So...tell me, what good are a few right wing militias and their rag tag acolytes against the most powerful military in the history of mankind? Ever hear of smart bombs or armed drones? Ever hear of the US Marines, Navy Seals, Green Berets? Have you ever heard of Black Hawk helicopters? So naive.

You are correct in that the government has been compromised by special interests. Example in point: the Congress leaving the ATF without a director for over six years because of the gun lobby's strong influence on Republicans in the House and Senate. The ATF is the agency in charge of keeping assault, and assault-style, weapons from getting into the wrong hand. So myopic.

Who decides when the government is corrupt? What are the criteria for that decision? Fanatics and ideologues want to be the deciders, and use their various personal ideologies, disguised as patriotism, as the criteria. We've ousted exactly one government with our guns; Britain, a foreign power, in 1776. Meanwhile, countless innocents have been killed by gun toting loonies who see mass murder as a proper way to right some wrong they've suffered, real or imagined. This could not have been the purpose of The Second Amendment (Justice Scalia's opinion in the Heller case notwithstanding).

Of course, people, rather then guns, kill people. Simplistic slogans often have a superficial ring of truth covering their flaws. People kill people with guns far more efficiently than people using knives,clubs, or their bare hands. How many fatal mass stabbings (multiple deaths inflicted by one person) have there been? What about fatal mass clubbings, or fatal mass strangulations? Removing access to the technology of mass murder makes inherent sense, except to fanatics and ideologues, who become fanatics and ideologues for their own personal needs. We can allow sportspeople and hunters to pursue their interests while banning access to weapons of war. Fanatics and ideologues are the only ones who need to see complex social issues in simplistic right-or-wrong, good-and-evil terms. They enable mass murderers for their own personal needs, while hiding this from themselves under a specious veil of constitutional authenticity.

Rick....has to be one of the most stupid arguments I've ever heard against building an arsenal of assault weapons. As M Stone pointed out, there is way too much firepower with our military (because we spend 1/3 of our entire budget on them!) to stop them were they to suddenly en masse decide that they wanted to start killing civilians. I think you have been watching 'Red Dawn' too much!

In the history of our nation, which of the following two has been successful at combating government corruption and bringing about positive change: armed insurrection, or political action?

The Founding Fathers also set up this country so that we could make corrections to government over-reach WITHOUT VIOLENCE and WITHOUT GUNS. Your point of view, violence as a first response, is further proof of why military grade weapons and ammunition need to be kept out of he hands of the civilian population.

Political action of course....Within our nation, I believe there has only been one case of armed insurrection....and that was by a lunatic fringe that was insistent on keeping other men in chains.

Keep in mind that the gun lobby is a textbook case of a "special interest" corrupting our government.

In a perfect world, the folks that get paid to protect the rights of gun owners would be a part of the "well regulated" clause of the constitution, instead of using FUD to engage in marketing a product. Since the responsibility of regulating has been abandoned, others can step in to fill the void, but you may not like the result.

It has reached the point where the second amendment has become the right to kill civilians at will. I don't believe that was the purpose of the amendment, and even if it was the vision of the founding fathers, is certainly not the "war on government" that you describe. The constitution has been misconstrued and government has been corrupted by the special interests you claim to abhor.

Isolated acts of madness cannot be used as an excuse to alter the Constitution. That's as insane as the shooters. Can't you see that there's a possibility that these events were staged to elicit just such a response from the public to scare then into relinquishing constitutional rights? We cannot allow the constitution to be altered because of fear tactics. The greatest threat to this country is not isolated events of violent murder but the multinational corporations. The emerging security/surveillance industry is particularly disturbing since it is based solely on the violation of our rights to privacy. It would also seek to disarm Americans so it is that much easier to enforce corporate policy. There is a war going on and it is a fight for your freedom. Don't get suckered into giving up rights for false security. The corporations seek to run every aspect of your life and make you a debt slave they control. No guns means no resistance to this happening.

Your delusional.

After a little light reading, I can't say I agree with Rick. I am, by no means, a scholar, but from what I can gather, Militias of the Colonial era were intended to allow citizens to defend themselves and their property due to the lack of governmental forces which could do that for them. They tended to be 'short term' commitments in which the members of the Militia were required to provide their own weapons and resources. In that era, there was no National Guard or standing Police Forces that could keep the peace and protect lives. Citizens had to do that for themselves.

I do not believe, in any way, shape or form, that the primary intent was to allow for armed insurrection. Although, the defense against a tyrannical government may still have been part of the background reasoning, and allowing citizens the inalienable right to keep arms may have given many of that era an assurance that the government was respecting their freedoms - as promised.

Those were very different times. The United States was a new nation born of rebellion against a monarchy that was often considered to be the greatest power of its time. Now we hold that title of greatest power. And, I doubt it is one we will maintain if our first reaction is always to be individuals who fail to support the very union that makes us a strong nation.

While I think it's important to engage in the conversation from all sides, to blithely say our right to bear arms exists to keep the government in check is specious at best, dangerous at worst.

The tactical capabilities of modern weaponry, when compared to the indifference in which they are often use demand levels of control. For Rick's argument to stand, citizens would have to be allowed tanks, bombs, rocket launchers and grenades ... just to keep the government in check. It can't work like that. It won't work like that.

American citizens need to be a part of the deliberative process ... at all times. Not just during elections. Not just when casting your vote. We need pay attention and we need to be a constant voice, providing the checks and balances (as someone mentioned above) that the system needs in order to function as it was intended. And, we need to pass on that right and that responsibility to our children, and their children.

This isn't the colonial era. This is the information age when we have both the tools and training needed to guide ourselves toward a better future. We just need to find the resolve needed to do it wisely.

AMEN! How about some lobbyist reform & election reform while we're at it.

Couldn't agree more, Mrs H....this is kind of like the Titanic sinking. When that happened, so many rules changed that there was seldom a tragedy of that magnitude on the open seas again. Lifeboats for all and 24 hour radio operators went into effect almost immediately. Of course, had the NRA been the lobby for the shipping industry at the time, it might not have happened that way. Those fringe lunatics have got to go!

Uh....because guns are an IMMEDIATE solution. When theres a fire, you grab the closest water you can find. You don't study the problem and work out a long term solution. You put the fire out! Why not start with banning assault weapons?? Who in their right mind is not for that now??

Hitler, Mao, the Mafia and your garden variety home invader or gang banger would love what you are saying.

Surely Hitler, Mao, gansters and mafia would applaud your pie in the sky opinion. China and Iran want gun control in the US too, obiously because they are the best example for peace in the world...lol! Criminals will still have them, just like drug dealers have illegal drugs, and they will be sold on the black market, thus creating a multi-billion dollar industry for criminals instead of allowing good citizens to buy them from legitimate businesses.

Most "assaults" are not even done with rifles...stop talking about subjects that you know nothing about.