Unless you build a nuclear bomb in your shed like that one guy tried. Then no one will mess with you, if you actually finish it.

Lots of debate here.

In brief: my personal reasons for gun ownership are a) crime deterrent, b) armed populace, c) entertainment. Hunting is last on my list, although should the need arise I am fully capable.

If an armed populace was not a deterrent against tyranny, then why is disarming the populace always high on the list of tyrannical leaders throughout history? An educated, armed, patriotic population will never fear from invasion from without or takeover within. Period. Not that we are there anymore...

A look at the Constitution and Declaration of Independence will reveal the political principles behind a "free" populace. While technology changes, people sure don't. During the crisis of May/June 1940, Britain was sure glad to have a semi-armed population with the will to fight in the face of a possible German invasion across the channel, considering the government was still trying to pull it's pants up from the appeasement orgies of the 30's.

OK, rant off.

Waco isn't comparable to people having guns to defend themselves. The Branch Davidians never had a population of 150 million. They were also breaking the law by stockpiling automatic weapons. And David Koresh was having sex with minors if I remember correctly.

Of course a tyrannical dictatorship is highly unlikely, but I don't see how it's ignorant for someone to feel the need to defend themselves against whomever is oppressing them. It might be a little bit of an alarmist view if that is why you own guns, but not ignorant. If you wanted to "take over" a country so to speak, wouldn't you think twice about it if you knew that more citizens than not own weapons with which to defend themselves?

It's not even close to alarmist. It's being a responsible US citizen. I admit that it's an abstract concept, but not in view of history. The more capable you are, the less likely it is that you will need to defend yourself. On both national and individual levels.

Never mind that the driving age in Europe is 18 instead of 16, not to mention that a car is so much more expensive to own and public transportation is so much more useful that most teens don't drive anyway.

The reason Europe is safer for teen drivers is that there are a ton less teen drivers, not their rules on alcohol.

+1

I look at it from an even more abstract perspective.

Saying that US citizen are allowed to own guns is saying "citizens should be trusted to make their own decisions because they are willing to take responsibility for their actions". By arguing that gun ownership is inherently dangerous, you argue that people need to be saved from themselves. That people aren't responsible enough to be able to handle their own problems and that the govt's role is one of baby sitting the citizens.

Since I believe that the role of gov't is to serve the people, and not the other way around, I see the gun ownership debate as an indication that many people in this country have forgotten the whole point of the Constitution and the actual basis for our gov't. I don't think people should support gun ownership because guns are necessary for protection (either personal or from our gov't) but that people should support gun ownership because it's supporting the basic believe that the people's right to liberty is more important than the gov't right to rule us.

Like Scotty and Austin said, if the general population believes this as a basic tenant of our social system, we'll never have to worry about needing guns to overthrow an unjust gov't because the people in the gov't will respect the rights of individuals.