NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do people constantly use videogames, TV, films and music as scapegoats for rising gun crime? Its already clear that the american government does not see it this way as they puting almost a billion dollars worth of funding into war videogames. People who think that we all do what we see and here through media need to see a phychartrist immediatly.

The only reason this issue ever came up is because of those stupid lawyers who try using it as a defense so their client gets off free...then the parents of the victims are all like:

"RAWR! Video games are for newbs!! They FORCE people to shoot other people! We can't stand for this!"

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...but guns help, I feel.

TV and games violence is used as an excuse to justify insanity. There is a certain degree of influence, I will agree to that, but you have to be slightly unhinged to actually commit acts like killing a baby as per the death scene in Childs Play 3.

Not just lawyers--well-meaning but ultimately misguided parents are also to blame. Fact is that humans are violent, and only our sense of reason and desire for stability helps us force that part of our nature down. For some, violent games are an outlet for that, for others, they're an enabler.

Not just lawyers--well-meaning but ultimately misguided parents are also to blame. Fact is that humans are violent, and only our sense of reason and desire for stability helps us force that part of our nature down. For some, violent games are an outlet for that, for others, they're an enabler.
The parents never had the idea until lawyers used it as a defense.

EDIT: But it started with music and movies, not video games.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...but guns help, I feel.

Guns dont kill people, rappers do

People who want to take no responsibility for their actions always blame someone else (like politicians). They create scapegoats for the press and population to blame. You can't get people to own up the basic human cultures has violent tendencies ... violent movies, games, porn, etc reflect the society we have now.

Has anyone seen Bowling for Columbine? Do you think the american media makes a good scape goat?

I agree wholeheartedly that video games are not the cause of violence. What an absurd notion to assume that because one sees violence, one will certainly act violently - as if nothing else plays a part in the affair. I vigorously anti-censorship, though. For movies, music and video games. Guns are a different matter - I don't propose taking away firearms, but certain laws (in the US) need to be changed. No one needs an assault rifle or a grenade launcher hunting rifles only or a certain caliber of handgun which must be all carefully licensed and require testing for the user would be ok, though. But as has been said so far, it's easier to blame someone(thing) else when something goes wrong.

----"Guns are a different matter - I don't propose taking away firearms, but certain laws (in the US) need to be changed. No one needs an assault rifle or a grenade launcher hunting rifles only or a certain caliber of handgun which must be all carefully licensed and require testing for the user would be ok, though."

I would reccomend you taking this up with your democratic or green party canidates cause they have been calling to relax any restrictions since sept 11th. The assualt weapons ban didnt ban assualt weapons it only allowed what every law allows when banning something. A grandfather clause.
Putting on restrictions to certain caliber of handguns? Do you suggest they only allow the caliber that is most likely to kill or maim? Even with the 'assualt weapons ban' the states are exempt of abiding by just as they are exempt of abiding by the patriot act if thier populace votes against it. Which Oregon and many other states have long passed as unconstitutional. That is why you can walk into certain states gun stores or find a private citizen and walk away with a shiny new tool. Instead of just saying no one needs an 'assualt weapon' or a "certain caliber of handgun", please try explaining why no law abiding American that owns all these and more should not have the right to have it?

Guns don't kill people, I do. :sniper:

>=D

I am tired of ppl blaming guns and games for the actions of a few!! You don't see millions of teenagers who played GTA to suddenly go up and commit violence!

I agree with the sentiment I have been hearing so far

There are ALWAYS going to be people that snap and do something dumb … and sometimes they model it after a movie or game they see


But is it the game that caused the violence … or just provided them with something to “Model” … and if their were no games/music … would they model it after something else?

Personally I think people (because of health or environment) are pre disposed to something like that and just because they pick a certain game or character to dress like while doing it doesn’t mean the game was the originating cause.

I should go get art banned by wearing a “scream” tie and shooting up a mall :-P bah so ridiculous

I should go get art banned by wearing a “scream” tie and shooting up a mall :-P bah so ridiculous

Or they might label you the guy who just stole the Scream painting

While I think that video games do not cause violence in anyone, I think perhaps they erode our sensitivities. All that blood and gore, evenually we look at something like that and go "cool". And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. After a certain age.

I think children should not be exposed to violent video games until gradually as they get older, so they can fully appreciate the beauty of leaving a mound of corpses in the middle of the screen.

World War II only happened because Hitler spent too much time playing Command and Conquer. And don't forget the Vikings - they were probably playing populous or something.

