7,000 Gun purchases slip through the system

[Mark Weiser]

The kernel of the problem is based upon the human condition. One person is responsible and the other is not. The problem is how do we find out which one do we trust with firearms. I think if you are to own a weapon you should

1. Get proper training in handling/cleaning, and shooting the firearm of choice thur a reputable trainer. (LE Academies, Military Training)
2. A Criminal and Mental Health exam should be done on prospective firearms owners. You and I know of people that if you had a choice you would say He or She should not be around firearms.

In every part of life there are risk and you roll the dice. I personally to this day will support ones right to bear arms but again someone in the Middle of New York or LA or any major city should not need a Full Auto Weapon matter fact anywhere in the country except Military and Special Tactics Units.

The problem is we know that power corrupts and we as Americans have a long history of standing up to abusive authorities. However there was a Russian Thinker(I belive it was Russian) that said once.

"with a knife I can get a rifle, with a rifle I can get a tank and with a tank I can take a city!" So if you belive rebellion is not possible without Automatic Weapons then reread historical records of Successful Revolts.

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser

 

[Stick Dummy]

In every part of life there are risk and you roll the dice. I personally to this day will support ones right to bear arms but again someone in the Middle of New York or LA or any major city should not need a Full Auto Weapon matter fact anywhere in the country except Military and Special Tactics Units.


I believe not long ago there was a little situation in L.A. - specified above- where a pair of badguys armed with illegally acquired full auto's had as "slight edge" over the responding police officers. In fact a movie was made about it.

FORTUNATELY there was a citizen owned gunstore located nearby, which more than happily supplied at least one shopping cart full of "military style" arms and ammunition to the police in an attempt to help control the situation.

To discriminate on ones geographic residential location, reeks of the same "us" vs. "them" mentality.

Full auto weapons - legally acquired - have some of the most draconian restrictions placed on their possession imaginable. Do some web-research of The National Firearms Act of 1934, and Gun Control Act of 1968.


You want mental health exams done by one of the most anti-gun industries in the US?? More elitists telling us what we can and can't do? Most Cops BARELY pass them.......


Criminal Records check - Amen!!

The start of this thread has again been reached, and it takes less than 5 minutes to do one should the computers be "up and running".

Dealing with these violators? The US Attorney General Janet Reno who bankrolled "Brady" said it could not be done. Our same "friends" who want our guns, are the ones who gutted the criminal justice system and refuse to deal with the daily realities:

Crime is in many areas out of control

Criminals are not "poor oppressed" psychobabble toys, but societal predators

Crime Legislation without strict enforcement is just another societal "blow job" that does not solve the problem.

Law enforcement has become REACTIVE, instead of proactive in many areas. In fact, there are laws in many areas stating the L-E is not responsible for your safety and security.

In those areas, GOD help you if you decide to protect yourself or family by any means- NYC-NY, MA., Wash D.C., L.A., Chicago, the list goes on.

A mass media sub-culture that constantly pounds into the young peoples brains, or glorifies parental disrespect, graphic violence, sexual deviations, perversions, conquest & domination, and that things are "owed" to them rather than earned through hard work is more the problem.


Rant mode off................... :asian:

 

[michaeledward]

Michael Edwards - Either you are a MORON, or attempting to bait me :asian:

Must be the former ... because it sure looked to me like you were comparing my country to those; that any reasonable attempt to enforce the gun laws on the books (prevent weapons from reaching people who have forfitted their gun rights from acquiring guns) is comparable to the actions you describe in Germany, Russia, Iraq and Cambodia.

Thanks for contributing. Mike

 

[Mark Weiser]

The reason why LAPD needed to get access to the gun shop was not due to the lack of weapons but due to Departmental Policy of not wanting to have automatic weapons in the curisers.

LAPD was worried about PR and did not want to have the public thinking they were becoming more like the ARMY. LAPD did have access to purchase those weapons years prior to this incident. So making out the LAPD as needed CIVILIAN assist to arm themselves is misleading at best. I understand that SWAT was on seen about the same time as the Officers getting those weapons so it depends on how you present the facts to persaude others on your point of veiw.

