...yet these rates are still higher than most countries in the world.

Assuming that we are not so paranoid that we think our democratic governments are about to take all our rights away, or that they are infact covert dictatorships giving us a sham of a voting system by which we vote in one or other face of the same background... then we have no reason to arm ourselves to protect ourselves from our governments. We vote in a government. Our police and military exist to protect us. I won't say whether i believe that, but those are the purported facts.

The only reason then, to possess a tool that enables us to kill people easily is to protect ourselves from each other. In England, that is the job of the police. I assumed it was the same in the US, but apparently...



What the hell are they there for then? Or is that an illusion, an excuse that people use to arm themselves?

As for whether the people of Britain trust themselves and each other with tools who's only purpose is murder or injury of another, that is probably a no. I'm uncomfortable with trusting idiots with cars for the same reason that i'm in their hands, and i don't trust their hands to look out for me.

That said, i don't trust the US military with guns either... since UK and European solders seem to be on the receiving end of "friendly fire" so often.

If it comes down to trust, would you trust your next door neighbour with a nuclear weapon? if not, why not? what difference does it matter what they have, from a handgun, an uzi or a nuke? Surely you trust them no matter... if not with a nuke, then why with a gun.

Yes, I was living in Zurich at the time. That event is Switzerlands worst mass killing on record and highlights the fact that the man was able to enter a cantonal government building carrying a rifle and no-one even thought to stop him, because the idea that anyone would possibly do such a thing was alien to most Swiss people. Tragically naive in retrospect, but it does tell you a lot about the Swiss gun culture.



Tell me about it! There was a seriously disturbing case where a Scottish guy was shot by the special armed response team. He was carrying a table leg wrapped in a cloth. He was down in London and some English moron thought that he was an IRA member carrying a shotgun (confusing Irish and Scottish accents). So the police were called and - shot him. So I certainly would not argue that the police are really any better qualified to carry weapons, I've actually started to believe that perhaps we should be allowed to own weapons, based on some of the arguments I've read on this thread.

My point is that most Europeans nations allow a certain degree of risk and exceptions to the norm in order to allow their police or military to be armed much like Americans do. The only difference is Americans have allowed a greater risk and exception to the norm in order to have greater access and rights to bear arms.


Ptarmigan..you and I lived in CH at the same time

It’s an absolute fact of both law and practical reality that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police have no duty to protect individuals. If someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases).


Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type.

If there is no difference between a handgun and a nuke, what is the difference between a bat (in caveman days that was known as a "club") and a handgun? A slingshot? A fork?

this having the been the case, i'd have been likely, legally or not, to have murdered the judge. If the police refuse or can be protected by such law makers, then it is a disgrace to have them in the first place. Although it is not the discussion of this thread, the system is fundamentally flawed. I'm sickened and appalled.

Within the discussion of this thread, this being the case, i'm amazed you don't seek to have the principles changed, for what value is a government that doesn't seek to protect its people within, only protect those in other countries?

On a side note, is it reasonable that they can decide what crimes they want to protect people from, and what crimes they don't? No doubt, they didn't call the people back to say no help would be forthcoming. Can i then challenge the police for ticketing me for crossing the road at the wrong place?



the ease with which the tool can be used to kill. A gun and nuke were designed for that purpose alone. A slingshot and a fork were not. None the less, what is your answer?

Now you see why we are unwilling to place our lives with the tender mercies of the local constabulary.

I do believe that a slingshot was in fact designed for the sole purpose of killing.

Can the police then be sued instead for misrepresentation of services, using fraudulent advertising through their slogan "to protect and to serve", since this is blatently not true, and only if they feel like it?

Can you likewise demand your tax money back, for failure to provide service?

My answer is the same as yours, roughly. The ease and amount of destruction a weapon will produce, within the context of supplying a proper deterrent for the potential threat. By that measure, the club or slingshot are arguably much more analogous to firearms than the nuke. It's a cost to benefits calculation. We have guns in our society. There are definitive and obvious examples that crime escalates in areas with high gun control laws. Crime generally declines (in the US) with fewer gun control laws. That's a fact. We don't have the option of eliminating guns from our society, we can only disarm the law abiding citizens...the result of which, judging from examples throughout American cities and states, higher crime rates are almost a foregone conclusion.

