The Gun Control Argument

i agree with most of what you said. i think that guns should be limited to the people who use them in their line of work and whether or not guns prevent murder or not, they encourage violence.

My friends gave me evil looks every time I mentioned that I want to own a gun. For someone like me who likes shooting targets for fun...like a game, would be against me having a gun too? I get sick watching news reporting about gun related violence too. Wrong people just use guns the wrong way. The issue is the person who uses the gun more than the gun itself, right? I thought having a gun is cool, like movies you see in Hollywood. Now, I just think children shouldn't get a hold of it until they're old enough. Then again, more adults commit crimes with guns than children. If I have children, I'll probably throw my guns away...wouldn't want them to play with it.

The last time I checked it was called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs. Do you need a $50,000 car? Nope. I don't tell you what kind of car you can buy. By the way, cars kill more people than guns every year. Putting restrictions on guns only affects the LAW ABIDING citizens. Criminals don't follow laws so, more restrictions wouldn't work. Why penalize the law abiding citizens for the misdeeds of criminals? It's like saying we can't have prescription drugs anymore because people abuse them.

If you would like to remove the more "dangerous" guns from every citizen in the US, I would like to propose you do the following first.
Put a sign in your yard that has in nice, easy to read letters "I am unarmed." If you feel uncomfortable doing that, I would like you to think about the people you'd be unarming.

Besides, It's already hard enough to get a bigger, more powerful gun. Background checks, waiting periods. By the time you get the gun, you likely have already thought about shooting the guy who sold it to you because it's taking so darn long. In the hands of a decent citizen, a gun is completely harmless to the majority of humanity.

Now, I would like to propose what has been called "Nick Aden Laws for Guns" which are basically Jim Crowe laws, but lesser known.

1) If you cannot read, you may not own any gun smaller than a rifle.
2) If you cannot pass a marksmen test, you may not own anything smaller than a rifle.
3) If you cannot demonstrate proficiency with your weapon, you may not own anything smaller than a rifle.
4) If you have commited a crime and are not currently in jail, you may not own anything smaller than a rifle.

You may ask, why nothing smaller than a rifle? Well, a rifle is too big to do any real damage to the general population. You can't hide it. You can't kill 10 people all too quickly. Basically, you'd be screwed trying to commit a crime with one.

Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion

haha, thats brilliant Nick.

But I am with him, criminals who need guns will find them regardless, and restrictions will make it so much easier for them to harm the people who have done nothing wrong. Imagine being a murderer, or even someone who just uses a gun to inflict fear, and knowing that any house you choose to enter will be unarmed, virtually helpless against you. Crime rates would probably go up. As would the amount of dangerous dogs living in neighborhood with children (I would need one as some form of protection).

SmellyCat-13,

After reading your blog, I decided to respond by posting an e-mail that I forwarded to friends & family a few days ago:

Subject: Fw: A little Gun History, to make you think

This isn't new - it's been around before - but we need to keep it fresh in our minds - especially now that congress is in session again....

It's up to us to make sure this doesn't happen here. we are at risk. We need to let our politicians know we are aware of these statistics!

Over 1 in 10 women (12%) now own a gun in the USA. Gun ownership among
women is growing faster than for men.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up
and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law
to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here?

I bet the Aussies said that too.

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12
months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding A ustralian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating
this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'.

Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During W.W.II, the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Peal Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attache' to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy
was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill
prepared to defend the country. It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

It's hard to take someone seriously when they can't even spell the issue properly. It is "the right to keep and BEAR arms." Oh, and yes, Glocks and semiautomatic rifles were not around in the 18th century. They had much more benign weapons, like privately-owned WARSHIPS.

If the 2nd amendment can be severely restricted regardless of the "shall not be infringed" clause because the founders could not have foreseen automatic and semi-automatic weapons, then why can't we severely restrict the 1st amendment despite the fact the founders could not have foreseen television, movies, CD's, and the internet? Violent media and music, pornography, and even computer generated kiddy porn have no difficulty getting 1st amendment protection regardless of the harm they cause to society. So, let's apply your standard to the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and see what we end up with? What's good for one amendment is good for all of them!

Yes, guns make things easier for criminals to commit crimes, but they also make things easier for lawful citizens to defend themselves against criminals. The one exception to this is when lawful citizens are denied their right to self defense because of gun control laws (like gun bans at schools: Virginia Tech) that prevent them from possessing firearms while criminals are not deterred by laws. Virginia Tech had a complete ban on firearm possession. How did their gun control policies protect Cho's lawfully disarmed victims? When you disarm lawful citizens against violent criminals who are not deterred by laws, who is being protected and who is left vulnerable? You acknowledge criminals will get guns, so why do you want lawful citizens who are not a threat to society to be restricted? Why do you not acknowledge the difference between a lawfully armed citizen and a criminal?

