Somewhere a couple weeks ago my brother-in-law (Kerry Voter) and I started a friendly political banter back-n-forth  about the pros and cons of the 2 presidentail candidates. Ultimately 2nd amendment rights came to the table and here is what he had to say (Parts highlighted in red for your enjoyment):

The 2nd Amendment was created at a time when the right to bear arms was essential to protecting citizen’s rights against tyrannical governments. Unless ordinary citizens are afforded the rights to obtain F-16s and tanks, I don’t think we are going to be able to defend ourselves against the armed forces in today’s world. But the real question remains, WHAT DOES THE ORDINARY CITIZEN NEED WITH A SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON!  Can the average hunter just not get by with a shotgun anymore? I understand your point concerning problems with the original law making it difficult to enforce.  My answer to that is to a make a better law that effectively bans the sale of these weapons to the public. I’m not sure where you’re getting your statistics from regarding crime in places like Britain, but the U.S. has by far the highest violent crime rate of any industrialized country. The guns themselves are not totally to blame as countries like Canada have very high gun ownership rates and do not experience the same level of violence. However, what we do have in the U.S. that Canada doesn’t is a much higher rate of abject poverty.  Anytime you combine the factors of urban poverty and an easy access to guns, you’re bound to have a high violent crime rate.  Easy access to assault weapons is just absurd because, not only are these weapons infinitely more dangerous in the hands of criminals, but there is no reasonable sporting purpose for these weapons. In short, the public harm far outweighs the public good.

Here is my response (Anything I'm forgetting before I hit send?):

I could be wrong, but all of our constitutional rights were written during the same time, each with a specific purpose to establish a solid foundation for our country to ensure we would not have our people suffer the way we did under British rule ever again. To say that the 2nd Amendment is no longer applicable makes no more sense than saying the 1st no longer applies to us. Today we don’t realistically have to defend ourselves against the armed forces of an invading country, because there is no nation in the world that could invade us. However there are many threats to us that do exist here in the homeland; Rapists, burglars, looters, mass murderers, and terrorists. Our right to own firearms is not limited to sporting purposes or hunting (although the average hunter would have a hard time taking down a deer/elk with a shotgun) It also includes the defense of ourselves and our families. The shoot-out in LA several years ago featured madmen will FULLY automatic rifles, and what did the police do when they realized they were out-gunned? Ran to the nearest gun shop and bought several semi-auto rifles to try to take them down. This event happened right outside of a residential neighborhood. What would have happened if it spilled into the nearby houses? I would think this would be a case where an ordinary citizen would have wished for a gun that could protect his/her family. Thanks to Sen. Feinstein and Co, we now have a term called “Assault Weapon” which by definition is a weapon used against another person. Although it was meant to describe military STYLE rifles, the media gets pretty much free reign to use the term for any kind of firearm. These semi-automatic rifles function no differently than your average hunting rifle, and most even use smaller caliber rounds. What IS absurd is saying that people suffering in urban poverty can purchase $1.5K-$2K firearms. Criminals will get access to guns, despite what the laws are. Banning the sale of these weapons to the rest of us would ensure that ONLY criminals will have them. I would hate to have myself or your sister die with only a phone in my hand and the 911 operator yelling “hello?”

And just for a little background, here was my comments that initiated his reply above:

As an American I have the right to keep and bear arms, and JFK has demonstrated over and over again that he doesn’t care about that right. He missed something like 60-70% of his Homeland Security meetings, but was present to vote on EVERY (if not most) firearm control/ban and manufacturer liability related bill that came to the floor in the past year(s). He pressed the Senate and the President to renew the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban (which expired this Monday). A ban that although intended to keep specific semi-automatic rifles out of the hands of criminals, did nothing but drive up the costs of these firearms for law abiding citizens, and keep them from attaching cosmetic features to them. Murder and Assault, Robbery and Theft are already crimes for which criminals commit, outlawing specific weapons will not keep them from committing them. What happened when guns were banned in Australia? The criminals used machetes and swords. Now they are banning long bladed instruments. What’s next? Sticks and stones? Look at Britain. I think ALL semi-auto firearms are outlawed. Now they have some of the worst crime statistics in the free world and their law enforcement is a joke. My point? I heard someone say once, “An armed society is a polite society.” Legislation should be focused on keeping guns out of the hands of felons, not law-abiding citizens. As an American I have the right to keep and bear arms, and the right for it not to be infringed. John Kerry threatens that right, and openly strives to infringe upon it. Even when he himself states he owns a “Communist Chinese Made Assault Rifle,” and had taken delivery of a Semi-Auto shotgun as a gift and brought it home to Massachusetts, breaking 3 or 4 laws that he himself help create… Apparently this elitist commie bastard feels that only the rest of us are the ones the laws are intended for. Molon Labe JFK.

Why didn't you just tell him that until he reads the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers, along with the writings of Jefferson and at least a half dozen of our other founding fathers, such as Mason, Hamilton, et al, that he is way to underinformed to even pose the question, let alone debate the facts.

Quoted: Why didn't you just tell him that until he reads the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers, along with the writings of Jefferson and at least a half dozen of our other founding fathers, such as Mason, Hamilton, et al, that he is way to underinformed to even pose the question, let alone debate the facts.

Um.... becasue I haven't either, which would make me underinformed as well

The 2nd Amendment was created at a time when the right to bear arms was essential to protecting citizen’s rights against tyrannical governments.

That he rcognizes that is a miracle.

Unless ordinary citizens are afforded the rights to obtain F-16s and tanks, I don’t think we are going to be able to defend ourselves against the armed forces in today’s world. But the real question remains, WHAT DOES THE ORDINARY CITIZEN NEED WITH A SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON!

I'm assuming he has no concept of using little guns to get bigger guns, and big guns to get artillery, and so on... So maybe try explaining that to him.

Can the average hunter just not get by with a shotgun anymore?

Ask him to identify the word "hunt" anywhere in the Constitution.  And to answer his question specifically - No.

I understand your point concerning problems with the original law making it difficult to enforce. My answer to that is to a make a better law that effectively bans the sale of these weapons to the public.

He admits the law was diffcult to enforce, so did TomDiaz from the VPC actually, anyway - what benefit was gained from this law?  Nothing - so why in the world is there a need to improve a law that did nothing?

I would just add

The 2nd Amendment was created at a time when the right to bear arms was essential to protecting citizen’s rights against tyrannical governments. Unless ordinary citizens are afforded the rights to obtain F-16s and tanks, I don’t think we are going to be able to defend ourselves against the armed forces in today’s world. But the real question remains, WHAT DOES THE ORDINARY CITIZEN NEED WITH A SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON!

1. The Army of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong militia waged a successfully waged a guerilla war against the hightech Armies of France and the US, by being armed with little more than maghine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The various militias of Afghanistan successfully repelled an invasion by the high tech Russian army with nothing more than assault rifles and a few stinger missles. History has shown that determined people can defeat high tech, heavily armed military forces by using little more than rifles and grenades!

2. The AR-15 uses the 5.56mm/.223 caliber projectile which ballistic testing has shown to be arguably the safest and most effective round for home protection. With the proper barrel length and ammunition, the AR-15 can effectively deliver terminal performance at close ranges without risking overpenetration and endangering others in the immedate area. Have him read the ammo oracle.