When I lived in Gainesville, Florida, a girl in my apartment complex (a few buildings over) was butchered to death and her severed head was resting for several days on a shelf facing the window (no one noticed for a while). My roomate at the time was vehemently anti-gun. She previously petitioned to change gun laws in our state. Obviously, she hated that I kept a small revolver in the apartment. After that incident, she begged me to sleep with that pistol. I went to the store to obtain another gun, but had to wait through the waiting period (something like 48 hours, if memory serves). It dawned on me that waiting periods are very bad for law abiding citizens with an urgent need of a gun. Who is going to wait for that gun, the person receiving the death threat, or the one who wants to kill? Anyway, after the wait period I gave her my weapon and she slept a little better until they caught him.

Edited to add: I know that the example of the serial killer is rare. I just happen to have experienced it. But, that wasn't the only time in my life I had an urgent need for a firearm. After hurricane Andrew hit Miami, as in all disaster areas, the looters were rampant. It took about a day for the looters to realize Miami has a well armed population. After a couple of examples around the neighborhoods, it became a nice, polite society until we got our electricity, phones, and clean water back.

Facts are facts, but the facts also say that in the US where you have had fewer gun control laws, you've had a long standing gun crime problem, whereas ours has only started to increase in recent years (dare I say, mainly with the advent of cheap guns from the balkans, many immigrants from which have taken residence in the UK, and other places, and who have not habitually taken up skilled roles within society).

There is a general malaise in social concience, it seems. When we had the floods that kicked people out of their houses, i'm not aware that the houses and shops suffered a looting problem. I won't risk censure by openly discussing my personal beliefs as to why, and why the situation would be different in London.

It's true there are more firearm related deaths in the US, but we don't have higher crime rates. Though we do have higher murder rates, likely because guns are a more efficient method for killing.

The UK and/or numerous other European countries, have higher rates of...
Assault victims

Total crime victims

Rape victims

Robbery victims

Manslaughters

Suicide between the ages of 15 and 24

suicide between the ages of 25 and 35

At any rate, I admit that we are a violent society, but much of that violence is limited to certain bad areas within large cities. I think (see above) that it is a misconception that crime here is so prevalent and awful everywhere. I live in Las Vegas and have never noticed a crime problem in my neighborhood. Not even a robbery. When I lived in a worse area of Vegas, there were some problems, just like any other bad part of any other country.

interesting stats. I wonder, however, how much of the truth is hidden behind the failure of the police to act, certainly if they pick and chose their crimes.

As for New Zealand's rape stats, my minimal experience of their country suggests to me that its less that its a problem that they particularly suffer from, and more that they are more likely to come forward, because the policing is better. The US police response to rape, beyond the crime shows, is pretty lack lustre, and i don't just refer to your case example from earlier.

Apologies for replying to my own post, but something struck me overnight.

It seems that the right to own weapons for self defence, as discussed, is based heavily on the fact that the police are not responsible for the safety and protection of individual citizens.

This being the case, then who is responsible for protecting the vulnerable members of the community, if not the police? For the sake of argument I'll suggest that single women fall within this vulnerable category.

I know of plenty of examples of vulnerable people living in communities that target, not protect, them. Don't the police have a natural role and responsibility here?

I would add that, if the police are so inadequate, that children from the age of 10 upwards should be taught self-defence (situation avoidance as well as common defence martial arts), as an on-going thing, within schools. The state necessarily has a responsibility in this, no?

At least then vulnerable people would be made less vulnerable, and maybe gun ownership as a quicker replacement for learning self-defence would be less necessary.

Okay I'll bite, just how are the police going to be able to do that? We have nearly 300 million people in America. Have of those are female. Now where the heck are we ever going to get enough police to protect even a fraction of them?

It is not possible to station a policeman at a one hundredth of the intersections let alone every school. We have more schools than policemen in this country. The public would never approve enough tax money to support that many police.

but yet it is an expectation and fact that the police here will send a car to a 999 call. How is it that we can do it? yes they are under-resourced, but still they will come, certainly in town. I know of circumstances that they haven't come to small villages or lone houses here, for reason's i don't readily accept. But in the whole they do come to the emergency call. I've called before, and i've never waited more than a couple of seconds.

More importantly, what change would you suggest to protect those who aren't so able to protect themselves? A gun is no use if you're a single woman in bed asleep when your house it broken in to. Assuming you don't have the right to go into your next door neighbours house to rescue them (going vigilante, something I would support in basic theory), and the police won't come if you call them, what change would you suggest making?

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that a gun is of no use if your home is broken into. To believe this you have to assume that in all cases, a sleeping person wouldn't wake up at the noise of forced entry, or that a single woman is not capable of defending herself with a gun.

