●Your comment reminds me of the 1631 Virginia statute requiring colonists "to bring their peeces (muskets) to church" for target practice. Modern Americans are grossly uninformed about the pervasiveness of firearm ownership at the founding of the American experience and how this was linked in their minds with the freedoms that we now enjoy. In fact, I believe a solid case could be made that without the availability of well-manufactured firearms, the American revolution could not have succeeded. Imagine if Independence Day would have been in 1476 instead of 1776. The possibility of a militia of Americans squaring off with mounted knights, heavy infantry, and trained archers seems humorous. However, a Pennsylvania or Kentucky rifleman firing from behind a tree at 300 yards is a wholly different matter.

Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights,
1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated
military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms.

They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to
their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2,§7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. See E. Dumbauld, The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today 51 (1957); W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 122 (1825)
(hereinafter Rawle). It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia. To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protestants, and like all written English rights it was held only against the Crown, not Parliament. See Schwoerer, To
Hold and Bear Arms: The English Perspective, in Bogus 207, 218; but see 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1858 (1833) (hereinafter Story) (contending that the “right to bear arms” is a “limitatio[n] upon the power of parliament” as well). But it was secured to them as individuals, according to “libertarian
political principles,” not as members of a fighting force.Schwoerer, Declaration of Rights, at 283; see also id., at 78; G. Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens 49, and n. 7 (1901) (reprinted 1979).

I find it curious that there is rather naive belief that an armed citizenry could take on the current US military and overthrow the current government. Do you really think that such a possibility really exists? There are many people very angry with the current government over its policies. You may not agree with their anger - but they feel that the current government should be put out of office. If they decide to use arms to do so, would they be successful? It is doubtful. Of course, if the military leadership agrees with the armed citizenry then they may have a chance (read the latest Army leadership's evaluation of the war in Iraq to find the dissent with the White House and its policies regarding the war).

●You are correct to assume that it would be completely naïve to think that citizens armed with pistols and rifles could successfully overthrow a modern tyrannical government. However, the reality is that portions of the military usually side with a significant armed rebellion. This has been true throughout the world and in the United States during the Civil War.
●Two other thoughts spring to mind. One is in regard to the so-called ban on “assault weapons.” Of course, as you know, criminals have plenty of assault weapons. An assault weapon is simply a medium caliber, short rifle or handgun that is capable of semi or fully automatic fire. Strong advocates of the Second Amendment believe the “ban” on such weapons is aimed directly at the concept of an armed citizenry that can resist tyrannical government. In modern warfare, the assault rifle is the weapon that “levels the playing field” as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan with the AK-47. You’ll also note that in most states Americans are not allowed to purchase the M-16 and its variants.
●My second thought is extremely politically incorrect. Many of my friends—particularly in law enforcement—dislike it when I share this thought, even though many of them privately agree with me. My thought is this, if the average citizen is trusting in law enforcement to protect him from criminal assault, he is badly mistaken. Law enforcement is exactly what the term implies—the enforcement of the law after it has been broken. In other words, the police are the one’s who will put yellow caution tape around your fallen body and add your murder to their long list of capital crimes they are trying to solve. Please recall the Columbine tragedy and how law enforcement clung to tight procedures that kept them from entering into the high school on a timely basis. This protected law enforcement officers from potential injury or death while it allowed the perpetrators the freedom to commit mayhem unimpeded and at will. You may want to also review what happened at Virginia Tech. Before the PC era, one of the first mass shootings in the United States happened at the University of Texas from the Texas Tower. Unfortunately for the perpetrator, he had to face armed resistance from citizens who were able to immediately get there hands on their high-powered rifles. It was actually an off-duty policeman and two armed citizens that bravely scaled the tower and ended the mayhem. I suggest that the carnage would be far worse if this happened today. Additionally, the idea of armed citizens returning fire on the campus of a major university and defending themselves against a maniac seems unthinkable today but in the early 60’s it seemed normal. America has changed a lot.

"The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22% of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms."

●Here is a thought from George Washington regarding the Constitution.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

●Or even more succinctly; here is Jefferson:

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson

●It seems apparent to me that the Founding Fathers believed that the Constitution is simply a piece of paper without an armed populace to resist the natural tendency of government to expand its own powers while limiting those of the people. I believe that our history and current circumstances have proven that their judgment was spot-on.

All in all....its a mixed bag. Using a gun against a person in any way in this day and age is going to have serious consequences. Then again, not too many bad guys will hang around to see whats next when they hear the sound of a shotgun racking a shell into the chamber.

