Using a personally-owned firearm to ward off tyrannical or rogue gov't agents is not at all far-fetched. While some may imagine a group of paranoid militamen shooting at black helipcopters with AR15s, others remember people such as Angela Davis holding back a hit-team of SanFran Red Squad cops bent on her assasination. Only because of her and her companions possesion of shotguns and other personal weapons, were they able to keep the would-be murders at bay until the press could arrive and witness a peaceful surrender. Fred Hampton in Chicago didn't have that option. Tellingly, the sight of armed Black Panthers was the main reason why most big cities have gun control laws now (but not for long).

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison Fed Papers - 46 "A Government resting on a minority, is an aristocracy not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical & physical force against it, without a standing Army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." Madison 1836 That we came one SC Justice short of denying the rights that Madison clearly implied and put in practice with the 2nd Amendment is amazing and very troubling. The 'enterprises of ambition' are forever working to undermine our freedoms.

Bob Barr??......Bob Barr??........BOB BARR????
Megan, booboola......shake yourself. (or is this just an anti-McCain, 'we need a Perot'-style ploy?)

Globalcop, Obviously the Panthers stressed the importance of armed self defense against tyrannical government agents. Obviously you are also correct that most Americans were not too keen on those particular people openly advocating that right. As far as I understand the 2nd amendment was about protecting oneself from government tyranny and not really about protecting oneself from street crime but the mainstream political bloc that advocates for the right would rather stress self defense from the mugger angle although there are no doubt components of the movement which will still understand the anti-government angle. The 2nd amendment debate always takes place in a shadow world since no mainstream political actors openly proclaim the fact that guns are needed to possibly be a check on the government and even most advocates who do think that this is why the right is important do not believe it is realistic in this day and age. So, you have a lot of inspired rhetoric about heritage and hunting which has nothing to do with the real issues involved. I am unclear, however what you

Personally if I was a woman, or for that case a man, who wanted to protect myself by having a firearm, the last thing I would get is a gun in pink or any other color that might make my attacker mistake it for a fake gun. I would want my firearm to look as business like and as deadly as possible to stop them in their tracks, before they continued their attack and I had to shoot them.

Let me get this straight. Two libertarians are for individual rights over collective rights. ah hu.

I should have left that part out, I need an editor.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Globalcop,

...

I am unclear, however what you mean by your comment about Fred Hampton. Mr. Hampton was drugged by the FBI earlier in the night before he was killed. Panther Mark Clark was armed with a shotgun but the Panthers were outgunned by the police and couldn't really defend themselves, which is the point that is being made about whether such defense against the government is actually practical.

So, I don't disagree with you in principle but I am not sure of the practical applicability of your argument.

So, I don't disagree with you in principle but I am not sure of the practical applicability of your argument.

I don't agree in principle or in practicality. Megan's idea that packing a gun is likely to provide proteciton against rape also struck me as far-fetched. A gun in the home might be a deterrent to a burglar/opportunistic rapist, but the situation described by Megan of a gun protecting you when you find yourself alone in a room with a creepy guy, I don't think so. I would much rather teach my kids some basic self-defense techniques, how to avoid dangerous situations, how to report sexual harrassment/assault and how to call 911 when in doubt. Giving all the junior high girls Glocks when they start 7th grade somehow seems like a notion likely to fail. It also struck me as bizarre that Megan thinks of the gun laws as sacrosanct. Other democracies do just fine regulating guns. Having said that, the DC gun law is not such a big deal either way. The real problem is in manufacture, distribution, proliferation and safety standards. Gun owners should be licensed like drivers, bullets should be ID-ed and gun registrations

Matt and Megan are living embodiments of the libertarian strain of the Whig theory of history. How nice it must be to be young and now successful in the great American intellectual market-place; to deal with trees of policy and not see the dark forest we are traversing. Matt and Megan's rational exuberance got me consulting my Norton anthology. To paraphrase Dylan Thomas in "Fern Hill" they are prince and princess of the apple towns. Perhaps experience will temper their enthusiasm and expose them to the tragic undertow of the historical process. I think the insecurity that Americans feel is not false, but to quote McCain is "existential". It transcends the vagaries of health care policy. To adumbrate: (1) the possibility of a three front war in the Muslim world, (2) a terrorist attack directed from the growing jihadist menace in the Pakistani frontier provinces, (3) a federal government in hock to foreign entities of varying malevolence because of a now pathological libertarian anti-tax mentality, (4) a populace in hock to predatory lenders, savings at about 1% of GNP and gambling the number one recreational activity. Somehow I don't think the individual pursuit of

You must have never heard of concealed carry. It may not do you any good if attacked from ambush but in a situation where "when you find yourself alone in a room with a creepy guy" is just the type of situation where it will benefit an individual.