----"I think children should not be exposed to violent video games until gradually as they get older, so they can fully appreciate the beauty of leaving a mound of corpses in the middle of the screen."

Iv'e seen many wrecks and mangled bodies through out my lifetime and I still never say, Damn can't wait till I get to do that! Been there done that and it doesn't make you feel any less sensitive, only more compassion. Unless there is an official study to prove otherwise?

----"I think children should not be exposed to violent video games until gradually as they get older, so they can fully appreciate the beauty of leaving a mound of corpses in the middle of the screen."

Iv'e seen many wrecks and mangled bodies through out my lifetime and I still never say, Damn can't wait till I get to do that! Been there done that and it doesn't make you feel any less sensitive, only more compassion. Unless there is an official study to prove otherwise?

That's not what I mean. I mean that you are not as... desensitised to the visual effect of it as you would be had you not had that exposure. You may feel compassion, that is humanity, but you probably don't think "ewwww gross", on the same level you would otherwise.

I agree wholeheartedly that video games are not the cause of violence. What an absurd notion to assume that because one sees violence, one will certainly act violently - as if nothing else plays a part in the affair. I vigorously anti-censorship, though. For movies, music and video games. Guns are a different matter - I don't propose taking away firearms, but certain laws (in the US) need to be changed. No one needs an assault rifle or a grenade launcher hunting rifles only or a certain caliber of handgun which must be all carefully licensed and require testing for the user would be ok, though. But as has been said so far, it's easier to blame someone(thing) else when something goes wrong.

Hoo boy. Everybody seems to miss the point on that nifty second amendment. It's not so people can hunt. It's so they can defend themselves from the corrupt government, when it completely destroys the Constitution.

Zero regulation. That's what it means.

Hoo boy. Everybody seems to miss the point on that nifty second amendment. It's not so people can hunt. It's so they can defend themselves from the corrupt government, when it completely destroys the Constitution.

Zero regulation. That's what it means.

I guess the phrase "well regulated militia" means nothing to you. Regulation is right there in the 2nd Amendment, dumbass.

Also, I think your handgun will work wonders against the tank or fighter jet the government can deploy against you. Yeah.

I guess the phrase "well regulated militia" means nothing to you. Regulation is right there in the 2nd Amendment, dumbass.

Also, I think your handgun will work wonders against the tank or fighter jet the government can deploy against you. Yeah.

Thanks...apreciate the epithet.

And just how is militia defined? According to the founders of the country, all able bodied males were the militia.

Regulated: To put or maintain in order.

That is the regulated of "well regulated militia". Not to put limits, but to make sure they can shoot, and know tactics.

Of course I wouldn't use a pistol against a tank. Geez. To think anyone would is showing who the true dumbass is.

Any war is won on the ground, with infantry. This is what you'd use your own "assault rifle" for. To take down the corrupt government forces that attack you. It's for defense. Period. Any yes, we were meant to maintain with the government, so they wouldn't try to attack their own armed populace.

For the life of me, I can't understand anyone who doesn't get that. "Government is good, we can trust it to make all our choices for us." Time to get the heads out of the orifices, kids.

"I guess the phrase "well regulated militia" means nothing to you. Regulation is right there in the 2nd Amendment, dumbass.
Also, I think your handgun will work wonders against the tank or fighter jet the government can deploy against you. Yeah. "

LMAO! Please dont tell me you are trying to say that regulation inside of the 2nd ammendment means anything about the weapon in place of the training of the malitia? We have already debunked this wishful retarded thinking before with opening up our Federalist papers and Cosntitution. Shall we educate you also?

There are many improvised ways to throw a track off of any tracked vehicle, as you would find out if there was a day that a malitia was needed (dont ever see it happening in this country)

But please continue with what you think well regulated means... I cant wait to hear this once again.... :headbang:

Thanks...apreciate the epithet.

And just how is militia defined? According to the founders of the country, all able bodied males were the militia.

Regulated: To put or maintain in order.

That is the regulated of "well regulated militia". Not to put limits, but to make sure they can shoot, and know tactics.

Of course I wouldn't use a pistol against a tank. Geez. To think anyone would is showing who the true dumbass is.

Any war is won on the ground, with infantry. This is what you'd use your own "assault rifle" for. To take down the corrupt government forces that attack you. It's for defense. Period. Any yes, we were meant to maintain with the government, so they wouldn't try to attack their own armed populace.

