Hitler had a much easier time getting into power because Germany's people were in economic and social disarry, the electoral system was far more proportionally representative, he killed off some of his opposing parties, he exploited holes in the German constitution, he bullied people to vote for him (and he still didn't get a majority until he arrested some members of the communist party), and he killed off many of his own party members.

Do you really think this combination of circumstances will ever occur in the US?

I think we should just agree to disagree. This is not going to end :)

"I don't agree to that"
"Neither do I"

First all, you cant get ILLEGAL anything LEGALLY. That was just a sillyu statement. Also I am fairly certain you have to have a permit etc etc to get the ammo. Even then, people don't use legal firearms for crime, either they are stolen, or smuggled in. Both forms are ILLGEAL. The people who sell the guns, don't buy them legally. There is a database of everyone that owns a gun. If you are found buying 15 pistols everyweek, you will be arrested.

What about people who buy guns for other people? What about people who steal guns from people who legally purchased them? What about criminals who haven't been caught? What about dodgey firearms dealers who do some work "on-the-side"?

There are so many "what abouts", "ifs" and "buts" that you cannot possibly argue against the idea that it's easier for you to get your hands on something illegally if other people can still get one legally.

OK here I'll draw it out for you. If they are legal then they can be sold. If they can be sold then there are more businesses making them. Same with the ammunition. If they were illegal for the general population, except for some very rare situations like hunting or sport, then there would be far less guns produced. Also it's far harder to keep track of guns produced by individual companies that can dessiminate them at will than if they were solely making guns for the government. It comes down to the fact that there is a much bigger supply of guns when they are a legit business than if not, thus expanding the overall count of guns, legal or illegal.

Sadly, I think it could be possible for a Chavez-type situation in a Western Democracy. Maybe even a Hitler redux. It's very unlikely, but still possible. All it would take is a hyper-loved president (such as a Bush, post-9/11) keeping very high approval ratings for a few years, which could lead the way to extended term limits, and eventually unlimited leadership. We already see this in the US Congress and Senate, with many Americans refusing to vote out long-tenured politicians. You could indeed have a 'perfect storm' and see rights erode in a matter 3-4 years to make America the shell of what it is.

Samuel, I agree that it's easier to illegally obtain something if it's legal for others. However, that doesn't mean you need to ban the product to take it out of the hands of those that can use the item for proper purposes. Perscription drugs come to mind. There are huge number(s) of busts of people illegally obtaining said drugs, and selling them to those that are addicted. Does that mean we ban drugs that are meant to help people?

In the same way, if you ban guns, you take away a person's right to self defense, hunting, militia-based defense, and other responsible acts that firearms provide.

And I'll again point to Hurricane Katrina, and the issue of responsible US citizens defending their homes from burglaries. It stands as a great example of how responsible gun ownership led to reduced crime in the wake of a national issue - where military and police were incredibly un-effective for the defense of people and their property.

Again, if such a regime existed and was supported by the army, do you honestly think your guns will stop him? All they have to do is bomb your enitre town as an example to shut all the others up.

You know absolutely nothing about partisan tactics, do you? Guns can, and absolutely could stop well-armored soldiers outside of tanks, and no army is 100% mechanized to provide defense against small-arms fire. All it'd take are a few firearm carrying citzens near a major army checkpoint engage in said small arms fire to take out a few soldiers in constant hit-and-run tactics. Doing this hundreds, if not thousands of times against soldiers would destroy their morale, make recruitment impossible, and eventually lead to a partisan war of attrition that is greatly in favor of the firearm-carrying citizens.

And how are they going to bomb your city when they don't even know who to bomb? Do you think that a firearm-backed militia would make themselves known to be susceptible to aerial bombing? Not only this, it would be a PR nightmare to hear 'US military bombs insurgent city. 10,000 civilians believed to be dead'. Talk to a gun owner, they know what to do to overthrow the government if it ever had to come to that. Thank God it hasn't, and hopefully won't.

If you noticed, I said the government watches those lists. For many reasons, you buy too many guns. You get arrested. Or thhey atleast look into it. its not like one person can buy hundreds of guns