Why? So the government could be overthrown if needed? Then how did people in communist countries manage to do exactly that without guns?

So, if I'm not allowed to drive as fast on freeways as I wish, it means that the government is "oppressing" me? Oh no, maybe we should call Amnesty International?

Um, if you actually knew how to read, nowhere did I make any claims about wanting to ban guns. I just claimed that the argument about needing guns for self-protection is iffy at best, and the argument that you need guns to oppose the government is utter BS.

So, you are saying that Finland is as nice place as it is because our government is scared shitless of all those gun-owning citizens? Rrrrrrright.....

Well, one difference is that we don't go around claiming that we needs guns to "protect ourselves" or in order to "oppose the government" like you seem to do. We do not have citizens marching around with loaded guns so that they could blast away wrongdoers.

So, what about Robert Kennedy? Salvador Allende? JFK? James Garfield? William McKinley? Gandhi? All tyrants that deserved to die?

Sure, there were casualties. But fact remains that the revolutionaries did not have guns, and they succeeded.

Hell, the overthrowing of Communist regime in the Baltic States is called "The Singing Revolution" for a reason.

Surely you have other parties besides those two? If the populace is so apathetic that they are not bothered to vote, or they vote for the same scumbags over and over again because "we have no alternative" (even though you do), then you deserve a crappy government.

Well, to be precise: The Weimar Government (that preceded Nazis) banned gun-ownership because it was afraid of armed revolution from the Nazis or any other extremeist groups that operated in the country at that time. And guess what: their efforts succeeded. There was no revolution, the oppressive regime came to power through legimate democratic process.

And to provide counterpoint: Communist governments in the central and eastern Europe were overthrown by unarmed populace.

And what if they were armed? When USSR occupied and annexed Estonia and other Baltic States, there was armed rebellion against them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Brothers) and it didn't really achieve anything.

And let me repeat: I'm not saying that guns should be banned.

What about democratically elected political leaders that were assasinated by crazed people? Was JFK a "tyrant"?

Oh yes you do. Or are you claiming that you have no police at all? Are you claiming that you do not expect the military to protect USA from external threats?

I made no claims about relation of crime with gun-ownership, apart from the comment about personal space being violated.

I'm comfortable because I have no need to carry guns. For some reason I'm not surround by crime, and for some reasons criminals are not breaking down my door.

Like I said: is situation in USA really so bad that you need armed populace just so they can protect themselves from hordes of criminals?

Well, we could always ask the people of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, East-Germany, Russia, Poland, Romania....

You are quite mistaken. I assume no such thing.

IIRC, I made no calls towards banning guns. What I did is to dispute the claim that you need guns in order to "oppose the government" or in order to "protect yourself".

Well, to be precise, maybe you do need guns to protect yourself in USA. But if that is the case, then I can't but think that things are really bad in USA. I know for sure that I do not need a gun to protect myself over here.

I made no claims on that issue. I did say that maybe prevalence of guns is one reason people's personal space is being violated so much. And it might be. Over here guns are used very rarely by criminals, and my personal space is not violated.

I'm not the one making that claim. We were told that we need guns to "oppose the government" and "protect ourselves". And that if we don't have guns, we are "sheeple" and we are "submitting to the government".

And like I said, it seems to me that the gun-owners are "submitting to the government" just like those who do not own guns are.

So let me re-iterate: Nowhere was I calling for banning guns. I was merely disputing the claims that guns are needed for protection and opposition to the government. The former does not apply if crime is not a problem, and the latter is utter BS.

Exactly. I grew up in a household with guns. I was introduced to guns at an early age. And although I don't own any guns, I do enjoy shooting skeet and trap whenever possible. And I have been thinking about getting a small-caliber handgun to do target-practice. But not for a second do I think that I need guns to "protect myself" either from criminals or from the government.

And if the shit really it the fan, me and my gun would be next to useless when facing tanks, gunships and artillery. And if we really did got an oppressive regime, it would mean that me and my fellow citizens had already failed. If you need guns to oppose your government, you have already failed. People usually get the government they deserve. If you don't want oppressive regime, make sure to vote, and stay educated about politics.