For the life of me, I can't understand anyone who doesn't get that. "Government is good, we can trust it to make all our choices for us." Time to get the heads out of the orifices, kids.

By your logic, then, the war in Iraq is unwinnable, since their rifles will beat our humvees, tanks, helicopters, and artillery. I certainly don't trust the government, but the idea of fighting it with small arms fire is laughable.

So, to tackle the other part of your post, you state that there should be no limits, so I assume that missile launchers and grenades should be available to the public? No? How about fully automatic weapons? Assault rifles? Where exactly is the line? Can everyone own guns, even felons? How about the mentally deranged? You did say no limits, after all.

You also state "...make sure they can shoot, and know tactics." How much training would be required before they could own a gun? 15 minutes? A month? Should it be harder or easier than getting a driver's license?

Not so simple, is it?

Finally, I find it funny that many gun advocates who "don't trust the government" seem to blindly accept what this current administration tells them, even though it's clearly the most secretive and aggressive administration since at least Nixon.

I think it's stupid to blame video games and other media for violence and otehr things wrong with society.

I for one watch very messed up anime, and I do not go around doing what I see it in. I've played some damn violent games and I do not feel the urge to kill anyone. As a kid I played guns and robbers -- yeah, using my finger as a gun! And I have yet to kill anyone... I fail to see the connection between violence and video games; violence and any form of media.

By your logic, then, the war in Iraq is unwinnable, since their rifles will beat our humvees, tanks, helicopters, and artillery. I certainly don't trust the government, but the idea of fighting it with small arms fire is laughable.

So, to tackle the other part of your post, you state that there should be no limits, so I assume that missile launchers and grenades should be available to the public? No? How about fully automatic weapons? Assault rifles? Where exactly is the line? Can everyone own guns, even felons? How about the mentally deranged? You did say no limits, after all.

You also state "...make sure they can shoot, and know tactics." How much training would be required before they could own a gun? 15 minutes? A month? Should it be harder or easier than getting a driver's license?

Not so simple, is it?

Finally, I find it funny that many gun advocates who "don't trust the government" seem to blindly accept what this current administration tells them, even though it's clearly the most secretive and aggressive administration since at least Nixon.


Where to start....okay, Iraq.
We're not even supposed to be in that hell-hole in the first place. They didn't attack us. But yes, it is possible to take out an invading force by just outlasting them. Look at Vietnam. They had technologically inferior weaponry, supplies, etc. Yet we still had to pull out, rather than "win".

The United States isn't supposed to even have a standing army. That's another reason why we needed the militia, and every citizen to be armed.

I did say no limits. Don't even get me started on the felons or mentally deranged issue. I find a bullet helps with a great many of those. But with today's court system, and too many people that should never see the light of day again getting out of prision, we have way too many of those who should not be out, out. And committing repeat crimes.

I never said training was necessary. But it is handy. Being necessary for a well regulated militia...etc. Training sure helps, but the second amendement only covers how the government isn't supposed to restrict the right to bear arms.

I most certainly don't trust the current "regime", nor any other that is so large. The government is there for the government only, and it will try to maintain itself. The original purpose of the government was to protect us, not itself.

Firearms regulation has been proven to never work. It's always used to repress populations, and nothing more. Even our own Health and Human Services department released a study showing that gun control doesn't do anything.

Guns dont kill people, rappers do

greatest song and video ever, it annoys my friends though they're like "ooh 50cent"

----"So, to tackle the other part of your post, you state that there should be no limits, so I assume that missile launchers and grenades should be available to the public? No? How about fully automatic weapons? Assault rifles? Where exactly is the line? Can everyone own guns, even felons? How about the mentally deranged? You did say no limits, after all.
You also state "...make sure they can shoot, and know tactics." How much training would be required before they could own a gun? 15 minutes? A month? Should it be harder or easier than getting a driver's license?"

I agree that there shall be limits on retards of the mentally deranged kind and of the felon type shall not have firearms. However the rest of your story is and always has been left up to the states on the matter of assault weapons and how much training they need to have, some say none at all some say a 4 hour course (same for concealed carry). The deal with gernade launcher (anyone could make a flash suppressor that emits enough force) and fully automatic weapons has always been left up to the individual, if they want to get a class III firearms license and use that permit as a collective means for law enforcement and military sales or for thier own reasons (as long as it stays legal) then it is and has always been legal. I find it hard to believe that people are still pressing to limit what a civil law abiding citizen of a country can do since thier are no laws ever on the books that actually limit them. How do you wint this fight when only a few of our Big city states would want such a complete ban?

