JB: And so far, Obama has said. . . nothing. Nothing that will do any good, anyway. A total repeal of the Second Amendment is the only thing that can possibly do any good. No guns outside police forces and the military. None.

------------------------------------------------------------ ----------

Stephen Robinson: I used to think that was impossible but is it really? There's a lot of bluster from people about an armed resistance if the federal government tried to take away Americans' guns but I think a lot of that *is* bluster. I think back to the Civil Rights movement -- non-violent resistance from a lot of people who really had nothing to lose given their already second-class status. Now consider the demographics of gun owners. How many would risk imprisonment and the loss of the comforts of society they currently enjoy?

------------------------------------------------------------ ----------

I was thinking along similar lines recently - granted, the nearest point of comparison here in the UK would be something like the 'public smoking ban' or the 'blood sports ban', so there isn't the additional argument of "it's necessary for self-defence" like the pro-gun crowd use, but still, in terms of public response, I'd like to think it'd pan out in a similar way.

To elaborate, when such bans were proposed, there was a lot of grousing in certain parts - smokers felt it was a violation of their rights, and the Hunt lobby argued it was "destroying a part of the UK's national heritage" (among other things). Particularly in the latter case, there were threats that the 'huntin', shootin'' crowd would take up arms to 'defend their rights', but when the time came for the bans to take effect, all that actually happened was groups with placards and loudhailers outside Parliament on a few occasions. No armed revolts or anything - that sort of thing ends up being all talk and bluster.

Compare that to the one thing in recent years where people did go beyond peaceful protests, and actually kicked up a major fuss - the big demonstrations protesting the decision to allow Universities to charge top-dollar for tuition fees (and thus pricing-out all but the wealthier segments of society from accessing higher education). In that instance, you actually saw scuffles with police, rioting and property damage, because it was a clear-cut case of the Government acting against the public interest.

I'd hate to be proved wrong over this, but I'd like to think that the bulk of US citizens have just enough common sense to realise that taking military-grade weaponry out of the reach of Joe Public is a logical move to ensure that any old person can't get their hands on a tool designed to kill on a large scale, and (either deliberately or accidentally) kill or injure people around them in seconds, before anyone can intervene.

••

We were "never" going to abolish slavery or repeal Prohibition, either.

••

Yeah, of course. All these dead children should not be considered a "huge event". Just collateral damage. Not enough to take away the big phallic symbols.

••

The truly pathetic part of this is that there are gun nuts who believe that they really could do that, if push came to shove. Or, at the very least, they could defend themselves against the Armed Forces of this nation.

Talk about mentally unhinged!