Okay, first things first, the American people are entirely to comfortable to revolt. Even if we did the media would marginalize the first patriots terrorists and we would cheer as their brains were splattered all over the street.

An armed resistance against a tyrannical domestic government is the kind of thing Terry Nichols jerks it to and has no basis in reality.

Is there an actual reason for this man to be able to acquire some of things he had on his person? No, there really is not. The weapons he had were for killing lots of people, very quickly. You can't defend ownership of this weapon. Actually you can, but the only argument you have is, it's my right. Which really isn't an argument at all.

Guns should be legal, but lets not be blind to the fact that there are some types of firearms and specs civilians should not be able to own because there only purpose is to inflict death.