It may be different in the UK, but in most cases in the US, there is bound to be a lag time between a call to 911 (if you even have the time and space to place the call) and the police arriving at your home. During that time, you may be at the mercy of an assailant. To deny the right to effectively defend yourself, may be signing a death warrant in some cases.

yes, i'd definately dispute that you will wake up, alert and ready, if someone quietly broke into your house while you were sleeping, male or female. I'd willingly suggest that in a scuffle a man has greater chance of resisting than a woman, purely on strength. I'm not denying that, since the policing and their response is so poor that you should use all means necessary, nor that there would be a lag time.

My question is for those vulnerable, and is whether those means would protect someone disabled, for example. In the case highlighted above, the three women were held for 14 hours. The police never showed up. Each person should prevent what they can, but the police, or someone should be able or obliged to help where help has been requested (and where it hasn't been requested but is obviously needed). Should vulnerable people sleep lightly, with a gun under their pillow, or should there be something else to help them>

Here i can call the police and they will come. There, what do you do?

A person with a gun in his/her home should be prepared for that potentiality. I've never owned a gun in a house without either a dog or alarm to alert me if there were an intruder. The women in the example were unarmed. The gun is truly an equalizing weapon. The comparatively defenseless woman is an argument in favor of the second amendment, IMO.

So you agree with the right to own a handgun for defense then. I'm glad we settled that.

I would say that you're going out on a pretty thin limb to assume that all or most people wouldn't wake up at the sounds of their house being broken into. I and many others awaken at the slightest sound (unfortunately), and not all people can sufficiently rouse themselves to fend off an attacker, but the point may be moot.......since if you can't be alert enough to pull out your gun, you may not be able to phone 911 either.

There are so many variables on response time for the police. One city near where I live has a total police force of 36 for 36,000 people. There is no way that they can be anywhere near "Johnny of the spot" with that level of staffing. Especially considering they have 4 officers on duty at any one time.

A number of years ago I worked for a county government agency in California. One of our people was shot at while at work by person and/or persons unknown. I called the Sheriff's office because it was in a very rural area. As far as I know they Sheriff's office has not responded and that was more than 15 years ago. So what can we do? Some of the patrol areas for a single officer can be more than a 1,000 square miles.

So they should recruit. Even Iraq can recruit a police force.


The failure of the state to provide a well regulated militia as policing force is the reason for this argument to exist. Everything must be done by the individual, the country has no responsibility to its citizens. The right to own arms is a right, not an expectation or responsibility. Maybe it should become unlawful NOT to own a gun.

There ARE people who DO require something further than a gun under their pillow. I speak of those who live in fear of abuse, and fear of attack, robbery and rape because of where they live, but from which they cannot move, and i'm not talking ghettos in obvious areas. Should these people not sleep? If the US is a community, then the community should be looking out for each other. I know you're not even slightly a socialist state, but don't people care about the little guy or girl there at all? the point is that if you as a next door neighbour hear something you can't call either. But are you legally allowed to go in there guns blazing?

we in the western world (or more specifically you in the US) live in society that purports to be civilised. Yet each person should expect to arm themselves, against each other. That is not civilised.

maybe i should just take my go and take it upon myself to answer 911 distress calls because, apparently, no-one else gives a damn. It's not their responsibility

(edited to add heated and angry additional comments)

Genesisblade we do have such a system. It is called "Community Watch" and the neighborhood people look out for each other.

Several of us keep firearms to be able to assist our friends and neighbors. It is a type of 'well regulated militia" if you will, that the US Constitution mentioned. It has nothing to do with the government it has to do with people willing to help their neighbors.

I think the "Well regulated Militia" angle is still off base and I don't think it applies to an ad-hoc assembly of well armed neighbours. At the time the constitution was written there was no standing army but each citizen was essentially a reservist. When needed, the militia functioned as a conventional army with a command structure (i.e. "Well regulated").

Now, we have a standing army and I'd propose that the reserves and local law enforcement agencies are in fact the well regulated militias that the constitution refers to, not just any group of people with guns however well intentioned.

While I would tend not to call a gaggle of well meaning neighbors militia either, your above statement isn't true. The U.S. Army was created by the Second Continental Congress on June 14, 1775. The ratification of the U.S. Constitution was complete on June 21, 1788.

I actually agree with your assertion of what constitutes the militia, today/ However it is equally clear that the framers intended the American citizen to retain the right to bear arms for defense and the preservation of liberty, militia notwithstanding.

If it were up to me I would give everybody a gun because there is no downside to it happening. But I am not in a position to make that kind of decision so, I say keep the next best thing which is "The RIGHT to bear arms" either for personal use as a hunter or for a collection. If we it was to be thought that we should not have weapons our country would have done what the Brits did and melted down every weapon in the country. But because the country didn't do it is an obvious sign that they feel we still have a use for personal arms.

