I have thought about this and the whole right to bear arms that seems to be rampant in those circles (I live in a more rural community and work in Ag Automation

I have thought about this and the whole right to bear arms that seems to be rampant in those circles (I live in a more rural community and work in Ag Automation). On a careful reading of the lengthy 2nd amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."), I realized that ownership or property is not actually enumerated here. But when I visit with my peers, what is emphasized is gun ownership. "My" guns, is the important piece that is shared with me. The ability to exchange wealth/property for a mechanism that can assert violence helps gun owners file safe, strong, secure, even if it comes at some risk to self. The gamble seems to be that they're more willing to pay this price for this comfort. So the thought experiment I walk them through goes something like this: "You know, you're right! Guns are good! This 2nd amendment thing is awesome. Power to the people, ya know? I think everyone should have a gun" (and this is where the expression starts to shift from glee to suspicion) "I support funding that provides everyone with guns. Everyone gets a machine gun. And a days worth of ammo. The Canadians will definitely think twice before invading then." At this point, there's a look of horror on their face as they begin to ponder a world where the threat of violence is equalized throughout the entire country. There's a weak laugh as the satire I'm pushing dons on them. Suggest that everyone own a current and power weapon, and you'll see the suggested legislations to limit who participates start flying. Sometimes More is Less