[dr.j]

Militia arms and hunting arms were much more similar to one another in 1789 (same exact gun I'd bet). Major distinctions between the two did not really come to be until the 20th century (about the time that the NFA rules came about). When the second amendment was written, the budget for the national army was very small. The success of national security rested on the civilian/soldier. As late as 1798 leaders such as Alexander Hamilton were still worried about the implications of having a permanent national army and barely voted to expand it to ten thousand troops. When the bill of rights was written there was almost no U.S. army for the citizens to fear. Britain was the main threat. Local militias were much more organized and important. They were necessary to protect us against hostile Natives and Outlaws. There were no helicopters to deploy the national guard to New Orleans or anything like that. Citizens were more directly responsible for their own safety. If something horrible happened in your neighborhood it could be days until the government even knew about it. Oh yeah, and there was no such thing as a police officer in 1789, The first modern police force was founded in 1829 in London. the best one could hope for was a sheriff and a group of volunteers, but isn't that just another way to say militia. I'm also pretty sure that black people were property, and women couldn't vote. The world was very different then. The founders were very wise, but they were sometimes wrong and they should not be quoted as if they were the voice of the almighty in heaven. The second amendment is a landmark idea, and honestly I feel lucky to be able to own any guns. I have many friends in other countries who are not as fortunate. People in this country have more gun rights than almost anyone and I feel lucky to be an American and so should most of you, The fact that even some of us can own machine guns is rare here in the first world; we should be thankful for what we have, not bitter for what we don't. I'm not really trying to say that protection from tyranny wasn't part of it, obviously it was, but it was not the only reason.

I think it is important for us to look beyond government tyranny in support for guns because it is pretty fatalist and honestly it freaks out liberals. As long as liberals think that the main reason why we want guns is to start revolutions then they will try their hardest to keep them away from us. The best way that I can think of to help the cause of gun supply is to provide cheap or even free classes (not mandatory) in firearms safety so that if people are going to have guns they will be more likely to be smart with it. This could help ease the nerves of the liberals some and get them to back off a little

Konrad: I really liked this thread. I totally support gun ownership, but this thread really made me think about what you had said, do I really need one, or just want one. I think that most experienced shooters can agree that one well placed single shot it the best way to take out a target. So then, why do we need them? Basically we don't. As you said we want them, and that's fine. The constitution allows us the pursuit of happiness, and if blasting off 30 rounds out of an AK-47 in a safe way makes you happy then heck yeah, go for it!!

The main thing that peaked my intrigue was your idea that this is not a need, it is a want (which is fine, this is america right?). But the interesting idea is that the founding fathers included this amendment with the explicit purpose of giving us the ability to do something that is about as illegal as it gets, starting a revolution. It's one of the only laws that is put in place so that other laws can be broken should the majority of us see fit. From a legal perspective it is unique in that regard.

I think I'm going to start a thread dealing with practical (legal) situations where a FA gun would really be a better choice. I think that it is important to illustrate their utility if we are ever to convince anybody to decrease the restrictions.