Criminals & crazies will always find guns or other means of killing people individually or en mass for any reason or no reason. It's only the honest gun-owning individual who gets put in danger when the state attempts to disarm the people.

For every criminal or crazy that gets shot & killed by a legal gun-owner (hand gun or otherwise) while attacking an innocent person/people, that's one less criminal/crazy on our streets.

If anything, it might be news that it's a shame that no one was able to take out the nutcase.

You go after people that commit crimes, regardless of what kind of tool they may or may not have used.

You don't, instead, take guns away from people to keep them safe!

How about you read the bottom of my post and you'll see that I've already stated that. Trust me, I know the amendments and the history of the United States. Heck, I even used to have a pocket book that has all the amendments that I used to carry around when I went to school.

"Criminals will always find a way to get handguns just like how they always find drugs."

The reason they can is because they are already all over the place. You cant find a way to get them if they're not there to begin with. Had the second amendment been written more thoughtfully or not at all then we wouldn't have that problem would we? I also don't think that drugs is a good comparison. Drugs can be made in your kitchen with simple chemicals or grown in your house. Anyone can do it with some research if they really wanted too, but I doubt you could go and make a decent gun that fires like ones you would buy. Then you have to find out how to make the ammo too.

These two statements (upon which you build further arguments) are highly debatable, and I disagree strongly with both!

"while less guns would overall be good..."

"I learned the other day that America was founded as an Atheist country, in that no religion was to have influence in politics."

Americans have the 2nd amendment, and that's not going to change. We have, and we will, defend our right to keep and bear arms.

Your point about the size difference in countries, meaning that the U.S would have more trouble keeping illegal weapons out the country, might be a realpolitik argument, but we are talking here about the constitution - ie what laws do we want to run a country by. It's an interesting debate because while less guns would overall be good, the starting point now is that so many people already have them and are passionate about why they have them. Talking about the constitution I learned the other day that America was founded as an Atheist country, in that no religion was to have influence in politics. A shame it's now the opposite.

106 - I think it could be easy to have guns kept in gun clubs, shooting ranges, special parkland etc, and not taken home after. Also the rubber bullet idea said by someone before is a good one. Why have such, as I said, definitive weapons freely available?

I have heard rumors that you also have a real knife problem there too.

So if you can't control illegal weapons on an island the size of Michigan, how are you going to do in in America?

Take guns away and you'll get rid of a lot of needless death and perhaps some criminality too. I live in England where guns are becoming more frequent, and it's really worrying. Such a definitive weapon is not a good thing, however you laughably dress it up with democracy.

If your government is corrupt - here's an idea - stop voting for them.

I'd also like to point out something that the anti-gun crowd does not like people to know. The VAST MAJORITY of the times when a firearm is used to defend life or property, NO ONE IS SHOT. Read that again please. Then consider the statistics which say it is (supposedly) 20 times more likely (or whatever fabricated number) that a gun in your house will be used against you than you will use it to defend yourself. The problem is, in those studies the only time a defensive use of a gun counted was when there was a DEAD bad-guy, and then only if the police did not initially arrest the shooter.

IN MY OWN CASE, I would not be alive to type this comment if I hadn't owned a $59 training rifle barely powerful enough to huntbit with. I was attacked by a person who professed their strongest desire to murder me with a sledgehammer, and who did not in the least that this would mean life in prison for them. They suddenly had a change of heart when I managed to reach my lowly little .22, and they quickly put down their weapon. Of course, to the Brady Coalition that was not an act of self defense with a gun. I did not shoot my attacker. I didn't even have to point the gun at them. Where are the statistics on that? Need I mention that not only did I get a second chance on life, but my attacker got a chance to get over their own demons too? Lets also not forget the couple of million dollars me owning that gun saved the state in prison cost and legal fees.

Lastly, when we (gun enthusiasts) say "from my cold dead hands", we are neither joking nor exagerating. Why would I ever consider handing over the gun which has already save my life to a government which I worry is bent upon tyranny?

Just joking about the shoot 'em bit.

But still the point has to be made: under a fascist govt. you want to keep your guns, especially when a lot of work is being done to impeach and bring the Badministration to justice, and they are getting scared. Cos if they lose power now, and that's debatable cos your election process has already been corrupted twice, then they may well refuse to go quietly.

Frankly, American democrassy is in such a bad state, that you guys would be best to scrap the entire system. Prosecute the current administration and its members and then set about following the money they received and reimbursing the people who have suffered immeasurably at the hands of the bullshit government that currently sits in the dirty sullied shameful White House.

There is no other reason given for gun ownership other than for forming a militia _for the security of a free State_, in other words, for keeping the govt from becoming a dictatorship.

But there is no real militia, and all the while you have higher gun violence rates in America than anywhere else in the world that cause the most horrendous and senseless deaths.

Unless you Americans are prepared to stop killing each other and take up arms against your tyrannical government, you don't deserve the right to bear arms. Like in many areas, you misuse what you have been given by your forefathers.