Firearms regulation has been proven to never work. It's always used to repress populations, and nothing more. Even our own Health and Human Services department released a study showing that gun control doesn't do anything.

The lower incidence of deaths by firearms and of violent crime in many European countries, most of which heavily restrict gun ownership, suggests that firearms regulation does in fact do something more than "repress populations."

That is, unless you consider discouraging crime "repressive."
:rolleyes:

Although I will grant that the huge number of small arms in the US makes any attempt at regulation unlikely to do much. When anyone can get there hands on a weapon anyway, legislation won't do a thing.

It's true that people kill people. Guns on their own don't kill people..thats all obvious..

The problem is an unarmed man might get the chance to go on a killing spree and kill 1 maybe 2 people before the public put a jump on him and subdue him, so he can't kill anymore.. You try that with an automatic weapon in the hands of the same l00ney, and he could kill hundreds.
I just don't see the argument for making guns legal to the general public. Sure, anyone can kill if they really want to, be it ploughing through a bunch of pededstrains with a car or shooting a bunch of people with a tek-9, but lets face it guns are designed for one purpose and that is to kill.
If the US constitution stippulates that a gun, (or arms), ownership is there to enpower the populus against a tyrannical out of hand government, then I'd like to see the newspaper headlines when a band of militia take up arms to defend themselves against a perceived govenmental threat, or attempt a coup d’état.
Headlines: "New evil home grown terrorist threat, seeks to destroy democracy"

Was Timothy Mcvae constitutionally justified, given his reasons?

If there was much more convincing evidence that the last US election was rigged, I would expect all you patriotic American's to grab your guns and march on the Whitehouse in defense of your country!

Where to start....okay, Iraq.
We're not even supposed to be in that hell-hole in the first place. They didn't attack us. But yes, it is possible to take out an invading force by just outlasting them. Look at Vietnam. They had technologically inferior weaponry, supplies, etc. Yet we still had to pull out, rather than "win".

The United States isn't supposed to even have a standing army. That's another reason why we needed the militia, and every citizen to be armed.

I did say no limits. Don't even get me started on the felons or mentally deranged issue. I find a bullet helps with a great many of those. But with today's court system, and too many people that should never see the light of day again getting out of prision, we have way too many of those who should not be out, out. And committing repeat crimes.

I never said training was necessary. But it is handy. Being necessary for a well regulated militia...etc. Training sure helps, but the second amendement only covers how the government isn't supposed to restrict the right to bear arms.

I most certainly don't trust the current "regime", nor any other that is so large. The government is there for the government only, and it will try to maintain itself. The original purpose of the government was to protect us, not itself.

Firearms regulation has been proven to never work. It's always used to repress populations, and nothing more. Even our own Health and Human Services department released a study showing that gun control doesn't do anything.

I agree with your first paragraph 100%. As for the 2nd paragraph, I find it curious how you expect private citizens to be able to afford fighter jets and tanks. Those would certainly be necessary if we were ever attacked by a foreign force that did indeed have a standing military.

Shoot the mentally ill? Wow. There was a country that used that very technique. 1930-40's Germany. Also you suggest we can shoot any felons we want. Sounds like a more dangerous way for government to impose tyranny on us than any gun regulations do.

The 2nd amendment very specifically states "a well regulated militia." If you parse that sentence, you see that it goes beyond "regulated" by saying "well regulated" which can only mean "regualted beyond normal levels." So, would these militias be organized on a State level? A county level? Who gets to decide who is in charge? Are you suggesting a militia run by rule of anarchy?

No training is necessary? So you're saying that the responsibility attached to owning a gun is less than operating a vehicle or adding an addition on to your house? Also, you still didn't answer as to what level of firepower would be admissable. Would everyone be able to own shoulder mounted grenade launchers? Hmmm, sounds like it would be hard to fight terrorism under those conditions.

As for you last paragraph, I would ask for your sources on that info. It seems to me that the countries with the tightes gun control laws (Japan, for example) have the lowest incidence of violent crime. Or are you suggesting we be like Switzerland, where everyone must spend time in the military?

Tell me how all this would be organized, under your ideal?

The lower incidence of deaths by firearms and of violent crime in many European countries, most of which heavily restrict gun ownership, suggests that firearms regulation does in fact do something more than "repress populations."

