Where do you stand on banning guns?

[SoutherDem]

50. You make some good points, maybe we are not comparing apples to apples.

Let me start by saying if I misunderstood the tone of you reply, I apologize. It brought to mind many exchanges with a friend of mine during the first two years of the Obama Administration, before the obstructionist Republican House was elected. He would almost daily call me to tell me the latest FOX talking point, not that you are doing that, but he would often start the way you did. "Would it surprise you that ____________ (insert latest talking point). I thought that was the attitude you were taking. I should not have jumped to conclusions.

Now for the two point you made.

I guess it would depend on the army. Perhaps I am giving too much credit to our Armed Forces and National Guards, or maybe I am not giving enough credit to other nations Armed Forces. My thought is an armed force which would attack the US is either stupid, too small/weak to not be ran over rather effortlessly by our military, not to mention having the ability go get here in any significant force, or, so large/strong for armed citizens to make a difference. I know examples of Vietnam or Afghanistan are at times uses to state how our Armed Forces have been defeated or at least challenged, but I feel the rules of engagement would be vastly different. Thinking of those examples, you have two people speaking the same language, dressed the same way, but one is friend and the other is the enemy, to prevent killing your friend you had very restrictive rules of engagement. I don't see those restrictive rules being used if we had enemy forces coming ashore or parachuting down. Perhaps there is a scenario which I am not taking into consideration. More on this thought later.

As to Waco, maybe I am underestimating the strength of the civilian militia. But, I use Waco as an example because you had citizens well armed being overwhelmed by the professional military. Going back to my examples from above, a strong armed force would, IMO overwhelm the militias, and a weak armed force would be stopped by our armed forces extremely quickly.
That said I very well may be underestimating the citizen militias. Perhaps they are much stronger than I assume they are. This may be my not being educated of the current militias, but the limited knowledge I have of any local militias seem to be, no offense intended, people preparing to step in and over turn our government if it is ever needed, and more or less take the position of the tea party stoping just short of saying President Obama has all but created such a situation where this would be needed.
I hope there is another militia which I am unaware, keep in mind I don't personally circulate with these people and am going by just a few local news reports. Also, if the citizens militia were not so secretive. The news reports I referred to were conducted under the following circumstances, the reporter had to go to a point rather deep in the woods, where a group of men (all white) in camouflage wearing bandana to hid there appearance caring weapons which may or may not have been fully-automatic but were military looking weapons. At no point did they discuss protecting the US from an attack from another country but defend the Constitution which was being destroyed, by our elected officials. A well regulated militia does not frighten me in the least and I support those completely, but if the militia is so afraid of being identified they have to meet in secrete and incognito, I am not sure if they are well regulated, nor anything like the militias which helped win our independence from Great Britain.

Back to my first point. You said bring back the NFA Registry. I think that is allowing all class 2 weapons but requiring them to be registered after only extensive background checks. (Please correct me if I am wrong). If this would require annual renewals and extensive training I can't say I would have a problem with this. I am less concerned with a well trained, registered, mentally stable private citizen having a fully-automatic weapon than I am a untrained, unregistered/once registered, mental condition unknown, private citizen having a single round bolt action weapon.
As it is often said "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." While, I don't find the logic in that statement that some do, it does have a point. I am concerned with the people less than the gun. I know a lot of people who I would trust with a fully-automatic weapon without question and a few who I don't trust with a pellet gun. But, a militia which were formed to assist, or be the first lie of defense to an invasion by another nations give me no concern, and may actually give me comfort, if it were "well regulated" even if they are armed with fully-automatic weapons.

The problem is the way the argument is framed. Between the all or nothing groups, the NRA publicly stating that President Obama is going to take away ALL guns, those who don't understand the difference between fully-automatic weapons and a semi-automatic weapons, those who feel if a gun looks like a military weapon is more dangerous than a weapon which looks like a hunting weapon, and people simply not understanding what the 2nd Amendment says or means (which I have come to the conclusion is everyone, with everyone feeling they do understanding it, so everyone else is wrong), I am not sure if we will ever get anywhere. This is why I call for open-minded discussion. I see that being the only hope left.