I tend to agree with this. In modern language, the 2nd amendment says:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary citizens to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

It leaves open some interesting areas, of course, such as the scope of weapons to be owned and carried; and the legal status of the citizens carrying them.

Obviously the Framers intended people to be able to carry personal weapons such as muskets, handguns, knives, swords, spears etc. But did they intend for people to be able to own the biggest, most destructive weapons in existence at that time? Maybe giant siege cannons, or gunpowder bombs that could blow up a large building full up people? The Framers also knew that science was always advancing, and that it was likely that even more destructive weapons would someday come into existence. Yet they offered no limits on what weapons citizens could own, in the 2nd amendment, but merely put a blanket ban on ANY prohibition.

Did the Framers intend for some guy who just murdered his entire family, to be allowed to carry weapons the next day? Probably not. Yet the 2nd makes no exception for past or present criminals. Other parts of the Constitution say, "except as provided by law", but not the 2nd amendment. Why not, do you suppose?

Notice, too, that the first phrase imposes no condition or limitation on the main body of the amendment. If somebody proved conclusively that an armed and capable populace was NOT necessary for security and freedom, and everyone in the world agreed he had proved it 100%, that would make no difference. The 2nd would still prohibit any ban or restriction on citizens carrying weapons. The first phrase in the amendment, is merely an explanation of why the ban is there, not a necessary qualification.

I'm afraid that I disagree.

The original amendment: ‘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.’

A ‘new language’ version: "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary citizens to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

What was the economic and social situation at the time the amendment was drawn up? Were all the states united? Was it that a full national army existed? Or was it that the people might be called on, within each state, to band together to defend their freedom?

Times have changed. I don’t see on what basis ‘an armed populace is necessary for freedom’. When was the last time your country was invaded (or even threatened), and thus needed each person to take up arms to defend your country or town? You now have an army, a well regulated central militia defending each and every state. The need to have each person armed has passed now, responsibility now lies with the Army.

An alternative modern translation of the root purpose (the need to preserve the freedom of people within each state, even from each other state) of the 2nd amendment might instead read thus:

Since an army is necessary for the security and freedom of each State, the United States Army now undertakes the responsibility to defend this freedom, to keep and bear Arms on behalf of the people of the United States.
P.S. Please, turn in your sub-automatic and stop shooting each other."

until the US constitution can catch up with the modern world, a constitution that includes a couple of century old sentence entitling people to own rocket launchers, what chance is there that the US foreign policy might move from guns to diplomacy? If guns and war are closely tied, and war and peace cannot co-exist, how can you have peace when each person can own a gun?

To end the arguments over why we need a well armed populace I will give you a very possible scenario that make civilian weapons rights invaluble. An armed faction of an unfriendly country has invaded the border and is spreading like wildfire through towns in Texas killing and looting. If civilians have no weapons they must wait on some God-forsaken national guard that is based on the other side of the state. However if we have weapons we have the means to defend and protect ourselves until the cavalry arrives. Look at it and think about how many enemies we are making as a country. someday this very well could and might happen and I don't know about you but I would want to be able to defend my family.

When you say possible scenario - I take it you mean an unfriendly country bordering the US?

Because - umm - well....that would be Canada or Mexico?

Whilst the US has enough nuclear power to blow up half the planet, very few countries are going to risk invading it - simply because the US could atomise their country. I might be putting this in hyperbolic language - but it is true nonetheless.

A well armed populace provides a check against each other - not a check against an invader. Democracies that do not allow guns tend to do so because they believe that their society is stable enough that no citizen would need a gun to defend himself from either his neighbours or his government. Democracies which do allow guns tend to take the opposite view...

Were the states united - yes they were. Was there a national army - again yes. And yet our founding fathers thought that having an armed citizenry was a good idea. Must have been a reason for that.

The last successful attack that we know of was on September 11th, and if at least some of the passengers were armed, about 3,000 people might still be alive today.

The first , third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth amendments seem to be still valid after 200 years, why not the 2nd?

What kind of weapons do you have that could possibly delay an invading army?

Whatever it is, I'm glad you're between me and these hypothetical invaders, because all we have is a little .22 revolver chez moi. And that ain't gonna stop no army.

Armies existed before and during the time the 2nd amendment was written, and the Framers were painfully aware of their advantages and limitations. And they knew that the threats and army could deal with, whether a standing army or a militia, were not the only threats to our security.