According to Professor Gary Kleck at Florida State University, firearms are used by lawful citizens each year approximately 2 to 2.5 million times to stop the commission of a crime. In most cases the gun only needs to be brandished to stop the attack since most criminals are not willing to risk their lives to commit their crimes. For those that are willing to risk their lives or are intent on dying in the process like Cho, only lethal force, such as a firearm, will protect innocent life. So what does gun control achieve in this situation? One only need look at school shootings to see the outcome of gun control. How will more of the same achieve a different result? How many laws does it take to make a criminal obey them?

Why do high profile multiple victim attacks keep occurring in so-called "gun free safe zones" such as schools, churches, the work place, and post offices? Why do innocent lawful citizens keep getting shot in areas that are supposed to be gun free and safe? Some school shootings were actually stopped prematurely in Virginia, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania by citizens who ran to their cars and retrieved firearms saving untold lives.

If you think gun control works, look at England. They have severe restrictions on rifles and shotguns, and they banned handguns in 1997. England now ranks as the most violent western industrialized nation according to the International Crime Victim Survey. Here are some results from the ICVS:

*The British government banned handguns in January 1997 but gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the seven years from 1996 to 2003. Since 1996, the rate of serious violent crime has soared by 88%, armed robberies by 101%, rapes by 105% and homicide by 24%.
*Australia's 1996 gun-control regulations banned many types of guns and the immediate aftermath was similar. While murder rates remained unchanged, armed robbery rates averaged 59% higher in the eight years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2004) than in 1995.
*The Republic of Ireland banned and confiscated all handguns and all center fire rifles in 1972, but murder rates rose fivefold by 1974 and in the 20 years after the ban has averaged 114% higher than the pre-ban rate (never falling below at least 31% higher).
* Jamaica banned all guns in 1974, but murder rates almost doubled from 11.5 per 100,000 in 1973 to 19.5 in 1977, and soared further to 41.7 in 1980.

Here’s a link to an article in a U.K. paper about England’s gun crime problem. Where’s the peaceful society gun control was supposed to bring?
Times Online: Ministers covered up gun crime, published 08/26/07

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece

There is not one single independent academic study showing any gun control law in this nation has had an impact at reducing crime, and the reason is simple. Gun control does not address the reasons people commit crimes, and it only disarms those who obey them: lawful citizens who are not a threat to society.

According to Mahatma Gandhi, there are three ways of responding to violent aggression.

The one he advocated is peaceful resistance, e.g., to just tell a robber "NO!" and _try_ to run away. Of course, he's likely to murder you -- that's why passive resistance requires so much courage.

The other two choices are violent resistance and cowardly submission. Between these two choices, Gandhi said that violent resistance is less bad, and that cowardly compliance with evil is the most despicable option.

Indeed, a person who obeys the mugger to deliver him the goods is financing violent crime no less so than the person who hires a contract killer. You are paying him to commit robbery.

I have children who depend on me; dying in a statement of passive resistance is just not going to happen. Therefore, I need a gun so that in case I am threatened by an armed robber I can shoot him down. I need others to have this option as well, so I don't need to bear this burden all by myself. I need armed neighbors so that I can depend on my society to protect me, and I need to be armed so that I can contribute to my neighbors' protection.

The alternative is a cowardly, "I don't want to get involved" attitude such as the one which let poor young Kitty Genovese be stabbed repeatedly to death while an entire apartment house of New Yorkers closed their curtains and ignored her screams.

And before you take a holier-than-thou attitude about _your_ nonviolence, remember that there is no moral difference (other than cowardice) between the person who engages in armed self-defense versus the one who dials 911 to summon an armed stranger to do the dirty work.

...those are my rights you are talking about!
Hi Tahni,

I always wanted to write that line! As you are finding out, this topic can bring out the worst is some people. Like you, I believe this issue, like all others, can be debated and discussed without vitriol.

Under full disclosure please be advised that I am a gun owner, NRA member and NRA Certified Firearms Instructor. As such, I am a tireless defender of the right to keep and bear arms. That said, education is the tool I like to use so you won’t get any nasty grams from me; if we can’t get along then we’ll simply stop trying to communicate. Life is way to short for arguments.

Tahni, like a lot of people unfamiliar with firearms you make some statements that simply are not accurate thus leading the debate in the wrong direction. For example, there is nothing about Glock pistols that make them any more “powerful” than other pistols. One of the guns used by Cho at VT was a Glock 19 (9mm) that, if anything, is slightly underpowered when compared to other larger rounds such as .40 or .45 calibers. Cho’s other gun was Walther .22 which is very underpowered.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or hunters. It is about the ability to own firearms for a variety of reasons such as hunting but just as importantly self defense. Self defense includes personal safety and the safety of the nation. If you want to take any or all of our guns away, that’s fine, but you’ll need a constitutional amendment in order to do it.

I agree with you that there are a lot of people killed with firearms every year. However, the overwhelming majority of these killings are intentional not accidental. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are safe and responsible with their firearms as evidenced by the declining rate of accidental deaths since 1980.

Lahni, gun control doesn’t prevent crime; indeed, it encourages it!

All the best,

Paul

PS Love the fangs!

Tahni,

First, thank you for posting your views in this blog. I would like to take the chance to respond to a few of your points, and hopefully get you to re-examine at least a few of your ideas concerning the myth of how "gun control" would help to reduce violent crime.