●I believe the issue is far less of a mixed bag than portrayed by the police chiefs from cities that have strict gun bans. First, these same cities usually have the highest levels of violent crimes. For instance, Washington, D.C.—until recently—nearly had a complete gun ban while concurrently being known as the murder capital of the U.S. The reason for this is explained by economist John Lott from the American Enterprise Institute:

Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

●Lott’s quote is from an interview conducted by the University of Chicago. Lott deals with many of the usual misconstrued arguments for gun bans. It can be found here:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

●I also think your comment about the racking of a shotgun is the most germane insight in regard to self-defense (a separate issue from firearms as a deterrent against tyrannical government). The most interesting and seldom published statistic is the number of “defensive gun uses” that never end in the discharge of a weapon. The overwhelming majority of DGU’s end in the perpetrator hightailing it out of the line of fire. Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has done the most extensive work on this subject. Before his definitive work, there were thirteen surveys that indicated a range of between 800,000 and 2.5 million DGU’s annually by law abiding citizens. In Dr. Kleck’s study he substantiated that there are about two million defensive gun uses per year with only a tiny fraction ending in the discharge of the gun. I believe that this is the single most important and least broadcast statistic in regard to firearm possession. In short, the possibility of a deterring an assault or crime against one’s person (particularly for a woman) by possessing a firearm is far greater than the possibility of shooting an assailant. The same is true, I believe, in regard to deterring tyrannical government. Certainly the Founding Fathers believed this to be true. I also believe that those who would rule with an “iron fist,” ironically, agree with me.

●In regard to the affect of right to carry laws on the Texas’ crime rate, the Center for Policy Analysis notes a significant drop in crime in Texas well above the national average immediately following the implementation of Senate Bill 60, the Concealed Handgun Law. The germane statistics compare crime rates before and after these laws are put in place. Texas had a crime rate in the early 1990s that was 38% higher than the national average.
Center for Policy Analysis http://www.ncpa.org/press/nrsb052600.html

●Additionally, John Holmes, former Texas’ Harris County district attorney, wrote to Jerry Patterson, author of Senate Bill 60, several years after the passage of the law.

“As you know, I was very outspoken in my opposition to the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act. I did not feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets,” Holmes wrote. “Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County , and indeed state-wide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless.”

●The Cato Institute has produced a very detailed report on the affect of Concealed Carry Laws. Their report covers the whole history of gun laws in the U.S., all of the competing statistical evaluations, and all of the relevant arguments from both sides of the issue. I consider it to be one of the most balanced and well-researched articles on the subject available on the web. It can be found here:

Http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firearms/Snyder/right2carry.html

●Here are a few notable quotes from the Cato study:

In short, it is not the number of guns but their distribution--that is, the people who have the guns and what they are using them for--that matters. The available evidence clearly indicates that firearms in the hands of permit holders are not a law enforcement problem, are not a source of social harm, and that irresponsible use of firearms by permit holders is the very rare exception.

Further, according to both surveys, 45-46 percent of the gun users believed that they or someone else might have been killed had they not used the gun in self-defense. Even if someone's life was saved in only 5 percent of such cases, however, the surveys imply that 100,000 (5 percent of 2 million) lives would be saved each year by the defensive use of firearms, far surpassing the number of lives lost to gun violence and suicide.

While opponents of licensing laws are not wrong to point out that those adverse results are potential consequences of the widespread carrying of weapons, we need no longer speculate about what the effects of such laws might be. We now have at least 10 years of actual evidence from 25 different states with diverse rural and metropolitan populations, including the cities of Miami, Houston, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Richmond, Atlanta, New Orleans, Seattle, and Portland, regarding perhaps as many as 1 million permit holders carrying their weapons for hundreds of millions of man-hours. The results are in, and they show unequivocally that (a) the number of persons currently in possession of permits to carry firearms ranges from 1 to 5 percent of the state's population; (b) criminals do not apply for permits; (c) permit holders do not take to settling their traffic disputes or arguments with guns, or "take the law into their own hands"; (d) shall-issue licensing states have almost no problems with violent criminality or inappropriate brandishing of firearms by permit holders; and (e) some permit holders have used their guns to defend themselves and others. There appears to be no reported case of any permit holder adjudged to have wrongfully killed another in connection with carrying and using his weapon in public. As of this writing, shall-issue licensing laws are creating no reported law enforcement problem in any of the 25 states that have enacted them. Dodge City has not returned; the blood is not running in the streets.

●Most importantly:

Shall-issue licensing systems are based on the right of self-defense, that is, the right to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault that threatens imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury. Every state recognizes a right of its citizens to use lethal force in self-defense. Self-defense, so defined, is not lawlessness; it is in accord with the law. It is, in fact, in accord with the same law the police rely on in using lethal force. The right to self-defense belongs to each person, not merely those who the police or other licensing authorities believe "deserve" to have that right.