both are made up terms, 'assault weapon' is just more made up. it is a term conjured up by anti-constitutionalist, progressive statist hoplophobes, soley to disingenously confuse the low information voter into thinking certain black guns a more deadly than some gun with wooden furniture.

You're speaking to the wrong guy on that. I'm for ending corn subsidies to enable natural sugar to take its place, and for corn to be used for stuff that corn is best used for.

The difference in mindset is a point upon which i agree with KylieDog: armed action against the government is not necessary in this day and age. Armed insurrections are always messier than peaceful power transitions, because ALL of the armed individuals in the uprising need to be satisfied if there is to be peace.

Let's say there is a general right-wing rebellion in America, with armed factions including a moderate libertarian group (the main wing), a white supremacist group, and a radical christian group. The American government agrees to a peace that is most acceptable to the libertarians, but less so to the white supremacists and christian radicals. The libertarians stop, but the radicals don't, and keep on fighting even though their beliefs are severely minority.

Armed rebellion gives disproportionate representation to the armed, and leads to messes in the future. Look at Ireland, for instance, where the Irish Civil War followed on the heels of the Irish War of Independence, and where the IRA (losers of the civil war) have continued to plague the island since. Or the Russian Civil War, where the use of weapons against tyranny simply led to a different kind of tyranny.

The difference is that those who would fight would be fighting against a tyrannical regime for liberation. Russia didn't have a concept of proper, lawful liberation nor egalitarianism when it enacted its Civil War, other than one of class warfare, and they essentially traded one regime for another in hopes of enabling one group over another through government. That is distinct from the matter of maintaining one's property and person from a state which chooses to act through force to intrude upon your individual liberties. Nobody is saying that a rebellion by White Supremacists (or whoever) can't happen, but it isn't a reason to get rid of arms or to disregard any notion of property rights, or individual rights. Rebellion is necessary in the totalitarian regimes of the middle east, is it not? Could they get out of such regimes politically? Now the United States isn't at that point, but certianly first world countries aren't immune from an absolute government. Guns right now act as deterents. The government doesn't do what it wants through direct force because it knows that if it were to disregard the people on matters as well as their individual rights there would be opposition by a majority, not some secluded, minority "white supremacist" group. And no, I don't think such an issue is a "right-wing" issue. It's an issue of individual rights which all people, regardless of their ideology should secure. Because the only thing that we have to protect us against an out of control government is our rights, and the only way to secure these rights from a forceful entity is by force.

Also your solution to the food problem is less government, not more government, Your solution is to end government support, not to enact a ban on such foods. You give people the choice they deserve as free, adults to decide what they want to do with their own life without government factors. This is a good thing. Hence there must be a way to decline violence without giving government more powers. Which to me makes it seem silly to give the government the power to disarm the population.

That first statement is going to lead into a rhetorical circle. If Americans are trustworthy enough that we can believe that American guys with guns are motivated by the desire to enforce liberty, then why not trust the current wielders of legitimate force in America? You can either trust Americans who wield force, or you're admitting that some Americans are more trustworthy than others, which is a biased argument.