Do you really think our present armed forces (Army Navy Marines etc.) plus our existing police forces, are sufficient to provide you all the security you need? If so, try taking a long walk in New York's Central park at night, tonight. Or in San Diego's Balboa Park. Or in the downtown section of nearly any medium-to-large city.

Or, try planting a yard sign in front of your house, saying "The owner of this house is not armed and has no weapons on the premises, since he feels private gun ownership is a bad thing".

What? You don't want to do any of those things? Neither do I - because I know that common criminals are very much a threat to me, almost as much as foreign invaders or terrorists are. And even police cannot provide me the security I want. The only way it can be done, is if I am personally armed, and am wise enough to know how to handle weapons and when and when not to use them.

Or to be more exact, the only way I can be secure, is if the criminals THINK I may be armed, and so am dangerous to him. And so he will ply his trade elsewhere, or even consider changing occupations.

The Framers knew that domestic criminals were dangerous, as well as foreign forces, and even our own government if it grows too out-of-control (as governments have a well established history of doing). And so they prescribed the only really effective (though not perfect) way of providing security: that every citizen have the right to go armed. Most citizens still won't bother to carry (I don't), and the criminal knows this. But he also knows that some will... and he has no way of knowing which ones. This creates the fear in him, that provides the security that your method lacks.

There can be two debates here:

1.) Does the 2nd amendment specifically protect the right of you and me to own and carry guns?

2.) SHOULD we have the right to own and carry guns?

They are two different questions. I submit that the answer to the first is Yes, and the answer to the second is also Yes. The reasons for each answer, are as different as the questions themselves. But they are both very important. And they are based, not on "times" that may change, but on a frank knowledge and acceptance of human nature - something that has NOT changed.

You and I do have the right to own and carry guns. We don't have to do it, but we can if we want.

And we SHOULD have the right to own and carry guns. Because without that right, society is worse off, since all our other rights would be in great jeopardy from many different sources.

------------------
P.S. That built-in spellcheck is way cool. :^)

The question isn't so much whether there is a need to own a gun, which i accept that there is. I still stand by the assertion that the Police force has a job to do, and that they are not doing shouldn't give them protection from their failings. That is a different discussion though...

The question to me is whether the Second amendment was framed for this purpose. I question whether the framers could look so far into the future. If they could, why didn't they take action to prevent rather than respond to the problem. Assuming they didn't ask Nostrodamus for assistance, then the amendment should be reviewed because the military in existance now is capable of responding to any threat.

Personally i view the issue of gun ownership as a side issue under the umbrella of the way the society you enjoy was designed. We in Europe tend to have a more socialist, help each other attitude inherent in the design. In the US it is about the free market, and a looking-out-for-yourself attitude. I can understand the need to do this at the outset of the country. Too few people, too much distance between them, no way that the government can protect them. But don't tell me that you still think that to be the case? There is more than enough military to put the country under martial law (I fear that at some point this will happen, as the only way to prevent the escalation). It isn't the way to go, more police is, but it would be perfectly possible. Its not about asking society to do everything for you, either. But society has a large role to play that it isn't at the moment. People have no choice but to fend for themselves, leaving the weak open to abuse.

Still no-one has answered me on who looks out for the vulnerable members of society. A society is judged on how it cares for the weakest members. It takes more than a gun to make someone safe. It takes society to make the weakest members safe.

Well for one, the weakest members of our society are far more likely to be able to remain safe if they are armed then unarmed. the 70 year old lady across the street from me is far more likely to defend herself from home invasion with here gun then I, a healthy, trained and experienced 36 year old is without one.

As for society keeping them safe, that is what a community does. Hmmm, I haven't seen the lady across the street in a few days, I'll go check on her. If it snows, I shovel her walk so she doesn't hurt herself trying to do it. If she has a issue with heat or something in her house, she knows to call and I will come check it out. There is a heck of alot more to this issue then guns.

Are you honestly suggesting that the "weak" in countries with gun bans are actually safer then in countries without them?

In the UK if 'the weak' call the police, or a next door neighbour calls the police on their behalf, they will be around as fast as they can, usually in a few minutes - so yes, they are safer - a gun is better than nothing, but an effective police force is better than a gun, for the society if not for some individuals. Are you telling me that you couldn't overpower your elderly next door neighbour, regardless of her gun?

There is, alas, a reason for the US police forces to be ridiculed as doughnut eaters, and that ours are not.

I know what living in the US can be like, and i'm not talking about slums - i'm talking normal, everyday America. Community does not come in to it, in too many places. I'm glad that you are that rare thing - a good neighbour.

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't really exist much in cities anywhere (here included), only countryside villages. But if you can't call on people, or police to help you when you're in trouble, then you're not safe.