If the Dept had not worried so much for PR then the incident would have been over in minutes by having a few Sgt's or LT's with AR-15's in the gun racks.

Surprise after this incident I belive AR-15's are now available to Street Units. Hmmm

 

[Seig]

good thing he supports the right to sue gun manufacturers; I'd hate to see someone hold him responsible for his own wonderful gun safety skills.....

Chad,
Correct me if I am wrong because it is early, I am not wearing my glasses nor have I finished my coffee, but isn't Mr. "Hunter that voted against semi-auto" Kerry holding a semi auto shotgun? Michael, the proof that Kerry is an idiot about hunting is in that picture. You NEVER put your finger in the trigger guard until you are prepared to fire.

 

[Seig]

I understand, but I find it completely inconsistent. "defending oneself" with a firearm means "killing or severely wounding someone(s) else", or threatening to do so. Even if you have an anti-abortion stance, then you'd take this same possibility away from others?

Again, another reason why I don't study people - the inconsistencies amaze me.

Just to make my position clear, I am anti-gun legislation and pro-choice.

 

[dearnis.com]

The shotgun is an o/u double. Glad someone caught the finger on the trigger.

Michael- you had asked me two questions above; I answered both? No reply to the second (ref my professional opinion)?

The problem folks, is people, not tools. As horrific as Columbine was, both perps were known to local law enforcement; attempts to investigate them were stymied by the parents' "Not my little darling" interference.\

Steve makes a very good point about property rights. If you ban them, and seize them, are you going to compensate the owners?

 

[Seig]

The readers' digest condensed version:

Kerry voted to protect my civil right to sue a gun manufacturer.
Kerry voted to prevent a deadline on the assault weapons ban from expiring.
Kerry voted for background checks at gun shows.
Kerry voted to restrict armor piercing ammunition.
Kerry voted to restrict large capacity magazines.
Kerry voted to restrict unlicensed gun sellers from doing business on the internet.
Kerry voted for background checks at gun shows, even from private collections. (See above)
Kerry voted to restrict access to firearms for juvenilles *
Kerry voted to restrict large capacity magazines (See above)
Kerry voted against the availability of trigger locks at retailers (see next item)
Kerry voted that all handgun sales include trigger locks.
Kerry voted for a 5 day waiting period to purchase a handgun.
Kerry voted against semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines.

* If the intent of this measure was to prevent youths from hunting or range shooting, I agree with you Michael. You certainly should be able to take your children hunting.

Disclaimer: My point of view is strongly in favor of gun control.

It seems that none of these actions are extreme. They seem to be common sense measures to protect the citizenry. Please help me understand if I am wrong. I will also state that I don't buy the slippery slope argument, that any gun legislations means that all gun rights will be dissolved.

