Wow so many places to go with this thread, I probably should have logged on before it got to three pages.
As to the initial survey, I was torn between #1 and #2 but only because of the way #2 was worded. There are current laws that I do not agree with, that could use some reform, but I knew that was not really where the questions were going.
As for Michael Moore, I will observe the same forum rules and say no more, other than to mention spoon control would probably save his life.
The well regulated militia at the time the constitution was written was made up of the people. They most certainly did bring their own guns, although there were some stores of guns that the colonists started keeping after the British seized arms and gunpowder in an effort to control the citizens. As a matter of fact the march on Lexington and Concord was for the specific purpose of seizing those privately owned guns. The citizens at that time that did not own guns were the ones who were right enough to buy food from those that had guns. However the 2nd amendment has that all important coma in it so that it does not say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. My states constitution does not mention militias but it does protect the right to keep and bear arms. However it should also be remembered that the founding fathers did not see the constitution as granting rights, they saw it is protecting rights that were granted us by our creator.
Someone mentioned that gun control statistically makes for safer communities, well that simply is not true. If it were would Chicago and Washington DC be locked in battle for Murder capital of the country?
Europe has very little gun crime, but quite allot of violent crime. People who want to hurt other people do not care what laws are in place to keep them from doing so. My city recently had an armed robbery occur outside our shopping mall on a crowded street, in the middle of the day. The 16 year old victim was shot in the leg by the 17 year old criminal. Our state requires you to be 21 and have a permit to carry a handgun like he used. Guess what the criminal did not follow the law.
I live in a fairly big city for my state, we have the largest police department in our immediate area, we still often do not have enough officers to respond to calls. Trust me the dispatchers are not just making up rules as they go along, as a matter fact very little of the prioritization is done by the dispatchers. These rules are set by high ranking police officers. I have been a dispatcher for 24 years and it is usually not up to me to delay a call, unless there are two calls of similar priority in the same area of town at the exact same time. Then I have to figure out which one gets the close units. Even when the decision is mine, it is based on training and experience and ongoing call volume and a number of other factors and is still subject to being overruled by police sergeants both in my dispatch center and out on the road. There are days when no call waits and there are days when every call waits, although most days fall in between. Chicago Police just announced they are no longer responding to calls that are not both IN PROGRESS and HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL LIFE THREAT. Good thing they have gun control there so they don't need so many police.
Now lets look at this in a Star Trek perspective. The subject is rarely if ever brought up but we do have phasers (and disruptors) so we know that while the federation is supposedly a better place to live in, they have continued to pursue weapons technology. They have even continued to make weapons small enough to fit in the average hand. While I don't know about any episodes that mentioned specific phaser laws, we did see numerous engineers and scientists carry them in the course of their duties, even the pacifist Spock often carried one. We did see a bit of an arms race in the episode "A Private Little War" where Kirk armed the populace to fight off the oppressive Klingon government.