As a non-US citizen, i had never realised before this thread, that a call to 911 wasn't guaranteed a response. I'm still shocked.

OLS, I knew there was a reason I like you , besides your strong mind that is

One of my goals for this year is to get a .44 magnum Colt or Ruger revolver for when I'm wandering the hills. That's for uppity bear, should the pepper spray not work. Self-protection like this makes sense, especially since we've had humans attacked by black bear several times in the past few years -- even to the point of a black bear ripping off the hardtop of a car. Strong critters, not to be taken lightly.

On occasion, a mountain lion might get uppity too. Eh, folks have fought them off with just pocket knives -- but still, the loud bark of a .44 shot at a nearby tree would be effective too.

An added benefit will come in that I can answer the door at night with something more intimidating than a pepper spray canister -- a neighboring town had a double murder not too long ago from city kids looking for easy marks.

The dangers are out there, and even with a call to 911, response could take too much time. It'd not be effective in the hills, even if the cell works out there.

The Colorado constitution guarantees in straight language our rights to defend ourselves using firearms. This has never been challenged against the US Constitution, as far as I know. For the reasons given above, owning and carrying a heavy-framed sidearm is perfectly legal.

But here's where it gets crazy. Would any sane person carry the sidearm into a county office? That's a current debate going on in El Paso county, home of the ever-entertaining politics of Colorado Springs. The county commissioners want to bar other county offices from displaying No Firearms Allowed signs.

[slapping hand to forehead] That, I do believe, is taking the right to self-protection way over the top into the right to intimidate, which I think isn't a right at all. Besides, I know of no instance where anyone was attacked by an El Paso county employee -- so evidence of danger isn't there.

Sure, why not? I wear my watch into govt offices, even when I don't care what time it is. Simply because it's more convenient than taking it off, storing it where it won't get stolen, etc. And besides, the need might occasionally arise where I do want to know what time it is.

Why should a firearm be any different? I have no more intention of hurting anyone in that office, than I do of whacking him with my watch. In fact, I'm alot more careful with my gun than with my watch. If some guy becomes afraid because I happen to have one of my guns with me, why is that MY problem?

Various demagogues have been trying so hard for so long to terrify people of firearms, that virtually nobody carries them any more, even out of the vast majority who have never killed, hurt, threatened, or even scared anybody with one. Nowadays so few people carry firearms, that it's tempting to thing that if you see a guy with one, you assume he's got nefarious purposes in mind. And on that basis, people have been trying to ban firearms in schools, public buildings etc. It's a flagrantly false premise.

Some places that are worried about assault, hire armed guards. Some govt offices have them, some schools etc. If you're really that worried about people with guns, that's the correct way to deal with criminals using firearms - not by violating the rights of millions of law-abiding people.

Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves?

The Constitution was written as a check on the power of the State. The ability to bear arms is a check on the tyranny of the State. The framers knew full well that the ability of the populace to be armed serves as a detriment to the State oppressing the people.

Now, the argument may be made that the State will always "outgun" the citizen, since the State has superior resources. However, that was true in the days of the Revolution, where the British far outgunned the Continental Army.

Think of it this way: if George III had made sure that no citizens had guns in 1770, could a Revolution have been possible?

Has anyone seen the movie "Red Dawn"? Although fictional, the movie was about internal resistance to an invasion by the USSR. It should give you some idea what a few locals can do against an army (US or otherwise). Look at the resistance in Iraq. Would that be possible without access to weapons?

Would infringment of this right be consistent with the foundations of Liberty and Freedom?

Simple answer: no. The fact that other States such as Europe, where the populace trusts their governments much more than in the US, allow their governments to disarm them does not mean that we should do it.

Really? How many conversations have you had with the people in Dublin, or Belfast for example?



Interesting, in my neighborhood the police have a very good response time. And we are a lower/middle class area. However, even my good police force has limits. For example, if there happens to be a large accident on the highway, 2 violent domestic disputes, and a gas station robbery all being handled when I find that someone is attempting to break into my basement it will likely take them some time to get there.



When I lived in Kansas City, MO. I was regularly impressed by their response times. However, again the issue is what is happening in the rest of the area at that moment in time when you need assistance.



It is a "guaranteed" response. I have never known of anyone who called 911 and did not get a police response. However, WHEN is subject to the availability of the officers at the time.



Are you serious??????? No, I certainly do NOT think I would over-power anyone with a firearm. It takes a split second to fire a weapon, and anyone, with any skill at all will be quite capable of doing serious damage at a minimum when firing at point blank range. It does not take alot of effort to fire a many loaded weapons, and an elderly person has the benefit of Adrenaline just like everyone else.