Mike

Mike,
I do indeed feel you are wrong on many counts. I will now address each of your above points.
1.) Kerry voted to allow people to sue gun manufacturers. If the issue here was that you could sue them for faulty workmanship, it would be a good thing. That is not the case, you are allowed to sue them for doing their jobs properly and with quality. Can you sue Ford because a drunk in a Lincoln Town Car just plowed through your house killing half you family as they watched TV? Can you sue Jack Daniels because he was drunk or the cable company because your family was watching TV? The idea to sue gun manufacturers came from the same people that sued the tobacco industry. Regardless of what your opinion there is, the fact is that the money that was bled from them did not do/go where it was supposed to do.
2.) Kerry voted to extend the ban on certain weapons. This ban does nothing to touch on the weapons already here. It prevents the importation of more of these weapons. All this did was bolster the value of these weapons and increase their desirability to some.
3.) Kerry voted for backround checks at gun shows. Now this law on it's face is decent and I agree with it. As the laws currently stand, I cannot buy a firearm at a gun show outside my home state. That means I have to have the weapon transferred to a FFL holder, that is then required to do a backround search. A few years ago, my mother sent me two antique shotguns that I inherited from my step father. When I moved out of Florida, I left them at my mother's until I got settled. I had them shipped to a gun dealer, that is the legal way. I then had to have a backround check done to receive property that already belonged to me.
4.) Kerry voted to restrict armor piercing ammunition. What exactly is the definition of this? How many people can make this ammunition at home? How many people can treat store bought ammo to become "armor piercing". This law really doesn't do anything to protect anyone. Once again, criminals do not respect or care about the law.
5.) Kerry voted to restrict large capacity magazines. This idea is absolutely ludicrous. Once again, this law does noting to protect you. This "ban" as it is referred to in the gun industry is almost a joke. It means if I buy a NEW sig,I can onlyhave a 10 round magazine. It also means I cannot import the old 15 round magazines for certain weapons. Now, personally, I carry a 1911. The 1911 is designed to carry a 7 round magazine. But guess what, I can legally purchase and use a 15 round magazine with little to no effort and for very little money. http://www.sportsmansguide.com/cb/cb.asp?a=119840
This is the "more is better" concept. I am a competent shooter. In most instances, I will not need more than one shot, so it really doesn't matter how many I carry in the clip. I know of one other person that is a member of this board that makes my shooting look mediocre at best. He and I both can take a six shot revolver fire it to empty, reload, fire to empty, relaod, and fire to empty in the time it takes most people to fire a semi-auto similarly loaded to empty one magazine and reload it one time. I have personally done this several times at my yearly requailfication. What protection do you really have?
6.) Kerry voted to restrict unlicensed gun sellers from doing business on the internet. Why? To ship a firearm it must be shipped from or to a licensed dealer. No carrier will carry a firearm unless that is followed. The carriers have to report this to the ATF. This idea of this law is lip service to the anti-gun lobby, nothing more.
7.) Kerry voted for background checks at gun shows, even from private collections. Already addressed.
8.) Kerry voted to restrict access to firearms for juvenilles. For the most part this has already been addressed. Let us look at the firearm age restrictions. You must be 18 to purchase a rifle or shot gun or ammunition for either. You must be 21 to purchase a handgun or ammunition. For someone under the age of 15 to purchase a HUNTING license, they must attend a hunter safety course and not only carry the card for that while hunting but also present it to the license dealer. This has been in effect since 1986.
9.) Kerry voted against the availability of trigger locks at retailers. He did this because he wanted the stronger law.
10.) Kerry voted that all handgun sales include trigger locks. All this did was raise the cost of gun sales. The locks are ridiculous. I have three of them in a drawer, not on guns. I bought a used gun from a pawn shop, there was no trigger lock on the weapon when I bought it. This law is just plain silly. Instead of blaming a lack of locks, blame poor parenting when children get these weapons.
11.) Kerry voted for a 5 day waiting period to purchase a handgun. Why? This is just silly. Thanks to modern technology, it takes about 90 seconds to do a backround check. True, I had to wait three days to get my CCW, but they ran ONE more check than a gun dealer does.
12.) Kerry voted against semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. Again, this is silliness. Most handguns in prevalent use today are semi-auto. Some shotguns are also semi-auto, but guess what. I can buy a Binelli shot gun, which is a pump and fire it more rapidly than an inexperienced shooter can fire a semi-auto. A Sig-Sauer Blaser rifle is a very fast bolt, same thing, I can fire it as fast as most people can fire a comprable weapon. I already illustrated semis versus revolver. It is more about skill than it is about capacity.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The kernel of the problem is based upon the human condition. One person is responsible and the other is not. The problem is how do we find out which one do we trust with firearms. I think if you are to own a weapon you should

1. Get proper training in handling/cleaning, and shooting the firearm of choice thur a reputable trainer. (LE Academies, Military Training)
2. A Criminal and Mental Health exam should be done on prospective firearms owners. You and I know of people that if you had a choice you would say He or She should not be around firearms.