And as history shows, we have had lots and lots of revolutions by unarmed populace.

Sure. And the reasons OP presented were protection from violence and resistance to the government.

So you need armed populace in order to have functional government? Um, OK.

Sure. But that doesn't mean that I feel the need to carry guns with me. I have never ever faced a situation where I would have needed a gun. Hell, I have never been in a situation where I have to defend my person or my property through use of force. Does that mean that I'm "missing out" on something?

And, FWIW, I have never faced any "oppression" from the government. And I don't see those gun-owners in USA facing it either, nor do I really see them offering any armed resistance to any perceived "oppression" they face. Unless their form of resistance includes "suicide by cop".

Thanks. And it seems that over here in Finland I can live nice, comfortable life without having the need to carry guns. And while our politicians are nothing to write home about, I face no "oppression" from them.

So, is USA such a shithole that you need guns to protect yourself from your neighbours and from the government? Because if I believed the gun-owners, that is the reality over there. And five seconds later they have said that, they start telling what a great place USA is. Huh?

So, owning guns is about "not being submissive to the government"? So, do gun-owners in USA refuse to pay taxes, break the law and otherwise disregard laws and regulations that are mandated and enforced by the government? Or do you follow them just like everyone else does? So, how exactly are those "Euro-hippies" and what have you "submissive" to their governments, while those American gun-owners are not?

How does gun-ownership turn person from a "sheeple" in to "non-sheeple"?

So, the argument is that in case of oppressive government, you can use your shotguns and what have you in defending freedom?

If I slap you in the face, do you have to right to shoot my head off?

Could you explain how people who do not own guns are being "controlled by the government", while gun-owners are not? How about some tangible examples?

Maybe widespread availability of guns is one reason why your personal space is so threatened?

And what if the ones without guns are the ones being reasonable, while the ones with guns are being unreasonable? Couldn't those guns be used to prop up an oppressive regime, just as well they might be used to bring one down? How many US presidents or other high-ranking politicians have been assassinated, or faced an assassination-attempt?

Strange, I have never had the need for anything of the sort. But I'm just an Euro-hippie, so what do I know. It must be like living in the jungle in USA?

I lived in rural areas as well, and I never felt threatened by anyone. Yet I'm the one who is to be pitied, where you are the bastion of freedom to be envied? Even though you need to arm yourself to the teeth in order to be (or feel) safe?

Just how much money does USA need for defence? USA is spending more than the rest of the world combined. How much is enough? You could cut the defence-budget in half, and you would still be far and away the most powerful country militarily.

Define "benefit". You benefit when that poor unemployed dude down the street can live off from social security, as opposed to resorting to stealing your and your neighbours property.

Wikipedia gives both sides more or less equal casualties.

Finns fought a war against Stalin, a dictator every bit as bad as Hitler was. After that war, Russians continued their bullying and threats (including shooting down a Finnish passenger-liner). Seeking help from the west was not an option, since Germany occupied Norway. Defence-pact with Sweden was blocked by the Russians. What the hell were se supposed to do? Seriously? And when it became clear that war between Germany and USSR was imminent, wasn't it logical to try to take advantage of that, and reclaim the lost territory?

And Finns were hardly that willing allies. We never handed any jews to the Nazis (in fact, jews served in the Finnish Army), and we refused to take part in the invasion against Leningrad (which basically saved Leningrad, since Leningrads defences on the Finnish Front were nonexistant) and we didn't try to cut the Murmansk railroad.

Instead of singling out Germany, how about resistance to tyranny in general? USSR was just as much a tyranny as Germany was. Or does opposition to Stalin not matter at all, only opposition to Nazis matters?

Nazis didn't try to invade Finland, so we didn't have a war with them. In 1944 Nazis did start hostilities against Finland, and we fought then fair and square, eventually driving them out of the country.

France suffered more casualties that Germany (or UK) did and most of the fihting too place in French soil

And what did UK do during that time?