just let the military protect you then.... dont worry about him

FYI, the 1st Chechen War is a very good example of a group of vastly inferior people & weapons holding off a much larger and more modernized army for quite some time. Read up on Grozny. Now imagine that the battleground isn't a small city in a very small state, but an entire nation.

no they arent.

however under the expired 1994 gun ban, they would be labled as "assualt weapons" which is a completely made up political term that means absolutely nothing. my .22 rifle would be considered an"assault weapon" under the law if i put a pistol grip on it and a carrying handle.

anti-constitutionalist gun-grabbers created this term to garner support by scaring people. with words like "assualt: and "weapon" they could have called them anti-material photon plasma cannons, and they would have if they thought it further their agenda. the "assault weapons ban" banned nothing more than aesthetics. purely cosmetic features.

if they wrote legislation banning "assualt rocks" it doesnt make the term valid, or something more realistic, banning all "sport vehicles" red cars with rear spoilers, and spinning hubcaps arent allowed.

assualt is a verb, a gun by itself cannot assault anything. My fists can be assault fists. if i punch somebody with my fist, guess what i get charged with? any gun can therefore become an "assault weapon". as you can see the term "assault weapon" is compltely made up, and meaningless, it doesnt ban anything more than the scary looking guns. so while the scary black AR-15 chambered in .223, your standard wood grain hunting rifle chambered in .30-06 is fine. even though one is capable of putting a hole in you arm, the other is capable of blowing that arm off.

/opens bag of popcorn

Man, this is getting good!

I think these children have the right idea.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/childs-answer-gun-violence-18041003

They talk about guns and video games. Haha, they even say guards would make them at least feel safer.

all he did was blabber about everything but guns.

I don't understand why the NRA can't support a national database regarding to gun ownership and previous crimes to those applying for gun when a recent poll did by an MSNBC or CNN affiliate said that 74% of people belonging to the NRA club said they would support such measures.

While the constitution may state that everyone has the right to bear arms, it does not state that its a good idea for everyone to bear arms.
The whole logic of more guns = less shooting is also puzzling to me.
Maybe I'm just stupid, or maybe I'm a killer in the making since I've played video games my entire life.

So what is the current background check system?

And not everyone is allowed to own firearms. We have background checks that prevent felons from obtaining firearms, as well as mentally disabled in some cases.

The framers of the constitution believed that all sane, law-abiding men had the DUTY to own guns. Now of course, the framers aren't always right, but that was their mindset when they wrote the constitution. So it's understandable that the United States is the way it is today, considering the beliefs of the framers and hence the beliefs of the populous. More guns doesn't mean less shooting. More guns means less crime. Criminals are deterred from breaking into people's homes and attacking them when they know these people could have weapons.