In every part of life there are risk and you roll the dice. I personally to this day will support ones right to bear arms but again someone in the Middle of New York or LA or any major city should not need a Full Auto Weapon matter fact anywhere in the country except Military and Special Tactics Units.

The problem is we know that power corrupts and we as Americans have a long history of standing up to abusive authorities. However there was a Russian Thinker(I belive it was Russian) that said once.

"with a knife I can get a rifle, with a rifle I can get a tank and with a tank I can take a city!" So if you belive rebellion is not possible without Automatic Weapons then reread historical records of Successful Revolts.

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser

Had the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto been armed better...

The idea of a mental health check, at first blush, seems sound. The problem I see is deciding who gives the assessment. I know a number of psychologists who are liberal...would they consent to giving it? Would they be objective? Which assessment would be used? The MMPPI?

I certainly like the idea of weapons instruction being a requirement. Alarmists might say that the government would then have a list of all gun owners. I don't think we're quite to the point where we need to worry about it. My apologies to New World Order conspiracy theory advocates...

Kerry's photo op with the shotgun was silly, even if he does shoot skeet or hunt birds. That said, I'm still voting for him. His stance on guns doesn't concern me as much as more pressing issues.

Stickdummy...your skirmish with Michael E. reeeeeally doesn't need the largest fonts available, does it? I thought I was reading an eye chart. Suggesting he is possibly a moron isn't necessary, either.


Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

Michael- you had asked me two questions above; I answered both? No reply to the second (ref my professional opinion)?

If by this, you mean that the system / people should hold prosocuters and judges accountable for their jobs....

Without thinking too deeply on the subject, I just call to mind the opening of Law and Order: The Police investigate and capture the accused. The Prosocuters bring them to justice. The system is divided into two separate parts for a reason, to avoid law enforcement from pronouncing judgement. I believe the system is thoughtfully designed. The people, through their legislatures have passed 'Mandatory Sentencing' rules to hold prosecuters accountable with several types of violations. I think there is an emerging body of evidence that suggests mandatory sentencing laws are producing many undesireable unintended consequences.

Mike

 

[Seig]

Why is that, exactly? If we put substantial funding towards these programs, they should become better, not worse.

So one would think and indeed hope. The reality is far worse. Funding may be there but without hope of profit, where is the incentive for research and advancements. Canada has free health care, along with incredibly high taxes, yet people cannot get the health care they need in a timely manner. Socialized medicine does indeed guarantee helath care to everyone, that can wait to get it. Do you really want to wait 6 months for a check up?

Wow, people hate Kennedy so much, you'd think he personally slapped everyone's mama.

Well, maybe not my mama, but I feel he has slapped me in the face. This is a man that supports the restriction of martial arts and martial arts weapons. This also a man that got away with murder.

Not all Dems support pro-choice, actually, and not all Reps support pro-life. I think it's an oxymoron too

No, you are correct, but if you look at the Party Line and look at the voting history, you will find it to be mostly true.

- what's the deal with the self-pitying sarcasm?

That was not self-pitying sarcasm. It was illistrating the opinion that "nobles" and politicians have held about the average person since 300 BC

I am here asking people's opinions because I find them interesting. If I didn't care what you thought, I wouldn't have posted. I'm asking for people to be consistent (which is a pipe dream) - I don't see people, as you pointed out, always applying the same logic or passion to different topics. Some of that is personal bias, of course.

Your questions are fair, if more people asked them and had calm, dispassionate and logical discourse, there would be more understanding and fewer knee-jerk reactions. My answers are biased, of course, but they are founded in logic and research. My beliefs are consistant.

Well and good, I take your point. Does that mean that we should have NO regulation of guns whatsoever? I find that one hard to swallow. Where is the line any of you would draw between 2nd Amendment rights and actually trying to keep a schizophrenic who went off their meds - or a kid who just tried meth for the first time - from walking into a gun store, buying a gun, and going on a shooting spree?

