I'm curious as to why the pro-gun side in here feels the need to justify their possession of firearms.
"We need it to shoot the cops if they try to take our guns."
"I need it to shoot the psycho that's attacking my girlfriend."
"I need it to put food on the table."
Who cares why you need it? It's irrelevant. The fact that you're justifying having the gun is weakening your claim that having a gun is one of the basic human rights defined in the constitution. If it's a basic human right, then I don't need to tell you why I have a gun. I just need to have it. You don't hear me running around saying "well I need to talk because . .. " in order to defend the 1st, do you?
This debate, as with most gun debates, comes down to whether or not having a weapon (keep and bear arms) is an inalienable human right acknowledged by the constitution. The consensus of the country and of the (heh heh. . activist?
) judges on the supreme court currently seem to hold that it is. If it is, indeed, an inalienable human right to have a weapon, then the government cannot and should not stop me from acquiring, possessing, and carrying a weapon, whether that weapon is a knife, a gun, or a missile. If you are proposing that, then I suggest you start shooting the cops to stop them from taking your knives away, because they're doing that every day.
Those of you who are pro-gun in this thread, and who disagree with the previous paragraph, are admitting that having a weapon is not an inalienable human right, is not constitutionally protected under the second, and that the government can, as it does now, regulate what kind of weapon you are allowed to have. (This explains why in some states you can have an AK-47 but you can't have a 3 inch knife, and it also explains why owning a set of nunchaku is a crime in many states).
If you admit that, then you are admitting that the cops do have the right to take your gun away, and are, those of you who are threatening to shoot anyone who tries, admitting that you are contemplating unjustified homicide.