I am a gun owner and avid hunter. I willfully submit to the background check necessary to purchase my firearms. I would support a licensing system for gun ownership, not only for the reasons Alex stated above, but also to increase the revenue stream for conservation efforts largely supported by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses right now. I would go as far as supporting a “recreation license” for those individuals who hike, camp and bird watch on those same lands support by fees paid by those who hunt and fish.

I stop short of supporting any efforts that require the registration of firearms. My rationale? The overwhelming majority of those who seek such regulation have made clear that their true intent is to ban gun ownership. Thus, we circle back to the rights conveyed via the second amendment, and like Adam, I will fight with all I have to protect that right.

I share the concerns about the previous administrations violations against civil rights and personal freedoms (and I voted for the man!). However, as a gun owner, I am bracing for the fight that is surely ahead as the new administration comes to power.

P.S. I had a number of links that I would have like to have posted to support some of my points, but alas, my blogging skills are weak.

The equivalent to prohibiting tobacco or drink would be to prevent ironsmith tools on the base in can be used to build arms.

Hm. I would say that the equivalent of prohibiting smoking in restaurants would be prohibiting firearms in restaurants. I spent time growing up in Arizona, where some bars and restaurants had you check your firearm at the door. Of course, a more realistic restriction–given the harm–would be on carrying firearms into schools or government buildings.

The equivalent on the drunk driving side would be “firing a weapon while under the influence,” which I agree should be illegal.

I can’t imagine executive abuses any greater then the recent spying, torture and bailout of cronies

I’ll assume this is hyperbole. I don’t have to imagine greater executive abuses, they occur in many countries around the world. As critical as I am of the Bush administration, to equate it with the kind of police state found in China or Saudi Arabia is folly. That said, I think we were moving closer to a point where armed resistance would be necessary. Cases like that of a former colleague at SUNY Buffalo really started to feel Orwellian.

What steps would have to happen before I would join an armed resistance? That’s a really difficult concrete question to ask. The suspension of habeas corpus was a large step, but widespread jailing for political dissent (not the narrow and relatively short-term jailing of, say, protesters during the Republican convention), would probably do it. Large scale restrictions of a group of American citizens (e.g., Arabs or those of the Muslim faith) could do it. Significant limits to my ability to speak my ideas freely might do it. An attempt to suspend elections would likely do it. Flagrant thwarting of judicial decisions or legislative votes by an executive might do it. Basically, when there is widespread abuse of state power inconsistent with the Constitution, and traditional remedies are completely unavailable, I think armed revolt is an appropriate response.

I believe that non-lethal weapons–to the extent that they exist–are in some ways more dangerous than lethal weapons. However,if the aim is to defend yourself against a government using lethal technologies, a non-lethal response may not be substantial enough.

Again, I’m not against regulations on how these weapons are used, just against banning them. As with all rights guaranteed by the Constitution, restrictions should be as narrowly tailored to achieve state interests as possible.

I actually think there is a greater state interest in limiting the sale and consumption of alcohol and (even more so) tobacco. Both of these cause more significant social ills, I think, than firearms. But you can have my whiskey and cigars when you pry them from my drunken cancerous hands.

Your argument that we didn’t rise up in violence against the erosion of freedom and civil rights under the Bush administration doesn’t fly with me as any sort of critique of the 2nd Amendment. Rather, I view it as an essential trust in the idea that the Constitution contained methods of self-correction for momentary errors in judgment and reason, and We the People decided instead of violence to give the system a chance to correct itself peaceably.

The government did come very close in many peoples’ minds to crossing the uncrossable line. We joke about it now, but my civil union partner and I still have a fully detailed exit strategy for how to flee the US should it become necessary. It may seem premature, but livng as an openly gay couple and practitioners of a minority religion means to us both that we stand in the very front of the line when the conservatives start getting itchy trigger fingers. Obama’s election may have put things back to Civil Rights Defcon 3, and I believe in our current president quite a lot, but Alex’s point about how easily the political spectrum changes made me quite personally convinced that this little political experiment we call the United States will perpetually teeter on the brink of failure. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment and gun rights remain fundamental cornerstones of the true check and balances of power for this country. And yes, I am a Liberal. But I also believe gun control should mean gun education, not elimination.

I don’t like guns and I don’t own one. I tend to not like most people who are NRA-type gun advocates. At the same time, if things ever got to the point where we really had a totalitarian government here I’d sure as well hope we had plenty of armed people to form some kind of resistance.

There seem to be so many right-wing militias in this country it’s scary. If the government collapsed tomorrow, we on the Left would get our asses kicked by these autonomous fascist groupings.

> Second-hand smoke kills people, and we have yet to outlaw cigarettes. Drunk drivers kill people, and we are not about to outlaw drinking.

It is now prohibited in most developped countries to smoke inside, on the basis that you have far less second hand smoke out doors — a regulation clearly intented to prevent the deaths that you mention. Similarly, it is strickly forbiden to drink-and-drive. Prohibition extends to the smallest infered behaviour in either case. The equivalent to prohibiting tobacco or drink would be to prevent ironsmith tools on the base in can be used to build arms.

> a collective violent backstop to government expansion is a good one.

I can’t imagine executive abuses any greater then the recent spying, torture and bailout of cronies — and I’ve never heard of any incident using the Second amendment to challenge any of these. Under what possible circumstances should we expect to exert the right for citizen to band against? Self-defense should encourage the ownership of incapacitating weapons, not lethal and easily mishandled device. Hunting is the only a legitimate use of a gun: if you want to defend that right (and plead for a needed wildlife and arms-handling training) go for it — but don’t confuse ‘game’ and politics.