That they can defend themselves without firearms too.....

I am not against firearms, but many will say I am. I see a time and a place for them and I don't see them like a chicken in every pot, they are for people who have a need for them and have been well trained in how to use them. No one is defenseless without a firearm and yes the old "you wouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight" thing has gotten old eepecially when one considers they would not bring a handgun to a tank fight. Yes in both situations there are ways to beat the gun with the knife and the tank wih the gun, but its all realtive and its all about escalation.

I go back to the number of times I almost had my head shot off by the "experienced" Dick Cheney gun handlers of the world. It's kind of like the financial mess we're in now. 'Don't worry, I know how to use this thing safely' In the book of Famous last words.

Okay, fire away, I'm just a Maverick, what can I say? I still think Amendment II and all the background leading up to it speaks more to what Switzerland does regarding mandatory conscription, training and keeping those arms at the ready, than an individual's right to bear a firearm in self-defense. 4 out of 9 SCOTUS justices agree. The challenge now comes to the 5 to drop any and all infringements on any and all arms or to defend limitations on arms in the same way as those that have been retained in Washington D.C.

If one side arms themselves the other will too. If one goes to a better means to thwart the defense or offense of the first means, the other side will too. The objective is not solved, unless the objective is arms escalation.

I thought John McCain was against lobbyists? Some Maverick he is.