You certainly are right when you say few can discuss it dispassionately. And you clearly understand that there is a lot of ground between being completely disarmed/totally dependent on the government for protection and the "wild west" where people are killed for looking at someone the wrong way.

For me, its about checks and balances on power. One is hard-pressed to find a politician in this country who won't say that we should have the strongest military on the planet so that we can protect ourselves. Ask the same politicians about our second amendment rights and, if you can get them to talk at all, you get comments like 'why do people need such powerful and destructive weapons?'

So the government is saying it wants all the power it can get while telling individuals the same philosophy doesn't make sense and is destructive. And I have a problem with hypocrisy, or just assuming that the government will always look out for my best interests in every case.

To me, that's what its really about, whether your talking about weapons... or healthcare... or tax dollars... or "protecting" me from terrorists on an aircraft. Do you want to have absolute faith that "big brother" will protect you, or should you have some control over your own life? The answer is not as obvious as it appears, a large number of folks believe that bureacrats in Washington are more worthy of trust than their own neighbors. That's why it is so emotionally charged, that very idea is offensive to me.