[url]http://www.democraticunderground.com/auntie/01/2001_auntie_27.html[/url]Auntie Pinko's answer is actually pretty good.

They just believe whatever the mass media says, mainly because they are caught up in the whole image thing. They don't want to look out of step with the supposed intellectual elite.

They trust in the government more than the individual. The government will hopefully send police or the military to save them if there is trouble, if not they will scream and run in circles.

But if you allow individuals to have weapons they will rob and shoot each other, when not accidently shooting themselves in the foot, because people are stupid, untrustworthy and need the government to tell them what to do.

An individual would not be able to effectively use a gun to save himself anyway. Individual people are not capable of much on their own, they will just get their gun taken away from them and they will be shot with it, or shoot themselves in the foot.

History is merely an inevitable progression of social and economic forces in which the individual has little effect, bobbing along like a cork in a stream. Individual action can achieve little because people can't do much on their own, the need the government to help them. Government should have all the guns because regular people (not that particular individual liberl, but the great stinky unwashed masses) cannot be trusted, look who the voted for last time there was an election, a Republican! Clearly these fools should not be ARMED!

Interestingly I think she actually got it right.  There are very vociferous groups on either end of this debate with the vast majority in the middle seeking some sort of balance.  I know plenty of liberal Dems that own a shotgun or .22 but see no need for a handgun or SUR.  They do see a difference, conversly I know many conservative republicans that own no weapons at all and see no need.  I also know a pretty liberal on most issues Dem that owns an NFA Krinkov just for fun.  

It is really a pretty simple argument the laws of the day and interpretations of the constitution will in general seek a median reflection of the norms of society as a whole.  Notice we don't have public flogging or hang horse thieves any more.

I would guess that if put to a public vote the vast majority of Americans would support the governments current position.

That is that individuals do have the right to own firearms but certain restrictions can be made as to preventing undesireables in specific classes ( felons, wife beaters ) from possession.  Like wise certain weapons that are particularly destructive or deemed prone to criminal use could be restricted.  

I had a poli sci prof at Kent State that once said that the people on the far right and far left are the most knowledgeable about all political issues.  Those who count their views in the middle of the road really don't care until a particular issue restricts something they desire. I think he was quite correct.

Ding! Give the man a cupie doll for hitting the target with one shot! Liberals want and encourage dependence on the government. A man with a gun isn't as dependent upon the police as he was before he armed himself.

I pondered this problem for years before slashing my way to this understanding:

[url]http://paul.223.tripod.com/Firearms/Interesting_Items/Opinions/Learned_Helplessness/learned_helplessness.html[/url]