Mr. Gun Control advocated wrote, "The issue is the justification for assault weapons in the hands of he civilian populace. I want to say that their unavailability "would help." How do your examples disprove that? " My example doesn't disprove that directly and specifically, and wasn't meant to. What it does prove is, in a bad world with bad people, individuals--INDIVIDUAL--- need and ought to have the means of adequate self-defense. The right of self-defense is a Natural Right. Liberals are always droning on and on about rights--especially about rights that really aren't rights. But when it comes to the right of self-defense from deadly attack--a real right if ever there was one--- they're all for stripping honest private citizens of both the right and the adequate means--in the name of public safety. Absurd! No man or group of men have the right to take another's right of self-defense--and that right includes the adequate means of self-defense--with the emphasis onadequate. It is immoral to do so. And the fact that evil people commit heinous crimes does not amend or abridge that right in any way. Au Contraire. The presence of such people and their acts support that right and increase the need for it, a fortiori!!! Now consider this: Time and again, crazies go on a killing spree, and have plenty of time to do their worst, because no help from the apparatchiks of our all-wise officials is forthcoming--officials who are the very ones who have restricted the presence of weapons for self-protection in these localities made areas of slaughter---that fact alone proves their inadequacy to provide the needed defense, even as they write more and more laws restricting our rights and means to defend ourselves. How crazy is that? Now, the specific support for the argument for the possession of assault weapons by private citizens, if I understand the second amendment rightly, is simply the fact that the government assault teams possess assault weapons. These assault teams routinely break into the homes of citizens, terrorize their families, kill the man of the household or shoot their dog looking for a little mary jane--only to find they got the wrong address--and they do it with assault weapons. If they have them I should be able to have them, should I so choose. That is the second amendment. The fact that politicians have cadres of body guards to protect their worthless, thieving, vote-buying, corpulent corpuses--means to me I ought to be able to possess the humble means of protection I might choose and/or can afford. I mean, just think of the Gubberment thugs Clinton sent down to Waco, all armed with assault weapons--and the Branch Davidians using standard rifles. With all that advantage in firepower they found it necessary to set the place on fire and burn 70 children to death. Think of the FBI men and their assault weapons attacking a peaceful citizen at Ruby Ridge--killing his teen age son, his friend, and even his wife as she stood in the door of their home holding their infant child. THAT is your gubberment--the gubberment you want to be in control of OUR right of self-defense--to mete it out to us like I mete out milk bones and chew sticks to my dogs. It's not okay for us to have the adequate means of self-defense, but it's okay for the gubberment to murder--especially if a democrat is in power. It's only Republican bullets that are bad. I say they are BOTH bad. But I digress. Think of THAT! 70 children burned to death by gubberment assault at a religious compound. Yet, you don't bat an eye at that, because it's the gubberment. Gubberment is, perhaps, like Lola to you--getting and doing whatever it wants. You go wild when people are gunned down by some crazy, all of whom were made defenseless by gubberment mandate; 10 people here, 20 people there, and so on--and then the first thing out of your mouth in response is illogical madness. You do not ask the reasonable questions: "Was there no one in the theatre, the school, or the building that had a weapon to stop this maniac and save lives? If not, why? What was the reason there was no one there to defend so many? Why was there no one there at all?" Indeed. Why ask the reason when the reason is always the same: the gubberment forbade the presence of the means of self-defense in that area and published it far and wide, for all to know, including homicidal psychos---all the while failing to provide it, making citizens in those areas sitting ducks---which is utterly and unspeakably immoral. Why ask the reason: No matter how different each situation, no matter how many particulars vary from massacre to massacre, the fact that the government fails to provide the necessary thing it forbids to us is always present. ALWAYS. But you're such a victim of institutional Stockholm Syndrome that these thoughts never occur to you. Instead, you ask the mad question: "When is the government going to ban thus-and-such weapons so citizens can't get hold of them?"(You don't recall they already did in 1994 and it did no good--it made no difference, just as restrictive gun laws in Chicago have not prevented it from becoming the murder capitol of America). You might also recall that, with the court-ordered lifting of the gun ban in D.C, the murder and crime rate there has dropped. But you pay no facts such heed. Rather, you continue to make the predictable knee jerk response. What you're really asking, in effect, is this: "When will the gubberment render us even more helpless to the violence they themselves, street thugs and crazies perpetrate upon us daily?" Such, perhaps, is your thinking--which is not thinking at all. Why just as well not ask, "When is the gubberment going to require all the crazies be either exterminated, incarcerated or forced to wear a large yellow "C" or "K" around their necks?" My response is this bit of manifest reason: The gubberment only poses as being all powerful--an ersatz diety. The gubberment is not powerful enough to keep such weapons out of the hands of those who are determined to get them. Those determined to get them don't give a rip about the gun laws. By obeying laws that increasingly restrict our right of self-defense we are committing the folly and sin of leaving ourselves and our families at the mercy of a band of thieves, psychotics and misanthropes. My duty is to my family, first and foremost. You perhaps call that treason.