Summations Only

As I understand it, political dissatisfaction became a CIvil War because of state-controlled militias seizing arms from Federal arsenals; it had little to do with privately owned weapons.

As far as I'm concerned, people do have an inherent right to overthrow their government, if necessary, as per Declaration of Independence. As I understand it, the Constitution simply codifies that inherent right into law.If it was intended to guarantee a hunter's right to own the tools of his trade, that would be too Marxist for most Americans. If it was intended to help Americans protect themselves from each other, it's a sign of a sick society - but then a healthy society might be too socialist too.

You contradict yourself. The current regime in China came to power by guerrilla warfare. It is always possible to become armed, should the need arise.As an aside, are you under the impression that the people of China want to overthrow their government?

Guerrilla warfare may start with a few individually-owned weapons - today that would probably be called "terrorism". But to defeat a modern army, you need heavier weapons than a peasant is likely to own. That usually means importing arms in quantity from sympathetic and/or greedy neighbouring countries. Note the Viet Cong who were supplied with AK-47s from North Vietnam.What you need to overthrow your government isn't civilian-owned weapons; it's international sympathy for your cause.

Isn't he more likely to fire his weapon if you draw yours?

You're pretty sure of yourself there, Quickdraw. If his weapon was already drawn, like you said, I wouldn't be too eager to provoke him into using it.If I have a weapon, I'm not likely to get a chance to use it. If I don't have one, he gets to feel like a big man with his and he might not feel the need to use it.

It makes more sense to hope he won't use it than to encourage him to use it.

So which group is it that has the right to bear arms? The voting majority or the rag-tag dissidents? Or is it both? Are you advocating the use of arms to solve all political disputes?

And it has already been pointed out that that's impossible. Are you advocating futile terrorist acts against an overwhelmingly superior tyranny?

You reap what you sow. If there are guns around, there's likely to be gun-related violence. But does that mean "more" violence in general? Do guns produce violence or do they just make it easier?Prohibition doesn't work. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns (but that will make it easier to spot the outlaws).If you want to live in a gun-obsessed society, that's your choice. If you want to uphold an antiquated Constitution, that's your choice. If you want to take up arms against tyranny, that's your choice too - but civilian-owned weapons have little chance against a modern army.If some maniac decides to shoot me, whether or not I have a gun is unlikely to make any difference. As for me and my house, we will go unarmed into the great unknown.