Yes, obviously I'm painting with a wide brush in two directions. Not all Republicans can be lumped together, nor all Democrats. (Nor should we assume that all people fit in those two categories.) And "only" is an exaggeration, too. But I think we all understand what I'm getting at.

And, yes, I do have an argument, at least for the Democratic side. I think it's easlily demonstrable that the idea that someone could really defend himself against the US government with a stockpile of automatic weapons is absurd. No matter what, you are going to lose in a faceoff. Assuming that that is absurd, there is really no reason for people to own an automatic weapon other than to kill other people. None. Okay, it's neat. I'll give you that. But the repercussions on society at large are significant. Bank robberies become that much easier unless the bank guards also have automatic weapons. And then you start getting into an arms race that's just going to leave more people dead.

So the argument I have is that it simply does much more harm than good to society, without any real benefit in the check against the government area. If the most effective weapons that were available were assault rifles, then I'd reconsider, but they're not, and there's no way you're going to convince me that everybody should or even could own the types of weapons that the government has.

You can make the argument that that makes the US into a nanny state, and while I understand that argument and agree with it a little, I think you have to make the distinction between protecting society from individuals and protecting individuals from themselves. I think the government has a responsibility for the former and not the latter.

I also believe that the Democrats believe that, while it may screw up, the goverment is there to serve and protect the people and society, not steamroller over them. There may be a certain amount of naivete in that notion.

As far as the Republican point of view: I really don't get it. People make the argument that it's what allows us to prevent the government from removing our other civil liberties, but our civil liberties are getting removed right now, and none of the Republicans are jumping up in arms to defend their country. To me, it seems like an ameliorant: "As long as we don't take away your guns, you're going to let us do anything else, right?"

What bothers me in this case is not the fact that Republicans are pro-gun and Democrats are anti-gun. That's a legitimate political argument. What bothers me is the fact that a number of other civil liberties are being removed and the Republicans don't seem to care. They always claimed to be about civil liberties, and the gun issue was just the most immediate concern. But now that others are being trampled on, guns are still the primary concern, to the point where many argue that the liberties being removed are irrelevant.