I would say our servants are overstepping their authority. They are trying to disarm their masters so they can change the rules withOUT fear of uprising. Certainly it isn't for our own safety, statistics verify we are safer armed than not. fixed

The fact of the matter is that the people in power right now don't trust the general population to do the right thing or to take care of themselves. This is why they are pushing for more control over every aspect of our lives. They forced the bailout money on a number of financial institution that didn't need it. Now that those same institutions want to give it back, they are being told that the government wants repayment in the form of stock in the institutions rather than money. In other words, these people want to control the banking industry. In bailing out GM and Chrysler, the government is now trying to force both companies to abandon the big models that people do want to buy and build the little cars that no one wants to buy. Why should we be surprised that they also want to take away our ability to defend ourselves. Obviously, if we are not smart enough to choose the right cars or manage our own finances, then we are not smart enough to own guns.

'MY Cold Dead fingers".......

One problem that concerns those in power; They must balance the freedoms we have with their control over us in order to maintain our desire to be productive. If they try to take too much then we are demoralized and stop working for them. If we get too much power then we remove them from a position of control over us.

The U.S. Geovernment doesn't do anything to anybody. The proponents of gun restrictions are either elected to the Senate or Congress, or are in special interest groups who lobby the Government to get what they want. I can only suggest that you look at your elected officials and find out if they are performing their job in-line with your beliefs. If not, check out the other candidates before you go to the polls the next time. If you don't think your vote counts, think again. It only takes 1 vote to break a tie.

I think the same thing I have always thought. The advent of the bow and later, even more significantly, the gun caused a paradigm shift in the world of politics and human power: for the first time in human history, it was possible for individuals, no matter what their physical weaknesses, to wield power with enough significance to keep the strong from dominating them. It also enabled the weak to more reliably keep his family fed with game than any other method. THIS is what the gun is all about. Take away the gun, and the WEAK suffer far more than the strong and the balance of power shifts as a result. Our Constitutional Amendment concerning the right to keep and bear arms was a recognition of this fact. One has only to read the Declaration of Independence and the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, founding fathers who were key players in the writing of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to understand this. From one website: “The Bill of Rights is comprised of the first ten amendments to the Constitution that set forth the individual rights and responsibilities designed to protect citizens from their own government. In less than 500 words, James Madison set in motion debates, arguments and discussions that still galvanize Americans today.” http://k12subjectguides.suite101.com... http://hematite.com/dragon/jefferson2nd.html People make a big deal about guns, more so than knives, because of the simple fact that the gun DOES enable people to more easily kill other people. But to take the short sighted view of banning guns to “prevent violent crime” and reduce the number of people killed ignores the historical evidence to the contrary when you look at the entire span of human history. Banning guns would cause a shift in who can kill away from the weak toward the strong, overall. On the personal level, this means individual people are more likely to be victims of violent crimes because they cannot as easily defend themselves. And on the larger scale, this means that societies are denied the one weapon which human history has shown to be capable of preventing the powerful from suppressing the weak. People may argue about this one way or the other all they wish. But that won’t change the evidence presented by human history. Another way of looking at this is something I once saw posted elsewhere: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." Like it or not, take away the gun from the common people and what you have left is a bunch of defenseless lambs waiting around for dinner to happen.

Hell hath no fury as an armed society scorned.