…you’re not much of a liberal if your looking for the government to control guns. More government control only equals liberal to the less intelligent who don’t understand the true meaning of ‘liberal’ with regards to politics.

So am I not liberal enough, or just not intelligent enough? Sorry, your syntax confuses me.

This is actually an interesting point. I willsupport the first candidate who campaigns against our “liberal gun laws”!

If you will re-read my post, you may see that I am not advocating for “the government to control guns”. I am suggesting a cultural shift away from guns and violence. Government is not acquitted to handle this problem, the people are.

Granted there are MANY stupid and cowardly people who abuse the second ammendment to the cost and detriment of others and themselves.

Granted!

But isn’t it a little naive to believe that the wars (especially the ones we start and perpetuate) will always be fought on foreign soil? Is it really impossible to believe that a father might need to protect his children one day from armies that aren’t ours – or worse – armies that are supposed to be ours? If it happens in so many countries already, countries that have been around much longer than us, is it impossible to believe that we are not bound for the same fate?

Believe me, I do not trust this current administration any further than I could throw an election. Hell, Dick Cheney shoots his friends in the face! I can just imagine what he’d do to me.

But since you asked my opinion: no, I do not believe that armies from any nation will be knocking at my door any time soon. I have a family and do not need a gun to protect them. It has been shown that having a handgun in the house actually increases your chances of being killed.

The true reasoning of the second ammendement was rooted in militia – which we may very well need, possibly even soon.

The text of the 2nd Amendment reads “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Note the capitalization of the word People; this was in the text that was distributed to states. I find that telling. I truly believe that this statement refers to state-sponsored militias, such as the National Guard. I am also aware that many learned legal minds have argued this point much more finely than could I. I think the only possible compromise is to regulate, preferably even ban, handguns, and leave rifles unregulated. It’s not a compromise with which I am happy, but that is the nature of compromises. This leaves hunters alone and helps to diminish a weapon whose sole purpose is simply to kill humans.