Your government is tearing the world down, in every country, and your apathy is an act of complicity. I hope that what you cannot use correctly will be taken away.

50% of the violent crimes are committed by a demographic that's part of a group that amounts to 15% of the population and yet i don't hear people wanting to ban african americans.

the truth is that our society is sick. ignorance and poverty are a root causes of the rampant violence in our society. it's time for some social and cultural introspection and stop blaming inanimate objects.

No question, not everyone fights on either side. Of the 1.6 million presently in the armed forces, as I mentioned, many are REMF (rear echelon...) and not fighters; they manage the logistics chains, transport fuel and material, plan, etc. Of the citizens, only those who are able-bodied and willing will fight. Picking them out is the trick for any military enforcement. Because if they attack the citizens indiscriminately, they will all fight, within the limits of who can lift a rifle (no one under, say, six years old.) Either the military behaves, or it will be swamped.

But as I said, it isn't going to happen anyway. Otherwise, it already would have. The only right we really have left is the right not to quarter soldiers in our homes. All the others are conditional at best, and illusory at worst. Literally every other point in the bill of rights has been made inconsequential to the government with regard to our ability as citizens to count on them.

shucks, I never thought of myself as a civic hero, only as a joker who makes sarcastic remarks. But thanks, I guess, for nominating me.

I must argue one point with you. I have no interest in contributing thought-provoking or significant content, man. I stay away from that stuff, as well as the concerned citizens brigade.

I am troubled that you are imagining me nude, so please cut that out. Either that, or cite your sources. Only peer-reviewed will do.

regards.

Now get out of your mom's basement and catch a little sunshine. Put on some clothes first, though.

I'm not saying anyone here is like that, I'm talking about that other message board. Here we find genuine intellectuals making progress on the issues in a frank and public debate.

the real problem in this country (beyond this discussion) is as simple as this: people do not take responsibility for themselves and their actions. and who teaches responsibility? parents, teachers, friends, and good role models. not the government.

i personally don't like guns and i don't believe that they solve any problems, nor will i ever own a gun. BUT- if you want to protect yourself, i think you have every right to own one. sweden (it may be swirzerland.. i may be wrong.. either way, one of the "S" countries in europe) is the most gun laden country in the world- they also have the lowest rate of violence. they also have a different standard of living. different culture. different government. but i know european living is much more about teaching RESPONSIBILITY and focusing on quality of life. maybe we should adopt their parenting skills.

So let's go with your 200:1 figure, despite the difference in quality and quantity of arms, education and motivation between Iraqis and Americans. Let us also go with the presumption that the entire armed forces would face down the entire civilian population. These are absolute worst-case assumptions.

The entire US armed forces consists of 1.366 million individuals, not all of whom by any means are front line animals, but again, let's assume they were. We'll also ignore the fact that as the number of military personnel diminishes, the effectiveness and morale drops, and as the supply chain is damaged as well. We'll just assume 200:1 right down the last grunt facing an enraged crowd - and even he gets 200 before they get him.

At 200:1 under these conditions, civilians would suffer 273 million deaths in order to kill every last member of the armed forces, leaving a remaining civilian population of about 27 million behind. Mostly babies who weren't fighting in the first place, I'd think. In other words, the military would lose, even in this most extreme case.

When you factor in the reality: That for every front line fighter, the military fields many REMFs who are not expected or particularly able to fight, and would never under any circumstances reach the effectiveness of the (relatively) elite troops in Iraq; that supplies would be cut off (after all, it is *us* who supply them), that many troops would refuse to participate in a war on their fellow citizens whom they have sworn an oath to protect, that as the armed forces suffer defeats, the arms and ammunition they have would fall into the hands of the civilians, that of that 1.366 million serving, only about a third are ground troops (for instance, the navy (the very small force of marines excepted) certainly isn't going to be a very effective tool to suppress US civilians, neither is the air force. It'll have to be done on the ground.) Also keep in mind that of the US civilian population, there are many combat veterans who would be enraged by an attack on the civilian population, and they know just what to do, because they were trained to do it against the soviets: Decapitate the leadership. From politicians, generals and captains on down to the sergeants and corporals, they get shot first.

It becomes apparent that while we would still certainly be talking about a bloody mess, the chance of the US military defeating the civilian population in a face to face conflict is just about zero.

So please, give it a rest.

Aside from all that, there will be no such conflict. Bush will be out of office in a year, people are a lot more worried about their healthcare than they are their liberties, and most vote along party lines without any regard for, much less knowledge of, issues of constitutional merit. Or lack thereof.

Not any longer. President Bush and our elected representatives have gutted the prohibition you refer to.

They have done so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by Bush on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the president to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America.

Sources:

(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006

(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122

(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006.

(4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.

(5) towardfreedom.com

If I wanted to live in unarmed fear, I'd move to Washington D.C.