Thanks! And good luck with your gun shopping. I wish my budget would allow me to join you.

Heh, well, the obvious answer is that a gun is inherently intimidating while a watch is not. Please offer statistics of death by watch.

Face it, guns are intimidating no matter what. They are killing machines, nothing more and nothing less. I remember a motorcyclist threatening a driver with a pellet gun, and shooting it -- no pellets, but the CO2 gas makes sort of a gunshot sound. I use one of these to scare off feral cats who sometime hang around the property.

I don't think the ticking of a clock would work.

The biker got busted for felony menacing.

Also, how is anyone supposed to know that anyone else is a responsible gun-toter? Maybe an NRA tatoo on the forehead?

OLS -- that's why God invented pawn shops.

Obvious, and wrong, as so many un-thought-out answers are. Various demagogues have been trying so hard for so long to terrify people of firearms, that sensible people who might normally carry them have declined, out of courtesy and concern for the unreasoning fear in others that you describe. But guns are no more "inherently" intimidating than automibiles. In fact, automobiles can and do kill far more people than guns. But since there have not been extensive, coordinated campaigns to try to instill the fear of autombiles in people, they are regarded much differently. The familiarity they have been allowed to gain with automobiles dispels any fear that might otherwise arise from ignorance. The demagogues have made sure this does not happen with firearms. The problem is not with the firearm. It is with the demagogues and the ignorance they try to spread.



Then why don't employees at gun stores, and their patrons, and police, and military members, and hunters, and target shooters, walk around in fear and trembling 24/7? Because guns are not the least bit intimidating, of course. Intimidation does not come from the gun. It comes from ignorance of the gun - an ignorance that the anti-gun people do their best to expand and use.



Then why has there never been a mass murder at a gun store? Or a police station? Why are there not piles of bodies at military armories?

Your post is replete with many of the sillier myths about firarms. It's nice to be able to debunk so many in one sitting, so we can get on to serious discussion.



If he had held a knife to the driver's throat without cutting him, or a bow and arrow without loosing, he would have gotten the same bust.



How are you supposed to know the driver coming at you in the oncoming lane is not a homicidal maniac, about to swerve into your lane and deliberately hit you head-on? You don't, of course - it does happen. Sorry I can't make the world perfectly safe for you, as regards either cars or guns.

But you do know that you chances of getting killed by a guy coming down the road in his car, are very small - and so you drive without fear. Well, guess what. Even fewer people get killed with guns, than with cars. So you can walk among armed people with even greater safety than you can drive among other drivers.

If, of course, you look and think rather than mindlessly cower. It's those who don't, who have the (silly) fear you spoke of. They merely need to look at the facts... and to take a vacation from the demagogues.

Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves?

I think the 2nd Amendment should be rewritten to remove the outdated reference to the militia. That said, I do believe that the right to keep and bear arms should be preserved and honored.

Would infringment of this right be consistent with the foundations of Liberty and Freedom?
No. This country was founded on the idea that should the government become tyrannous, the people not only have the right, but the duty to remove it... by force if necessary. And the right to life includes the right to defend one's life.


The only reason I could think of would be mental or physical defect that could result in the inability to properly use a gun.

That's not a fair point in this context. It is utter conjecture - what makes you think that, had guns been allowed for ordinary passengers on the flight, the terrorists would not have been armed with them, especially if they knew it was common practice to be armed? Would a gun battle in three pressurised and fully fuelled aircraft over heavily populated areas been certain not to kill 3,000 people (or maybe even more)? So the only important word in your sentence is "might".

I could just as easily say "if at least some of the passengers were black belts in karate or tae kwon-do, about 3,000 people might still be alive today".

Not only would that be useless conjecture, it would have no bearing on the status of martial arts (or gun ownership) in the US Constitution, which is what this topic is about.

I couldn't agree more.

Would infringment of this right be consistent with the foundations of Liberty and Freedom?
Yes and no. It would obviously be a very bad thing if the government could just remove freedoms without discussion. However, you shouldn’t have to carry a gun to feel free, and you shouldn't feel obliged to carry one to feel free, simply to match the threat of others. If you do, then you’re not free. Not owning a gun should make you feel less free, and by that, removal of the right would be consistant with the foundations described above.

I return to an earlier question. Would you trust your neighbour with a bomb, or even a nuke? If not, why not and why is that a different situation? A gun can kill you just as easily.


