be a "militia", regardless of it's stated goals). Hate groups should not have their right to bear arms protected, as frankly they are an enemy of the state and society at large.

And further erosion of the 2nd amendment would only hasten that slide towards a "secure" society, be it theocratic under Grover Norquist's Dominionist movement, or Statist under George Soros' more socialistic movements. Tyranny comes from both the left and the right, make no mistake about that.
Pope Gregory IX's inquisition was no different than Stalin's reign of terror in my opinion.

Certainly. But other western nations that have extensive gun control are surely not Stalinist or Dominionist tyrannies?

But it might be correct to secure the other more important civic rights first before regulating guns further.

See now that is what scares the crap out of me on the issue of revolution in the US.
I don't welcome it.
I don't view it as some grandiose thing, and I sure as hell don't want it.

And yet too many Americans bandy the word around too freely. I do not believe the framers of the constitution intended the second amendment as a means to enable the citizenry to overthrow the state if necessary, as many other parts of the constitution are specifically designed to check against mob rule. It was intended to enable the people to defend the United States against outside threats, which were many at the time, not least the British, native Americans Loyalists in the North, and slave revolts in the South (Like the Haitian revolution).

The idea was to construct a state with sufficient checks and balances that popular revolution would never be necessary. Popular revolution never leads to as good outcomes as gradual legislative change, and they were well aware of that. The American revolution was not a revolution in the way that the French Revolution was. There was no radical attempt to remake society along idealistic lines.