God is not real. So the "lawbreaker" or college student, as the case may be, must be scared of the gun, no?

I reckon of you concentrated on chambering a nocturnal round with a friend, you' d be much, much more relaxed.

I suspect they'd be afraid that they've just picked the WRONG potential victim. I sleep well at night :)

As John said. Whatever gets you through the night.

A gun is an inanimate tool. It is DESIGNED TO FIRE A PROJECTILE..period.
You CAN use said gun to fire a projectile into flesh, paper targets, or your television. You CAN also use a gun to hammer nails, prop up the leg of your desk, or dig a hole.
A gun is no "better" nor "worse" than any other inanimate tool.
Take a hammer as another example. A hammer is a blunt instrument designed to strike..period
You CAN use a hammer to drive nails, pound out dents or smash glass. You CAN also use a hammer to smash someones' skull, brush your teeth, or (again) dig a hole.

Neither has an "intent"--the manner in which either is used is up to the end user.

Assigning intent to objects is "pretty stupid".

A tank can be used as transportation back and forth to the office or supermarket. However, that is not the primary "intent" of a tank. When everyone admits what the purpose of an object is, and accepts it for what it was intended for, then progress can be made. Until then, the same lame doggrel from both sides, replete with emotion will continue.

A nail gun fires a projectile and has been used as a weapon. But, that is not its primary purpose. Firearms make poor nail drivers.

I try very hard to see both sides of an issue, but sometimes the rhetoric gets in the way.

Exactly. A gun is designed to FIRE a PROJECTILE. The intent is up to the user.

And the purpose of the projectile is?

That is the problem with definitions. Sometimes they do not go far enough, and stop where to go further would refute the individual's argument.

A respect firearms and support the right of the individual to own them. I even have a marksman badge from the service. Where I part ways is when the right to own firearms goes to those individuals psychologically unfit to own them and the ownership of weapons by any civilian that are specifically designed to throw massive amounts of lead. Firearms for the purpose of home or personal defense; OK. Firearms for sport and hunting, OK. But, since hunting is a sport, I do not think that a weapon such as an AK47 is a sport type firearm. It makes for a lousy home defense system as well.. Am I wrong here? Have I missed something in the argument? Why would one need such a weapon except to inflict massive damage?

Sport shooting has nothing to do with the 2nd Amenment. I use "assault rifles" for target shooting because they are fun. And in a civil emergency, like happened during Katrina, where the police most certainly will not be there protect you, a light-weight, hi-cap., semi-auto rifle would be very good to have. It could be the difference between life and death. And it is most certainly an excellent home defense weapon when faced with a mob or multiple assailants. Handguns are great, but if it's a real fight, bring a rifle.

This is where individual intent and responsibility comes into play. What the projectile is being fired at is the responsibility of the user. It CAN be fired at a game animal, a paper target, another person, the moon, a pile of dirt, etc... the USER makes a conscience decision as to the recipient of the projectile--the gun has nothing to do with the decision process--it is an inanimate object which is blameless regardless of how it is used. Any blame or responsibility should be bourne by the individual.

And a concrete bunker completes the scene........

Bob, the Second Ammendment says nothing about home defense, personal defense, or hunting. It explicitly mentions the keeping of a free state. I think it is pretty clear what that means as far as the "arms" the people have a right to own.

I can't add anything to what you've written, except that I'm not as good of a shot as you are :)

Eric,

Don't waste your keystrokes. Collectivists do not believe that individual anything matters. That includes the right of the individual to defend one self, provide for one self and make decisions for one self.

As for responsibility, collectivists believe that only the government need be responsible for the masses which it oppresses.

Most important, however, is intent, as collectivists judge everything on its intent and not on its results.

Well there are the collectors, people that want them just to have them but will never even chamber a round.

At the end of the day there is never an answer that will please everyone. Someone will not like it.

I do agree with you, at some point you step over the line of what the "average" citizen needs.

Just remembered this incident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

A kindrid spirit.

Thank you.

And what elitist ruling-class type do you propose should decide what the "average citizen" needs.

The Second Amendment makes no mention of what type or how many arms a citizen might "need". It simply protects the right of people to bear arms by prohibiting the government from infringing on that right.

Gun control, by its very nature, infringes on the right of the people to bear arms and is therefore unconstitutional.

The right to bear arms has very little to do with self defense and even less with hunting. Those were no brainers, it was about the people having the ability to keep their government in check by force if necessary.

len:

By "the people", is this at an individual level or at the State level? This has always been a problem to me.

If at an individual level, how would one decide when action was necessary and who would coordinate it? At first glance, this looks like chaos, and the individual protecting his (or her to be P.C.) "rights" might be perceived as a danger to society. And, if it were a wider revolt, would that not be considered a militia? Just a thought...I do not have the answer and really don't know if anyone has.

I imagine that complete public upheavel won't be difficult to define when/if it happens. And some nut ball pickin off innocents will never be part of the equation.

That really doesn't answer the basic question. Is "the people" defined as individuals or as a State Militia?

That is the problem I have....getting a straight, unequivocal answer to just about any question re: the second amendment. It seems to be open to individual interpretation. That "nut job" may be acting, thinking that he or she is protecting their constutional rights from government intervention. Where is the line drawn?

It is a serious question; not just an attempt to be contrarian. Like I said, I do not have the answer and am beginning to doubt anyone has.