2nd Amendment text: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Militia: 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. 2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. 3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. Yes, I do understand the 2nd amendment, and I don't think the constitutional rights angle is "BS", and no I'm not misinterpreting it. In mentioning constitutional rights, it isn't just about guns, it's about the idea of rights being slowly removed whenever the government sees fit. Right now it might be guns, next time perhaps the 1st amendment is too broad, maybe we should limit that. It's the potential for a snowball effect that is the real threat, little by little rights being removed or cut back until you see that you have no real rights anymore. That is the true danger in this type of thinking. Also, you say you don't believe guns need to be banned, just no assault rifles (I don't necessarily disagree here, I don't see much of a purpose for your average citizen to have one), but then you go on to no need for pistols which would be one of the most commonly owned I would think, and the most easily handled and secured, so we are left with rifles and shotguns (and you go on to talk about rednecks, which I think shotguns and rifles being their preference). You seem very dismissive of the idea of home defense in relation to guns, which I don't quite understand but that is certainly your prerogative. However, I do think that a handgun has a place for home defense, and a pistol in many of those cases is the easiest to wield, especially in a home environment, especially if the defender might be small of stature like a smaller woman that is home alone, for instance. Pistols are best for short range, close quarters, which I think is exactly what a home defense situation would be. Now you do mention stricter regulation, on that I have no problem with. In addition, you point out how guns are stolen or wrongfully used because someone didn't secure them properly. In situations like that, I do believe the gun owner should be held responsible. If you are attesting to the fact that you are responsible enough to own a gun, you should equally be responsible enough to secure them properly and if you aren't and something happens, you should pay the piper as well. Lastly, as to our "gun culture ridden society", I apologize that we in the U.S. haven't reached the obvious level enlightenment of whatever society you hail from, I'm glad someone from your level of cultural perfection was able to chime in. (While trying not to choke on the hypocrisy I commonly see of other countries bashing the U.S. for thinking it's superior, all the while implying their society is that much better)...