I suppose I should preface this by mentioning that I have only owned one gun in my entire like. A used Chinese SKS which I no longer have. Nowadays I'm comletely unarmed (not even a heavy stick for protection) not because I feel safe but rather because the Navy (indeed all the US Armed Forces) frown upon their members actually defending themselves if attacked. Bad press if a servicemember hurts someone else, but its all good if we get cut up.
Looks like the forces of liberty have recently scored again (even sweeter after the setbacks of the post 9/11 House/Senate complete crapfest). The U.S. Justice department has formally set out the reasons that it considers gun ownership to be an individual right as opposed to solely belonging to the state (uhmm, that's state state, not State - i.e. federal government).
Gun control's never made sense to me, even in my younger, more naive years (oh, the years I wasted believing in that Drug War nonsense). As a matter of fact the WoD is a perfect example of what happens when you try to restrict an item that there is a large demand for. The DEA and other law enforcement agencies are proud that they only intercept a small percentage of the drugs at great cost - in money, effort, and lives. How do they expect to have any better success with firearms?
So we make guns illegal and only those willing to break the law will have them, and there's a large supply of those willing to do just that. In the US it can be damn difficult to go through your day without breaking a law somewhere. Just try to drive down the street at the speed limit. Either you'll be run over by those travelling faster than you or you'll hit the old guy wobbling around in his lane (and part of the next one). All that and in a car bigger than my apartment.
So we've disposed of the whole cut supply and you'll cut demand theory (that one's like Socialism - doesn't work but there's no end of maroons willing to give it one more try).
So how about "do you want your neighbors to have rocket launchers?". No, my neighbors are a bunch of ninkers. But I'm sure they think the same about me and if they are going to have heavy weaponry (legally or illegally) then shouldn't I be able to maintain parity. MAD got us through the worst parts of the Cold War until the Sov's went bust. Those who think Mutally Assured Destruction is an insane concept should go to a dive bar, pick the biggest, baddest biker there, spit in his face and the try to talk your way out of an ass-wooping.
Even places like the National Research Council say that there data shows that concealed carry has no effect on violent crime. If it has no effect then why should it be an issue? Its not the function of a government in a democracy to tell us what we can do, but what we can't - and it better have a damn good reason for it.
After all if we ban guns we might become like the United Kingdom, another bastion of freedom that doesn't consider self-defense to be a right. That's right, defend youself in the U.K. and you go to jail. After all that's what the police are for.
And in an unrelated note, the U.K. has recently become slightly less free as government ID's are now required for all citizens. This is to help "intimidate, dominate, and control". No that's wrong, theat's for our homegrown TSA twerps, I mean "help fight terrorism". Of course no one is required to carry the ID with them, of show it to a police officer (though you will need it to receive government services - so its mainly the poor who get hassled) so one has to wonder exactly how this is going to make people more secure. Most likely its like to Social Security Number crap we have to put up with here. At first the SSN was explicitly not meant to be an identifier. Nowadays, unless you live in a shack in the woods you can't do anything without it. I take that back. You still need an SSN to buy the land the shack is on.
And I need to learn to preview this stuff before posting.