That's kind've harsh—must’ve touched a nerve.

[Guns are useful against home invasions at least as a deterrent if there is an alarm eliminating the element and advantage of surprise.]

Lacking an alarm, does dieing in your sleep make death more palatable? Some claim that’s the best way to go.

[I suggest that comparing deadly accidents to murderous intent has a better play with the type of audience that doesn't differentiate between the two. That of course would not include those who are for responsible gun ownership, sales and use.]

By "responsible gun ownership," you seem to exclude those who comment here. Maybe it was the tone of your comment, but it sounds like a blanket condemnation to me.

Cheers,

Saudi Arabia has no problem going after individual murderers, organizations such as Al Qeada by their nature and with overt support from the general populace are of course to the contrary.

Switzerland has a citizen Army. people are not just running around with guns in malls schools and the like There are restrictions on where and when the citizens can possess guns. Many are kept in armories.

Neither of these favorite citings by gun lobby fans have porous borders allowing the black market movement of weapons. That is one of the keys.

D.C., NYC and California are not able to restrict the movement of guns at their respective borders due to FTC regulations. Under the Articles of Confederation, they would have been able to do so within the state laws, if that had been an objective.

The gun lobby supporters see guns as the answer to solving criminality. Stealth, surprise and ease of killing with little threat of immediate reprisal are what the murderer wants. All the yapping about guns protecting people is ridiculous. Most people are killed by people they know.

Nevertheless, Guns are useful against home invasions at least as a deterrent if there is an alarm eliminating the element and advantage of surprise. I understand that there is an automatic shotgun that if sawed off would be extremely useful for such a purpose.

Everyone should appreciate the red herrings of a-6 here. Your guns mean nothing if the killer has the element of surprise, even if the killer doesn't have a gun. I think they are just a placebo for the quivering type to feel confident, and are frequently stolen by the cowards who use them in their criminal activities.

The sensational killing sprees are but a thin veneer for the steady slaughter that has killed two or three hundred thousand since 1970, clearly almost all were deliberate homocides.

In contrast I won't even look at who wrote it, but someone cited vehicular deaths as a similar stat, and whatever those numbers, the fundamental difference is that just about all of those were accidents -- lacking homocidal intent. I suggest that comparing deadly accidents to murderous intent has a better play with the type of audience that doesn't differentiate between the two. That of course would not include those who are for responsible gun ownership, sales and use.

Really Mitch,

maybe we should return to Viet Nam and get that victory?

I submit that this administration is the cesspool of treasonous evil -- for being in Iraq at all, regardless of the use of what amounts to mercenaries or employees of some sort, since they actually have pay, in contrast to a volunteer who by definition would be unpaid.

That’s it in a nutshell. But the interesting thing about the 2nd Amendment is what this single sentence doesn’t say. The 2nd Amendment reads:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
~September 21, 1789

There were six versions of the 2nd Amendment that were not ratified:

1. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
~June 8, 1789

2. “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”
~August 17, 1789

3. “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
~August 24, 1789

4. “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
~August 25, 1789

5. “A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
~September 4, 1789

6. “A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
~September 9, 1789

Sir William Blackstone (d. February 14, 1780) wrote a treatise on common law called "Commentaries on the Laws of England." In this treatise, Blackstone credits King Alfred (a.k.a. Alred the Great, 871-899 A.D.) for establishing the idea every subject, or citizen, is a soldier. To make this work, every citizen had to own a weapon other than a knife. In 1181, King Henry II issued the Assize of Arms, which required every subject to arm himself according to his means—the poorest freemen being required to obtain at least a helmet and a lance.

I submit that the collective rights of people are only enforceable when the force of arms is universally dispersed.

Without boring you with too much English history, suffice it so say that during Britain’s civil war (House of Stuart, c. 1642-1649), both the Parliament and the Monarchy of England proclaimed themselves the protector of the subjects' well-being, and in the name of “protecting the rights of subjects,” both the Parliament and the Monarchy attempted to disarm the other’s supporters. The result was a standing army that was at best an instrument of political agenda. Because both branches of English Government exercised the power to appoint militia officers and select soldiers to its ranks, the militia became, functionally, the protector of competing political objectives, not the people.

I find it interesting that earlier drafts of the 2nd Amendment contain language about those “religiously scrupulous of bearing arms” not being compelled to serve in a militia. This clearly is an attempt to soften the idea that every citizen is a soldier. It seems to me an attempt to acknowledge those who on religious—or secular, as the case may be—principle will not fight. Why did the founding fathers cut these words? I contend they didn’t cut them. Rather, they phrased the amendment in a way that would ensure those who choose to fight can avail themselves of the weaponry necessary to win.

I submit the day those who choose to fight can avail themselves of the weaponry necessary to win has passed us by.

I submit that the 2nd Amendment calls for a volunteer army.

I submit that by placing a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq in a military funding bill, the U.S. Congress waded into the pond of tyranny in which Oliver Cromwell once swam.

Cheers,

They would have had to be semi-automatic, not automatic which infers fully automatic. Unless he went though and filed for a tax stamp ($200) with a class 3 dealer and that takes months, checks by the ATF and other required checks and paperwork.

and as far as "“kill, and kill fast, and kill multiple targets” come on. It depends on the shot placement as to how "fast" something is killed, not how many rounds a weapon can throw down range. A knife can kill fast if you strike in the right place, and I knew a guy that was hit 7 times with AK rounds and didn't die...

As a matter of fact, recent studies show that those states that have allowed concealed weapons permits to be issued have actually seen a drop in muggings, car jacking, assaults, and other crimes. I guess when the criminals think that the people they are used to targeting my be armed, they think twice about it.

The second amendment, as with all of our rights, was put in place to prevent government tyranny. In the event that our country is taken over from within, we would have the means to defend ourselves against those who seek to dominate and control us. Disarming the population is the first step toward totalitarianism. Guns that are primarily designed to as Jon put it “kill, and kill fast, and kill multiple targets” would be just what is needed for citizens to protect themselves from an out of control government.

Stricter control will not deter criminals from obtaining guns, nor do we want government controlled forces only to have assault weapons. I’m all for a well armed citizenry, and let the chips fall where they may.

Just one girl’s opinion.

"So Canada does not make the top 10? So what, it is still a zillion times safer in that country and part of the reason is the much more restrictive gun laws. That's the fact Jack!"

I have given you proof that restrictive gun laws are not a predetermining factor in proving that a country is "safe" as demonstrated by some countries with much less restrictive gun laws then the US that have a far less incidence of crime then even your example of Canada. Where is your proof that that shows that restrictive gun laws equates "safety"?

Facts to back up what you say would be nice....Jack.

As for a-6,
So Canada does not make the top 10? So what, it is still a zillion times safer in that country and part of the reason is the much more restrictive gun laws. That's the fact Jack!