We habe gun regulations, some of them are not enforced, some are selectively enforced, and some are ignored. The law states that anyone with a history of mental illness cannot own a firearm. Children are prevented from owning firearms or having unrestricted access to them. Neither can just walk into a gun store and buy a gun. That is a misconception supported by the anti-gun lobby.

When do MY rights as a citizen begin, where I should be protected from these evetns, while still being allowed to arm myself if I desire?

Your rights as a citizen are there. The only person obligated to protect you is you.

OK, I understand. Again, because I wish people (everyone, not anyone who is pro-gun or anti-gun or whathaveyou) were more truthful with themselves and more consistent in their beliefs, I wish that people who felt this way, this passionately about their individual rights, are applying that passion to other topics aside from gun control (although I realize that that is what this thread is about).

Who says we don't?

I wish I would see gun owners also supporting gay marriage/civil unions and so on. And some (some of my friends) do.

Why?

I get frustruated sometimes that it seems, for some people I've met in life, it's all about the guns, but for other issues, they didn't care about individual rights as much. I'm quite heartened to find people here who appear to.

People all have their own priorities......

 

[michaeledward]

Mike,
I do indeed feel you are wrong on many counts. I will now address each of your above points.

Thank you Michael.

That list of Kerry votes was intended to just be a short translation of the positions you reported. I wasn't attempting to put my opinion into those votes. Although, in general, they seemed to me to be common sense positions.

In rebuttal, you make several points that also seem valid. That you, as an experienced handler of firearms, readily can see that these bills would really have no effect. This is the beginning of a discussion.

I don't feel that any of the points you make have yet swayed my opinion, but it is a start. Perhaps others, who are less strongly positioned concerning gun control may be swayed by your arguments. And, as I mentioned earlier, I am not nearly knoweldgeable enough to address point-by-point the positions you argue. ... I just know that too many people die from guns.

Allow me to redirect one of your statements, however.

11.) Kerry voted for a 5 day waiting period to purchase a handgun. Why? This is just silly. Thanks to modern technology, it takes about 90 seconds to do a backround check. True, I had to wait three days to get my CCW, but they ran ONE more check than a gun dealer does.

If the background check isn’t completed within the period, however, the law says the purchase must go through. In 2002 and 2003, there were a combined 7,030 “delayed denial” cases in which the FBI found that a prohibited person was able to get a gun after the period expired, according to the review by Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department’s inspector general.

As reported in the article, 17 million weapons were sold in 2002 & 2003. Of those, some 122,000 attempted purchases were denied because the purchase had forfeited their right to keep and bear arms. Great! The article also reports that 7,000 of the transactions were improperly completed because the waiting period had expired. A very small fraction, no doubt, but it makes me nervous.

Those 7,000 purchases go an awful long way in painting, with broadstrokes, all gun owners, in my opinion. How should we as a society address this? After all, it is you, the legal, law abiding gun owner who is getting the sour end of this news.

Do we just eliminate any law related to firearms, cuz that's the way someone reads the 2nd Amendment?

How do gun owners better make the case that they are willing to enforce the laws on the books, and deny weapons to those who no longer can legally possess firearms?

I tried to have a conversation with a spokesperson from GONH (Gun Owners of New Hampshire) at a recent outdoor show, and he picked up very quickly that I don't know nuthin' about guns, and he could not even carry on a conversation with me. I was left with the impression that GONH was not interested in protecting ME (a non-gun-owning citizen) from criminals, but only with expanding their right to shoot things.

Oh, well. - Mike

 

[CanuckMA]

So one would think and indeed hope. The reality is far worse. Funding may be there but without hope of profit, where is the incentive for research and advancements. Canada has free health care, along with incredibly high taxes, yet people cannot get the health care they need in a timely manner. Socialized medicine does indeed guarantee helath care to everyone, that can wait to get it. Do you really want to wait 6 months for a check up?

