Here is the thing. Your average Joe citizen doesn't NEED a weapon.
Like a previous poster stated, you don't need to worry about French/German/Iranian soldiers walking up and down your street trying to break into your home, I think we can all agree on that.
The next argument is that you need to bear arms in order to protect yourself from the government. I assume you are referring to the times when the former British colonial armies could yield their power and you literally needed to be able to protect yourself if they choose to do so. I understand that too, if it were the late 1700's. It;s 2011. I find it highly unlikely that in this day in age it would EVER get to the point that you would literally have to fight off the United States military in your own front yard. I know some of you would probably disagree with that, but I think that's absurd.
Lastly, one would argue that you need to bear arms in order to defend yourself in general; be it a home invasion, robbery, hold up, etc. This is the one instance where I think it holds water. However, I think that you need to have some SERIOUS restrictions on that. I'm completely convinced that something as small as a .22 could very easily be used to defend yourself in 98% of all instances. Assault rifes, sawed off shotguns, most big rifles, 357's, etc are nothing but overkill. I know for you hunters a rifle is used, which I can also understand, so I wouldn't be too bothered by that.
So I am not someone who wants to ban guns, or toss the 2nd amendment, I just think it needs some serious restrictions. Because every single time I hear the argument that "if people are carrying they can stop the Jared Laughner's of the world"... Well, it seems to me that every time a shooting happens, the only thing that stops them is a reload, a police officer, or them turning the guns on themselves. Never once do you hear the story "This shooting could have been much worse, but local resident Shooter McGraw happened to be carrying his weapon, and he took out the perp".