That is, unless you consider discouraging crime "repressive."
:rolleyes:

Although I will grant that the huge number of small arms in the US makes any attempt at regulation unlikely to do much. When anyone can get there hands on a weapon anyway, legislation won't do a thing.

Sure, death by firearms has gone down, but violent crime hasn't. Just look at the UK. It's gone up.

I agree with your first paragraph 100%. As for the 2nd paragraph, I find it curious how you expect private citizens to be able to afford fighter jets and tanks. Those would certainly be necessary if we were ever attacked by a foreign force that did indeed have a standing military.

Shoot the mentally ill? Wow. There was a country that used that very technique. 1930-40's Germany. Also you suggest we can shoot any felons we want. Sounds like a more dangerous way for government to impose tyranny on us than any gun regulations do.

The 2nd amendment very specifically states "a well regulated militia." If you parse that sentence, you see that it goes beyond "regulated" by saying "well regulated" which can only mean "regualted beyond normal levels." So, would these militias be organized on a State level? A county level? Who gets to decide who is in charge? Are you suggesting a militia run by rule of anarchy?

No training is necessary? So you're saying that the responsibility attached to owning a gun is less than operating a vehicle or adding an addition on to your house? Also, you still didn't answer as to what level of firepower would be admissable. Would everyone be able to own shoulder mounted grenade launchers? Hmmm, sounds like it would be hard to fight terrorism under those conditions.

As for you last paragraph, I would ask for your sources on that info. It seems to me that the countries with the tightes gun control laws (Japan, for example) have the lowest incidence of violent crime. Or are you suggesting we be like Switzerland, where everyone must spend time in the military?

Tell me how all this would be organized, under your ideal?

Militias were run on a community level. What level now? I don't know--it will never be visited, as we have a standing army. But yes, well regulated. It means get some freakin' practice in. Not, you can only use a bolt-action rifle.

I learned how to shoot from my father and my uncles. Funny how I haven't had a negligent discharge of any gun I've ever been responsible for. I'm not in for the socialist programs of mandatory anything. That includes firearms licensing. If you hold people personally responsible for their actions, you don't need all the regulation and law. If they hurt someone, they get hurt in return.

Japan controls a great deal of it's citizen's lives. It's not a free country.

Switzerland--I like the idea of everyone owning a gun. Military service, on the other hand, must be voluntary.

Yes, rocket launchers. It's to defend the populace against inside military incursion.

You want the source of the study regarding how gun control doesn't do a damn thing? Fine, I'll do your legwork for ya: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/10/2/155632.shtml

If you have to have much more in-depth studies done, that means you're REALLY diggin.

Sure, death by firearms has gone down, but violent crime hasn't. Just look at the UK. It's gone up.

The UK's rates of Assaults, Murders, Murders with firearms, and Rapes, per capita, are still lower than those of the USA.

Fraud, on the other hand...

The UK's rates of Assaults, Murders, Murders with firearms, and Rapes, per capita, are still lower than those of the USA.

Fraud, on the other hand...

And? That doesn't mean gun control has any effect on our differences. However, it has been shown that in states/countries that have gone for more or less control are affected. How has the violent crime rate been since the ban in the UK? It's gone up. How has the violent crime rate been in Florida, since they initiated concealed carry? It's gone down. Less firearms restrictions, less violent crime.

And? That doesn't mean gun control has any effect on our differences. However, it has been shown that in states/countries that have gone for more or less control are affected. How has the violent crime rate been since the ban in the UK? It's gone up. How has the violent crime rate been in Florida, since they initiated concealed carry? It's gone down. Less firearms restrictions, less violent crime.

I can't imagine the ban made a great deal of difference in the UK, as hardly anyone had guns anyway, except possibly farmers.

----"The problem is an unarmed man might get the chance to go on a killing spree and kill 1 maybe 2 people before the public put a jump on him and subdue him, so he can't kill anymore.. You try that with an automatic weapon in the hands of the same l00ney, and he could kill hundreds."

And a armed public would of subdued the fully automatic gunmen with many more minimal deaths, so?


----"If there was much more convincing evidence that the last US election was rigged, I would expect all you patriotic American's to grab your guns and march on the Whitehouse in defense of your country!"

If there was any evidence at all im sure you would of had many Americans grabbing thier guns and using them against the so called illegality's. so?

Guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do.
-Family Guy

"People talkin' about gun control: "Gotta control the guns"... Fuck that, I like guns! If you have a gun, you don't have to work out. You got pects? Yeah, well I got techs! We don't need no gun control. What we need is some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost $5000. 'Cause if a bullet cost $5000, people's have to think about it before they shot somebody! People'd be like "Man, he must have done something. They put Fifty thousand worth of bullets in him!" If a bullet cost $5000, there wouldn't be no more innocent bystanders. And even if there were, you wouldn't have to go to a hospital to get the bullet taken out, because the guy who shot you would take it out for you. "I believe you got my property!" "

"Man I will blow your fuckin head off!.... If I could afford it. I'm gonna get me another job, make some money... in six months you a dead man! You better hope I can't get no bullets on layaway!"

"What were the kids listening to? What was Hitler listening to?!"

"Whatever happened to crazy? People can't be CRAZY no more? Fuck the records, fuck the music, CRAA-ZY!."
-Chris Rock: Bigger and Blacker.

----"The problem is an unarmed man might get the chance to go on a killing spree and kill 1 maybe 2 people before the public put a jump on him and subdue him, so he can't kill anymore.. You try that with an automatic weapon in the hands of the same l00ney, and he could kill hundreds."

And a armed public would of subdued the fully automatic gunmen with many more minimal deaths, so?


----"If there was much more convincing evidence that the last US election was rigged, I would expect all you patriotic American's to grab your guns and march on the Whitehouse in defense of your country!"

If there was any evidence at all im sure you would of had many Americans grabbing thier guns and using them against the so called illegality's. so?


Or in a really crowded area everyone pulls out there guns at once & start shooting and hundruds get killed, the same as if the gun man had fired a whole clip

I think its good that people become immune to gore and violence. If your get a horrible wound you don't want everyone to look away and scream like a little girl.

-----"Or in a really crowded area everyone pulls out there guns at once & start shooting and hundruds get killed, the same as if the gun man had fired a whole clip"

As it stands now in the US most gun owners know about minimizing casualties in a back drop. Most law abiding citizens are law abiding citizens because they think before they act. Besides when was the last time you heard of a law abiding firearm owner using thier gun in self defense and it striking a innocent bystander in the process? The only person or persons that have to fear a law abiding gun owner is a criminal.

I can't imagine the ban made a great deal of difference in the UK, as hardly anyone had guns anyway, except possibly farmers.

There was a documentry once, an american serial killer out on a misdemanor came to the UK and managed to get license to own and trade in firearms.

I agree with your first paragraph 100%. As for the 2nd paragraph, I find it curious how you expect private citizens to be able to afford fighter jets and tanks. Those would certainly be necessary if we were ever attacked by a foreign force that did indeed have a standing military. Shoot the mentally ill? Wow. There was a country that used that very technique. 1930-40's Germany. Also you suggest we can shoot any felons we want. Sounds like a more dangerous way for government to impose tyranny on us than any gun regulations do. The 2nd amendment very specifically states "a well regulated militia." If you parse that sentence, you see that it goes beyond "regulated" by saying "well regulated" which can only mean "regualted beyond normal levels." So, would these militias be organized on a State level? A county level? Who gets to decide who is in charge? Are you suggesting a militia run by rule of anarchy? No training is necessary? So you're saying that the responsibility attached to owning a gun is less than operating a vehicle or adding an addition on to your house? Also, you still didn't answer as to what level of firepower would be admissable. Would everyone be able to own shoulder mounted grenade launchers? Hmmm, sounds like it would be hard to fight terrorism under those conditions.

Currently American's can buy any d.r.m.o. piece of military equipment including tanks, apache and cobra gunships and fighter jets and more... I only can afford a piece of crap hummer (believe me when I say that, they are crap). Now you do have to be quite rich to be such a collector. Also of course they have been stripped of operable equipment in the means of weaponry and some of the assistance features. Look on ebay and other auction sites and you may be suprised at what you can buy.

They are states malitia's because back in the day your state was actually your country in everyway as it is now also with the exception of waging war upon another state. Your governor. They would just need to be proficient with the understanding and of operating thier weapon effectively.
I have long believed that anyone that is going to own a weapon of any sort should know how to use it, for thier sake and the rest of us. I believe the only people that should have access to the heavier side of weaponry again are the people that are profiecient in its uses and legal to own them (that means law abiding)

Placing the blame on a large number of registered voters is generally a bad idea in politics.