You are correct–the statements about rights being more difficult to regain requires support/clarification. An important part of this argument lies in the inseparable nature of rights and responsibility; as you have not disputed this point, I will assume you agree. An analogy that immediately comes to mind is that of an employee’s relationship with their supervisor. There is a basic distinction that can be made of most all supervisors–namely, if they “micromanage”. By constantly issuing nitpick orders and looking over shoulders, the micromanager is directly assuming responsibility for their employees’ job functions, rather than letting the employees take on a measure of this responsibility themselves. A non-micro type of manager taking over these employees would likely be dissatisfied with many of them. It’s difficult, at best, to return this sense of individual responsibility. Maybe some of this behaviour could be attributed to laziness; after all, having big brother looking over your shoulder and taking on all responsibility makes life simpler and easier in many ways. However, it seems to me to be more than that. Another example–the speed limits on Montana highways, as in 4 or 5 other states I believe, were not posted with a set limit until the 55 mph federal conservation limit was imposed. When the federal limit was lifted, Montana speed limits reverted to “reasonable and prudent”. Prior to set limits, this had not been a problem. After, however, a small minority of people insisted that 110+ mph was reasonable for them, and they should not have been ticketed. Eventually the r&p limit was declared unenforceable by the courts, and set limits were imposed. While these examples deal with rights or responsibility indirectly, they illustrate how limitations, once set, seem to lessen the ability of individuals to set reasonable limits themselves, and require governmental limits to be enforced in perpetuity. These are simplifications, but I believe the basic tenets can be applied to individual rights. I don’t see complications of any comparable sort in the regaining of rights in the public interest. Also, it seems that our legislative processes are far more conducive to the restriction of individual rights than the restoration thereof.

Next–I might concede, in certain circumstances, that the primary purpose of some HAND-guns is homocide, or the threat of such. However, I fail to see how this is relevant if we agree that some means is necessary to provide for the physical inequities among individuals.

I was not advocating that the only way to keep authorities in line is to own guns ourselves. I will stipulate that it does provide an effective deterrent from the abuse of power, however. This was not handed down on a stone tablet from God, but from the framers of the Constitution, who seemed to think it necessary for the preservation of state and individual rights. But, I abhor ‘founder/framer’ arguments for the same reasons you expound above. I could add the adage of ‘power corrupts’, but instead we can look to history and human nature. By allowing only those in power, or positions of authority, access to the means of enforcing their will–then yes, I do believe we open ourselves up to all kinds of corruption and abuses of power.

Also, by calling the infallibility of government enforcement into question, I was not just referring to authorities ‘getting out of hand’, but to their inability to protect every one all the time, and the right of the individual to protect him- or herself. I think I have established, per my earlier post, the necessity of a tool to make up for physical inequalities in the enforcement of society’s laws. As the western movie cliche goes–God may have created man, but Sam Colt made them all equal.

Finally, I see no problem using the spectre of genocide to combat ethical relativism and apathy. If you prefer, substitute the Bosnia conflict for Hitler/Nazism.