It isn’t. My family were informed, following many drug and gang related problems in the area, that if they called 911 they could not be guaranteed a response. That posted link from Mrs P. (http://www.mcrkba.org/w19.html) a while back said thus:




None on the subject at hand, but I was talking about England. Belfast (Northern Ireland) has a different situation (from history) which I don’t know much about, and Dublin (in Eire) are separate, as far as I know.


Every machine needs an operator… it’s a strange argument to take that, just because a gun doesn’t get up and kill people, doesn’t make it dangerous to have.


Various other demagogues have been trying so hard for so long to numb people as to the truth about the unnecessary prevalence of guns in society, and necessarily in crime. A gun in a shop isn’t a threat. If, however, you show someone that you have a gun, it is a subtle (ish) threat. It is an attempt at intimidation, regardless of whether it would work. It’s an “I have a gun and I’m not afraid to use it”.


how about if he didn’t feel it was legal to threaten anyone with anything? In a world and society where people are so willing to use threats of violence against each other, maybe that supports the argument against giving people access to such things?

The point I feel is that yes, you have a right to defend yourself, but you likewise have a right not to fear that your ex can legally get a gun, falsely accuse you attacking them, and shoot you. Its not a fear I have, ironically, but I know people that do!

What is clear in this discussion is that those within the US feel the need to maintain their rights (for various reasons), whereas those in Europe have don't feel the need for such a right.

Of course it is pure conjecture. My point is that if passengers were armed it would in fact be possible. At this point it would be fair to say that it is impossible. As for the myths about pressurized aircraft and guns, well that is another topic entirely.

All of the what if's are just that conjecture. Want we do know is what happened, was it preventable - yes of course it was. What could have been done to prevent it, well that is where the rubber meets the road.

Very much so. Internationally the best way has been to ban guns from planes, so that only those authorised (i.e. the policing forces) have them, and thus have the upper hand.

Why should this be any different on the ground? If everyone has guns there is more imminent danger, although people may be better able to look out for themselves.

The only really valid argument yet placed is that the current police forces can't cope. However, to me that is more of a reason for questions to be raised as to why they aren't better forced. Not having police is not the answer. It was proven in the micro-cosm of the skies - it was not that they weren't illegal (i think they still were) but that the laws weren't enforced.

Now we all have to take off our shoes to be checked before flying... let alone our baggage.

It should be different because the airlines own the airplanes, and if I wish to ride on one of their planes, they get to make the rules. I may not like it but I can agree with it.

But on my property I make the rules. So it should be what I say, not the police, not the government and certainly not people living in other countries.

Easy tiger. I'm discussing the laws and constitution (the purpose of the thread) not trying to change them.

Since you raise the issue, the laws are in the jurisdiction of the country that they take off in until they land. The airline doesn't make their own intermediary laws. Otherwise you'd have flying brothels and the like.

Likewise you live in the country you must obey there rules. Your house is not a separate jurisdiction, with separate proper laws. You may ban alcohol - its your house. But if drinking is illegal for minors, that you choose allow it doesn't make it legal.

edited for clarity.

What makes you think he believes that? Of course the terrorists would have had guns. And they would also have had two or three hundred people around them, some of whom probably had guns too. And since there is no way they could have guarded all of them all the time, eventually bullets would have come from some part of the cabin and taken a few of them out. And the terrorists would not have known in advance, which passenger(s) it would come from.

So, since their mission would have been almost certainly doomed to fail, they probably wouldn't have tried it in the first place.

And that points up the most important part of the freedom to carry a gun: there are a lot more good guys than bad guys, and the bad guys know it. So they are far less likely to try anything, knowing that they can't defend themselves from a return shot.



Plenty of operators at all those places, many with their hands on those very guns. Yet there is no killing, no shooting, no threats. In fact, the people at those places are the politest, most considerate ones you'll find anywhere.

There's a reason why. And that reason is studiously ignored by every demagogue that wants his subjects disarmed and helpless in the face of threats.

Actually that is not correct. Once an airplane leave one nations airspace, they get decide what the rules are. And they can have flying brothels if they so chose. I am sure that is does occur, though I have no proof of this.

What we are really discussing is:
Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves?

This is not England's laws, or Japan's, or even the EU's but the US. Like it or not the US Constitution has some very specific wording on the subject.

Would infringement of this right be consistent with the foundations of Liberty and Freedom?I believe in America that it would not be consistent, because it would violate one of the firmest foundation on which America was founded. A balance of powers between what I call the five branches of American governance. The Executive, Legislative, Judical, Media and the ultimate power the electorate. All of which need to be in balance with all the rest.

As the famous adage goes, G-D created man, Colonel Sam Colt made them equal.