"I hope I never need to revolt, but Americans do have that right, and because of that, the right of Americans to keep and bear arms isn't supposed to be infringed."

Trap--Actually, the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War, among others, are prime examples that you in fact do not have the right to rebel via an armed insurrection. You are afforded the democratic political system coupled with the right of free speech so that the laws we make will always be open to the joint forces of opionion and vote. By your thinking, anyone may take up arms against the police, the local, the state, or the federal government, delcare themselves in rebellion, and therefore not be in trouble. The law is a set of rules whether made by committee in a democratic vote or by some dictator-and all are expected to obey the law.

Even our beloved Declaration of Independence requires first that a government be tyrranical before you take up arms against it. Furthermore is the balance of safety of the public vs your personal rights. Yes, you may feel within your rights to fill your basement with thousands of dollars worth of weapons, but (as was the case in WACO) if you are acquiring weapons and your purposes are not clearly harmless to the public, there is a legitimate reason for the government to investigate you and to take actions to control your weapons if they feel they could be misused (pre-emptive strike on a potentially rouge nation within our own nation). If a bunch of Muslim extremists living in America were "collecting" guns Im sure you wouldnt take issue with a raid. Now a museum might "need" to buy lots of guns each year, but a private individual?

And as to buying and selling with ease-its a gun, not a hamburger-the fact that you could get one with ease isnt the concern of the public--I would rather you be thoroughly checked first. I pay taxes for safety-and while Franklin may say I dont deserve it because I dont mind sacrificing the freedom to buy and sell guns to anyone for any reason, this isnt the law now is it? Franklins statement when taken out of context is not at all applicable-he was discussing sacrificing your political freedom. You are being asked to sacrifice the convenient sale of guns, not your rights to free speech or to a democratic vote.

Your comments about the car/truck were equally off. In my state, if the police come to investigate something on your property and you are drunk driving on your property, you are still arrested-it is illegal to be drunk and operating a motor vehicle-just as when you work on PRIVATE PROPERTY like a nuclear reactor or a factory, you cant be drunk then either. You cannot operate a motor vehicle (even a riding lawnmower) while drunk legally (although of course enforcement is another matter). You are mistaking lax enforcement with legality.

I also refuse to treat a gun like any other tool. Its capacity for delivering death can and should make it a controlled thing. If we control who can and cant have drugs then we should certainly control who can and cannot own a firearm-and like drugs we should have restrictions on certain types which are deadlier. It is common sense-not some violation of your rights.

Safety is more important than the statistics. More people die in auto accidents than die from firearms, is it therefore common sense to make cars illegal? No, we place restrictions on their use and apply requirements for training. We also limit under what circumstances they may be used.

Now lets look at guns-less people die from those than car accidents right? Well the thing is that car accidents are not intentional, just as deaths from heart attacks and cancer are not intentional. Gun deaths can certainly be accidental, but the majority are not-and while they may not be commonly made up of mass killings, VA Tech and Columbine are evidence that they may be used this way. Neither of those two incidents could have happened unless someone could accumulate multiple weapons. THAT is why the government can and should watch gun sales and possessions and why registration makes sense. I worry more about the proven misuse of the right to bear arms than I do about the unproven theory that the US government may want to remove the right-which to date not one bill has been even close to being successful banning weapons outright. I dont even know that such a bill has ever been seconded after being proposed.