Well, I just looked at last year's tax return, and for an income in the high 70s, after deductions, my federal+provincial tax rate was 24%.

I had back surgery early this year, from CT Scan to OR took 2 weeks.

I've never had to wait more than a few days to see my GP. less if it's urgent. Our system mat not be perfect, but it is far from what people with a vested interest in the for profit system will lead you to believe.

 

[CanuckMA]

Had the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto been armed better...

The resistance might have lasted a few more days, maybe a week. The idea that a bunch of civilians can hold off a modern army makes no sense anymore. Back in 1770, the army was only marginally better equiped. Today, it doesn't matter how many guns you have, when tanks, APC and gunships come in, you're toast.

 

[Seig]

Well, I just looked at last year's tax return, and for an income in the high 70s, after deductions, my federal+provincial tax rate was 24%.

I had back surgery early this year, from CT Scan to OR took 2 weeks.

I've never had to wait more than a few days to see my GP. less if it's urgent. Our system mat not be perfect, but it is far from what people with a vested interest in the for profit system will lead you to believe.

Then you are one of the luck ones. We have a friend that is permanently disabled with a dibaltating disease. To get his annual check up, he has to schedule 6 months in advance.

 

[michaeledward]

Then you are one of the luck ones. We have a friend that is permanently disabled with a dibaltating disease. To get his annual check up, he has to schedule 6 months in advance.

To schedule a physical here in New Hampshire, we need at least a 3 month lead time. I work with a fortune 500 company with a pretty good health plan; but, for routine appointments that is the window.

If it is something that requires immediate attention, say an infection or allergic reaction (poison ivy), we can get an appointment in a day or two or three.

I don't see how the US System is much different from the Canadian based on this anectdotal evidence.

I do know, however, that Springfield, Massachusetts is saving millions by importing prescription medications from Canada. And New Hampshire is also looking into 're-importation'. Why do you suppose that the United States pays so much for meds?

Mike

P.S. .... wow ... look at this thread drift
%think%

 

[hardheadjarhead]

This also a man that got away with murder.


Sorry, Seig...not by any definition of murder that I've ever seen did he murder Mary Jo. Negligent homicide, manslaughter, vehicular homicide while under the influence...whatever the law wants to call it. But he didn't murder her.

Honestly, I think he should have been hammered far worse for what he did. I detest drunk drivers...but I don't think he should have been charged with murder.

Nor do I think Laura Bush murdered that boyfriend who dumped her back in the early sixties, as some liberals suggest. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she accidentally ran the stop at the intersection and plowed into him. I believe she wasn't paying attention and was too busy chatting with her girlfriend. I think the event tragic, not sinister. That he gave her the boot that very morning might have even compounded her sorrow with further guilt, not to mention the stigma such a coincidence would bring...but I don't think it automatically gave her a motive for killing the man.


Regards,


Steve

 

[CanuckMA]

Yes, the annual physical does require a few months notice. Mainly because of the length of time required, my GP only does 2-3 per day. If your friend requires specialized tests, that could ad to the lead time. But an annual is not an emergency. I had the same thing with my pediatriacian, well-baby vists required a couple months lead time, sick child would be seen same day. I think it's a bit dishanoest to try to judge a medical system by the lead time required for well visits.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The resistance might have lasted a few more days, maybe a week. The idea that a bunch of civilians can hold off a modern army makes no sense anymore. Back in 1770, the army was only marginally better equiped. Today, it doesn't matter how many guns you have, when tanks, APC and gunships come in, you're toast.

Tell that to the Vietnamese. Or for that matter, tell it to the Iraqi insurgents. Then, too, you might mention it to the Mujaheddin who were in Afghanistan in the eighties. They got...or are getting...toasted in droves and the little buggers just never seem to say "Uncle", do they?

Were there a popular, armed uprising in the U.S. involving resistance against U.S. troops, I find it hard to believe that U.S. soldiers/airmen/Marines/sailors would be willing to bomb, strafe, roll over their own American neighborhoods. It would happen at such great psychic cost to the American soldier that I doubt any despotic regime he served would last for long.

