True, Jessica, but at least the citizens will *already have the guns*. Well, not every citizen, obviously, but you know.

So the conversation might go ""Well, the citizens are fighting back, but what can we do about it?"

"Take away their guns! They don't have the right to them anymore! Mwah hah ha!"

"Well, sir, that's problematic..."

"Why? Hm? Johnson? Why? Johnson! Where's the top of your head? JOHNSON!"

The other problem, from my PoV, with the "defense against an unconstitutional government" argument is that the guns that people have (ignoring the illegal ones of drug trafficers) don't seem like they'd do a Hell of a lot against the modern US military. Even a hundred years ago, there wasn't the effectiveness-in-killing gap that we now have. They may work against the totalitarian-cop-on-the-street, but, at that point, the other side can raise their game, and you're dead.

ITA, Debetesse.

"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "We have a protractor."

True, Debet, but I think the point is that, in the event of an unconstitutional government, at least you have a *chance*. Granted, my grandpappy's huntin' rifle won't do shit against an APC crammed full of guys with AR-15s and M-60s, but it's better than an improvised slingshot made from a pair of crutches and the hot water hose from the washing machine.

Keep in mind, y'all, that I do not own a gun. I've fired a couple handguns (and WHEEEE HOWDY it was fun!) but I don't own one because I've got a curious and ingenious little monkey girl about the place. But I think I should have the right to own one, assuming I haven't given up that right by engaging in felonious anti-social-contract behavior.

Strange to me that more people choose to become gun owners and not, say, doctors.

It costs a few hundred dollars, maybe, to get a gun (actually I have no idea how much, but I can't be off by more than one order of magnitude). It costs a few hundred thousand dollars to become a doctor.

This would probably not be an ideal set up for police or military, when they are more often in situations where you might need to pick up a buddy's gun and fire it than your average civilian

Actually, this tech has been in development for a couple years. It's being developed by the military for the military, so it has to meet combat environment standards*...once they get that squared away and implement it, I'm sure it will trickle into the private sector.

...* last I read, they were using skin/sweat biometrics on the handgrips. They hadn't figured out how to let another soldier on the same team pick up a dropped gun, without opening up control to any-person-not-the-gun's-person. Also, changes in body chemistry during high stress situations (like being in a firefight) frelled it, and the presence of conflicting samples (like someone else's blood) frelled it.

The Third Amendment says that citizens are not required to house soldiers in peacetime, because British soldiers would often just barge their way into a house, make themselves at home

Just about as any army in the world does to this day, mostly in areas which are far away from home and supply. Moreover, houses provide shelter.

Maybe once the problem wasn't about whether or not one should have a gun, but what one had in mind doing with said gun. But now? It's like having a gun will change you into an NRA member. While I believe people usually use their minds before shooting, it's also something to take into consideration: I mean, there's a freaking pistol on the wall. It's more than likely that it'll be used (edited beacuse apparently the translation to "pistol on wall" is "gun on the fireplace's rim" in Hebrew.)

(Edited once more to say this): I think the gun owning has more to do, say, with the freaking size of your country. I mean, it's HUGE! MASSIVE! And you can't really expect to be protected 24/7, everywhere. IMHO, there's a reason why the "officer, thank God you're here!" line was coined in American movies.

Oh, and you build a stable capitalist-democratic country unless there's minimal confidence in the government. It won't work otherwise. Rebellions are a pain in the ass.

It costs a few hundred dollars, maybe, to get a gun (actually I have no idea how much, but I can't be off by more than one order of magnitude). It costs a few hundred thousand dollars to become a doctor.

That's a legitimate arguement. However, my point was that if you can't trust your government to provide you with protection, and you can't trust your government to give you health care, I think the reasonable thing to do is to study medicine so you will be able to take care of yourself and family. My country's health care system doesn't suck so much, and yet I took (and when I'll have the chance and the money, will take again) a First Aid class. Hell with all, it may be best being a doctor with a gun. Strangely, not Simon nor the Doctor answer my criterion.

Humm. Time to reread/rewatch Doctor Zhivago again. "Pasha, are you a Bolshevik?!" - always a classic.

US soldiers often roust whole families out of their homes in Iraq to bunk down. Funny how that turns out.

The Third Amendment says that citizens are not required to house soldiers in peacetime, because British soldiers would often just barge their way into a house, make themselves at home

Just about as any army in the world does to this day, mostly in areas which are far away from home and supply. Moreover, houses provide shelter.

US soldiers often roust whole families out of their homes in Iraq to bunk down. Funny how that turns out.

I think you missed the word peacetime. It really was a problem back then. America wasn't an occupied country, it was a colony (colonies). The problems were there before rebellion took place. The English army troops were used as tools under the whim of the king's representatives and did what they please. It was one of the causes of the revolution, not a result of it.

OTOH? I can't say I like the idea of our troops doing that, either.