I support access to guns for legitimate reasons, those being hunting (with licenses and training) and personal protection (with licenses and training); i.e.,
similar to what you need to drive a car. It should be illegal to have unsecured handguns in a home with children, and violation of that (which would likely
only happen if a child was hurt/killed or hurt/killed someone else) should be grounds for permanent revocation of your license. There is no legitimate need
whatsoever for private ownership of assault and other military-grade weapons.
With all due respect, anyone who seriously believes that a mob of civilians armed with any sort of personal weapons could overthrow the US government - or any
modern government with a modern military - is kidding themselves. North Korea has a much better chance of beating the US military in a stand-up fight than
every militia in the US put together. The real protection civilians have is the unwillingness of US soldiers to fire upon American civilians. If you lost that
somehow, having an assault rifle in your home wouldn't make you last five extra seconds.
Anyone who seriously believes that there ought to be a militia capable of resisting their country's armed forces should be following the example of
Scandinavian countries (among others) and enforcing a stint in the military for all able-bodied youth, after which they may retain their assault weapons for
home use. I personally think this is crazy (and wouldn't work as well in the US for various reasons), but it's less crazy then letting any civilian
without a criminal record get their hands on an AK-47.
Arguing that there is any imminent danger of a total gun ban in the US is hilarious. The US is the most gun-happy and right-wing modern nation; it would be
electoral suicide to try and enforce a total gun ban barring a major shift in public opinion. Far more left-wing countries than the US (Canada, for example)
still are nowhere near a total gun ban.
similar to what you need to drive a car. It should be illegal to have unsecured handguns in a home with children, and violation of that (which would likely
only happen if a child was hurt/killed or hurt/killed someone else) should be grounds for permanent revocation of your license. There is no legitimate need
whatsoever for private ownership of assault and other military-grade weapons.
With all due respect, anyone who seriously believes that a mob of civilians armed with any sort of personal weapons could overthrow the US government - or any
modern government with a modern military - is kidding themselves. North Korea has a much better chance of beating the US military in a stand-up fight than
every militia in the US put together. The real protection civilians have is the unwillingness of US soldiers to fire upon American civilians. If you lost that
somehow, having an assault rifle in your home wouldn't make you last five extra seconds.
Anyone who seriously believes that there ought to be a militia capable of resisting their country's armed forces should be following the example of
Scandinavian countries (among others) and enforcing a stint in the military for all able-bodied youth, after which they may retain their assault weapons for
home use. I personally think this is crazy (and wouldn't work as well in the US for various reasons), but it's less crazy then letting any civilian
without a criminal record get their hands on an AK-47.
Arguing that there is any imminent danger of a total gun ban in the US is hilarious. The US is the most gun-happy and right-wing modern nation; it would be
electoral suicide to try and enforce a total gun ban barring a major shift in public opinion. Far more left-wing countries than the US (Canada, for example)
still are nowhere near a total gun ban.