For such a thing to occur we would have to see a dramatic restructuring of the U.S. political system. That hasn't happened, inspite of what many conspiracy theorists might think.

Regards,


Steve

 

[KenpoTex]

Seig covered the list pretty well but I wanted to talk a little more about this one.

4.) Kerry voted to restrict armor piercing ammunition. What exactly is the definition of this? How many people can make this ammunition at home? How many people can treat store bought ammo to become "armor piercing". This law really doesn't do anything to protect anyone. Once again, criminals do not respect or care about the law.

The thing that many people don't consider when talking about "armor-piercing" ammunition is the type of armor it's designed to pierce.

Senate Amendment 2619, offered by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) to S. 1805, the Gun Industry Immunity Bill, would expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and to require the Attorney General to promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against body armor.

what is the problem with this you ask? Body armor is designed primarily to defend against handgun ammunition or shotgun pellets. Why is this significant? because virtually every center-fire rifle cartridge from the .223 on up will go through some most types of body armor, even armor augmented by "trauma plates." So in effect, banning any ammunition that will go through a vest would eliminate just about every hunting/sporting round as well as military type munitions because the bullet itself does not have to be "armor piercing" (usually tungsten cored). This means you couldn't go deer hunting with your .30-06 or .270 or varmint hunting with your .22-250. Notice how it says that this bill will "expand the definition armor piercing ammunition?" That is exactly what it means, they're going to try to expand it to mean "anything that might possible puncture a vest" thereby outlawing most if not all rifle rounds. That's why there's a problem with that.


I also wanted to address the "assault rifle" issue. As many people have said, the Assault Weapons Ban (which also banned the importation of hi-capacity mags) was nothing but a ploy to outlaw a type of guns that possess certain cosmetic features (ie. flash suppressors, pistol-grip stocks, bayonet lugs, etc.). Supposedly these are the weapon of choice for drug dealers, gangsters, and other criminals and are used to massacre "thousands of innocent children every year." However this is far from the case. In 2002 (the most recent year for which a full F.B.I. Uniform Crime Report exists) there were 9,369 homicides in which a firearm was used. Of that number only 480 (just over 5%) were committed with a rifle of any type. Even if we assume that every one of these rifles fit the criteria of an "assault rifle" (which is obviously not the case) that's still just over 5% of the total. To put this in perspective, out of the 14,054 homicides of all types from 2002, 1,767 (over 10% of total) were committed with knives or other cutting instruments. In fact there almost twice as many people killed with "personal weapons" (fists, feet, etc.) than there were by rifles of all types (933 compared to 480). This being the case, why isn't there a massive public outcry to ban edged weapons instead of "assault weapons?" Why isn't there legislation in the works to require martial-artists to register themselves or get a permit in order to train? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? However, that's no different than the "logic" and "justification" they use to advocate the ban of these "weapons of mass destruction."

Now on to other things...

Were there a popular, armed uprising in the U.S. involving resistance against U.S. troops, I find it hard to believe that U.S. soldiers/airmen/Marines/sailors would be willing to bomb, strafe, roll over their own American neighborhoods. It would happen at such great psychic cost to the American soldier that I doubt any despotic regime he served would last for long.
For such a thing to occur we would have to see a dramatic restructuring of the U.S. political system. That hasn't happened, inspite of what many conspiracy theorists might think.

Excellent point. In a way what you just said supports the belief that an armed populace is a safeguard against any "despotic regime." What I mean by this is that in order for the "dramatic restructuring of the U.S. political system" to occur it could only happen one of two ways. It would have to be brought about by way of force, which as you said, and I agree, isn't likely to happen because our military and LEO's are not going to support that type of action. This leaves the second option: Legislation, however this is only possible if the populace submits to having their rights taken from them, otherwise we're back to square-one, the force thing.

btw: here's the link to the F.B.I. U.C.R.'s http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/02cius.htm