I got into a debate with a friend who (I think) objects to the individual right to possess firearms. Here is some of our "Q&A":

"Do you think everyday American citizens should be allowed to own
"Glock 19s?"

I am not familiar with that weapon, but if the question is, should a law-abiding American citizen without a criminal record be allowed to posses a weapon, my answer is - yes, absolutely.

"155 mm howitzers? cruise missiles with 500kg warheads? nuclear tipped ICBMs?"

This is a ridiculous line of questioning; it tries to invalidate possession of arms by parodying the whole concept. First, the fact is that people who are not criminals, who have no record of violence - in particular, CWP holders, could probably be trusted with any type of weapon.

They don't commit mayhem with their semi-auto pistols and rifles (or even full-auto in the case of those with the necessary permits).... a fact not open to debate.... so why would they use a Howitzer - or any other weapon for ill? It does not follow - and it's a silly, cheap rhetoric device to suggest otherwise. Weapons (or possession of weapons) don't make people homicidal. Liberal gun controllers don't get this basic concept. And they are naive enough to believe that criminals obey the law. So they try to limit the availability of guns,which only disarms the people who represent no threat to anyone.

"Regarding weaponry, what specific rights you think the second amendment gives your well regulated militia? "

The phrase, "well-regulated militia" is commonly misinterpreted today. Obviously - the writers of the Bill meant to protect an individual right (just like every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights). The "milita" in colonial times meant every adult male citizen; it did not mean you could only possess arms as a member of an official armed body/organization (as we understand the term, "militia" today). Disagree? Then please explain how it could be that in colonial times, and for decades thereafter, possession of guns by ordinary citizens was a "given" - openly done and never challenged in any way until modern times (1930s).

Accordingly, the Second Amendment protects the right (note, not privilege) of every citizen to own (and "bear") handguns and rifles, in their homes and on their persons, for personal protection, hunting, etc.

The real problem, my friend is not guns - it is people who misuse them. We used to severely punish violent crime - and thus, gun-related crime was very low. Then we got liberal towards violent scumbags. Instead of quickly executing murderers and locking up rapists and those who committed other violent assaults for the rest of their natural lives, we began to parole/early release them.

You want to reduce gun crime? Quit worrying about trying to disarm decent, law-abiding people. Focus instead on enacting severe criminal penalties for anyone who uses a gun (or threatens its use) in a criminal manner. Commit a robbery with a firearm? Threaten someone with a gun? 25 years in prison. No parole. No exceptions. Murder? Rape? Execution. Or life in prison with no chance of parole. Ever.

Do this, and the "gun problem" disappears.