[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
If given the choice, I would rather live in a society without guns (voluntarily without guns), but if I'm going to live in one with guns I'd prefer that they be spread around and not concentrated in the hands of a few. Gun control is about as stupid as any other type of prohibition.

That being said, I think the 2nd Amendment defense often latched onto is basically irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment had less to do with the right to have guns, than the right to protect yourself against a dictatorial government and the ability to overthrow that government, violently if necessary.

Which stops making sense when the government has apache helicopters and tanks and you have a couple handguns.



[/ QUOTE ]

I could be wrong, as I often am, but don't people in Iraq fight the US Soldiers who have tanks and helecopters, etc etc with mostly guns?

And anyway what is the 'government' going to do with their helecopters and bombs, blow up towns with taxpayers and stores, etc? If it was some sort of all out war you theoretically have a point but the government would be fighting a war on their own soil so they don't really want to destroy the place.

And if it's irrelevant why get rid of the guns? You cant take over a population that is heavily armed I don't think (at least not without their consent). If you kill them all you have no one to rule. And if your gonna fight them with bombs you can't even keep their stuff after you kill them because you blew it all up.