Gun owners...You suck...LOL

I don't disagree with anybody here who is stating that firearms are important for self defense. I think making the case for hunting will never win an argument in the age of supermarkets (unless you're in a part of the country where nobody would make that argument anyway). Having said that, I think both of these are straw-man arguments that should be avoided.

The point that should be made is that the second amendment is specifically in place to protect the remainder of the bill of rights. The founding fathers understood that the only government that would respect the rights of the people was one that was made of men who had reason to fear them. This has been totally lost in the US at this point (rightly or wrongly). A well regulated state militia had two functions - defending the state from foreign attack (native americans, british, french, whomever we would be in a fight with at any given time) and defense of the people against the tyranny of a central government grown oppressive.

Those who do not understand gun rights or the need for gun rights will argue that when this was written the people had smooth-bore muskets and weapons for hand fighting. They will argue that this is a far cry from the weapons of our modern armed forces. They will argue that this means the idea of armed citizens putting down a tyrannical government is outdated and not worth defending. Thus, you should not continue to consider this as a primary function of weapons in the hands of citizens.

The counter argument to this misguided and disjointed logic is that smooth-bore muskets and weapons for hand fighting _WERE_ the state of the art in weapons of the day equivalent to today's citizens being allowed to have fully automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

The point here is that firearms are not just tools (for defense, hunting, any other use). They are primarily (and were understood at the founding to be) the great equalizer of men such that one man could not impose his will over another without his consent. To cite a snarky cliche, the three boxes used in the defense of liberty shall be the soap box, the ballot box, and the ammo box (in that order).

The current debate about the illegal use of firearms is a straw man constructed to re-direct the debate away from this more fundamental and important aspect of their function. It's intellectually lazy to say that people shouldn't murder people and so we should take away murder weapons. To support that argument as a matter of policy is to explicitly and intentionally alter the fabric of our society such as to create two classes of men. Those who can impose their will by force and those who cannot and to concentrate the "haves" in positions of power and to subjugate the "have nots". You don't have to look too far to find examples of this today.

I would fully expect that a math, physics, or shop teacher might not understand this. A history teacher who doesn't get it, however, should find some other subject to teach.

I hope this helps.

-- Gagster