Wonderment, I want to be clear that the 'principle' I agree with is the following: 1)The idea that only agents of the government can be armed can lead to the danger of government tyranny over the population. Is defending oneself against the government practical today in urban America -- probably not. 2)I think the fact that most people, especially the broad center of the American political spectrum are much more troubled by outspoken Blacks with guns than by whites with guns is undeniable and an interesting dynamic to the whole gun debate. Americans in general see the right of self-defense as sacred but were still incredibly alarmed by Malcolm X/Black Panthers making a major point of armed Black self-defense in America. 3)Above all, I am not an expert on the 2nd amendment but I know this much....it was not intended to be about self defense against criminals....it had to do with preventing tyranny by oppressive governments, foreign or domestic. Although this element cannot be completely removed from the debate, the way in which some idea of a constitutional right to be armed because of the fear of street

Apparently you have none to little understanding of just how much defending ones family, home and property meant to someone that living on on the edge of civilization in the 1700s might have been. Perhaps you should do some reading of frontier history and you would understand that it was not a subject of discussion as it was an accepted principal that some individual or family was preforming daily. When you are in the process of contesting the possession of land, and yes we did take passion of it from the natives, life has a tendency to become violent. It was not necessary to discus or debate the topic of, does one have the right to possess fire arms for self-protection it was an accepted fact of life.

Piscivorous, I am unclear of your argument here. I am not claiming that people in the 18th century had no concept of self-defense, or whatever else it is you are talking about in the bold and noble frontier tradition of stealing other peoples' land. Basically, I don't see where our disagreement on the 2nd amendment issue is, exactly, but I sure am glad if you do because I wouldn't want to be agreeing with you. I don't think I will take up your request to start reading "frontier history" because I don't want to find myself using (apparently with a straight face and no sense of irony) terms like "edge of civilization."

Quoting piscivorous: Apparently you have none to little understanding of just how much defending ones family, home and property meant to someone that living on on the edge of civilization in the 1700s might have been. Perhaps you should do some reading of frontier history and you would understand that it was not a subject of discussion as it was an accepted principal that some individual or family was preforming daily. When you are in the process of contesting the possession of land, and

Apparently you have none to little understanding of just how much defending ones family, home and property meant to someone that living on on the edge of civilization in the 1700s might have been. Perhaps you should do some reading of frontier history and you would understand that it was not a subject of discussion as it was an accepted principal that some individual or family was preforming daily. When you are in the process of contesting the possession of land, and yes we did take passion of it from the natives, life has a tendency to become violent.

Are you still worried about the Injuns?

Just goes to show how everything on the left is about group labels. If you believe that I was only talking about Indians as being uncivilized that is your privilege. But as long as there have been saints there have been sinners and I was not aware that murdering, raping, robbing and pillaging in general were unique to the Indians. Nor have we, at this point in time, escaped from individuals of the same ilk today.

Quoting artoad: To adumbrate: (1) the possibility of a three front war in the Muslim world, (2) a terrorist attack directed from the growing jihadist menace in the Pakistani frontier provinces, (3) a federal government in hock to foreign entities of varying malevolence because of a now pathological libertarian anti-tax mentality, (4) a populace in hock to predatory lenders, savings at about 1% of GNP and gambling the number one recreational activity. Somehow I don't think the individual pursuit of happiness is going to get us out of this mess.

It seems you are basing your comments on the spoon fed rhetoric our "fearless leaders" and their media lapdogs have been spewing. If one follows the notion that terrorists hate America because of our freedom, our current foreign policy might have some merit. However, if you follow the notion that terrorists hate America because of our long-standing foreign policy of military intervention and government manipulation, which instigates retaliation, then our foreign policies would have to take a different approach than what they are today. My point is that you seem to be addressing symptoms, rather than causes, to emphasize your point that all these "fears" are realistic. With

I am curious why the issue of nuclear power did not come up in your comparisons of the presidential candidates? As they are both in favor of this unfortunate cap and trade business, and you both agree that global warming is a serious problem, it would seem that the difference between the two candidates on this issue would be decisive. If I recall correctly, the coal fired plants that produce electricity are over half of all emissions compared to about 6% for auto emissions. Wouldn't McCain's policy of building more nuclear plants do more than any of this cap and trade business to reduce emissions?