...ok, nukes are off the table.

Now...do you really want a guy like wackos to own an Abrams or an Apache? Capitol hill would be gone tomorrow (waits for the righty's to stop cheering).....how about Ross Perot with a B-52 full of bombs on the hunt for 'you people'? Sleeping securely now??

With nukes off the table, how could you ever expect to rebel successfully in this day and age? As I said before, I believe the intent of the framers was to check the power of the federal government, 'parity' as you well put it....I submit to you that 'parity' is an impractical, unattainable ideal....

If you agree, why continue to protect that ideal in the face of the overwhelming statistics that indicate, at least to me (please don't make me look them up), there an awful lot of gun owners out there who can't handle the responsibility. Stolen guns, criminal gun dealers etc....?

I think we just made a pretty logical case together for why there ARE some weapons the average person should not be able to own, at least not without adequate, logical controls.

I don't want the John Hinckley's of the world to have easy access to Saturday night specials....or any other paranoid schizophrenic for that matter. I don't think it should be as easy for three suburban youth to acquire fully automatic assault rifles and blow away their school chums as it was.

Without some kind of restrictions, how will we ever keep the guns OUT of the hands of idiots and IN the hands of those who have the right psychological make-up to be a responsible gun owner? The militant NRA stance seems to be let 'em screw it up once THEN restrict priveleges....by then though, the damage is usually done, isn't it?