To begin, let me state this simple fact: Gun laws only affect the law-abiding citizen. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws, and will not obey any new ones just the same.

With that out of the way, let me analyze your argument. You said, "I do beleive (sic) that stronger gun restrictions would bring down the amount of deaths by gun." Although I respect your opinion, I want to see a suggestion, or at least an example of an effective gun law that would buttress your position. The fact is, that there are none.

Great Britain has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world, yet these laws only bar law-abiding citizens from obtaining handguns and defending themselves from those who obtain them illegally. The same goes for Japan and New Zealand, who have seen a surge in gun crimes recently.

Next, you said, "I think it is important to remember that [in the 18th century] there was no such thing as a glock or semi-automatic rifle...It wasn't so easy back then to walk into a crowded place andk (sic) knock off twenty people."

Inaccurate. Weapons like bombs, cannon, the duckfoot pistol, revolving rifles, etc. have been around for hundreds of years. It is my belief that the founding Fathers intended for citizens to be equipped with weapons that were on par with those possessed by government. Back when the Constitution was written, there were also handguns, by the way. Additionally, remember, there was no National Guard until the mid-19th century. The citizens were responsible for their own safety. Why should only the 18th century Government own cannon? Presently, the U.S. Military uses many different weapon types, most of which are available to the civilian market. This is a separate discussion.

Next, you said, "But bare in mind that a gun makes it much easier to kill someone and more importantly, it makes it possible to kill many, many people in a short amount of time."

Believe it or not, there may be a time when killing many people at once is, in fact, useful. Sometimes groups of criminals run in groups larger than one or two, you know. Typically, the media like to portray "assault" weapons as evil machines, when in fact "assault" weapons are already tightly regulated as Class III firearms. Google "National Firearms Act" for an example. personally, I would like to see this Act repealed, because these weapons are not commonly used in the commission of crimes.

You said, "...I'm not talking about making all guns illegal, just the most dangerous ones."

Sad to say, but this statement is indicative of someone having very little firearms education. Please define "dangerous" in the context of firearms. A .22 caliber pistol is just as deadly at close range as a .45 caliber pistol. Again, "Class III" weapons are already tightly regulated. I urge you to educate yourself on the types of weapons you would like to see banned. You see, you are trying to take away weapons that other people have the right to own, peacefully and responsibly.

A .50 caliber sniper rifle cannot be used to "pierce armor at 1 mile" or to "bring down a 747". Have you ever looked at any WWII pictures of anti-aircraft fire? Amazing how our planes made it through at all, because the Germans used 88mm anti-aircraft guns, not .50 caliber bullets. An 88mm shell could not penetrate the armor of a German Tiger tank at 100 yards, forget a .50 caliber (~10mm) bullet!

You said, "...just not the big heavy-duty ones that are so often used in violent crimes and mass murders." Cho used a small .22 caliber handgun and a 9mm pistol in the VT massacre. These are not "heavy duty weapons". My 8-year old son responsibly handles a Walther .22 caliber pistol and is quite proficient with it. Who would have thought my 8-year could handle a "heavy duty" weapon?

"Assault weapon" is an inflammatory term, referring to the shape of the stock of a rifle. That same action, barrel, bullet caliber and ballistics, in a hunting rifle, with the same semi-automatic capability, raises few eyebrows whatsoever. It's just that weapons that LOOK like those used in the military are deemed somehow more dangerous than if that same action was in a wooden "hunting" stock instead. Did you know that under HR 1022, at least 50% of the weapons used for hunting in this country would be banned?

Tahni, you said, "personally, just don't like guns and, personally, feel they do more harm than good. I hate guns - they terrify and sicken me." Hoplophobia is a treatable disease, as is ignorance. You are entitled to your opinion, but you must realize that it has no basis in fact. Why is this so? Have you had a negative experience related to guns? Have you made an effort to overcome this fear? I believe you should, because the fear is unfounded and irrational. Tahni, It is axiomatic that people fear things they don't understand.

Tahni, I can't believe you would like to legislate away my rights, and the rights of other law-abiding gun owners, just because you won't make an effort to educate yourself about the lawful use of firearms. Personally, THIS is scary to me. People, being self-centered, are only generally concerned about issues that directly affect THEM. Well, the gun control issues DOES affect me personally.

I was raised in a home with NO guns. When I was young, I was introduced to the safe handling and responsibility of firearms in the Boy Scouts. I have never served in the military, or police, and I do not hunt. I am fascinated with history, and I own several examples of WII battle rifles, pistols, and other memorabilia. I take the high road, educating my kids on the responsible use of firearms at an early age. Would you rather that my kids get their educations from the street? I believe they would, if my guns were to be outlawed. As a law-abiding citizen, I would turn them in. Thank God I don't have to, Tahni. I live in the USA.

I conclude by stating a fact: The USA is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. We have a system that works very well; I thank God for that. A democracy would legislate away God-given rights with a simple majority vote. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner." Liberty is an armed lamb asking for a recount of the vote. :0

Tahni, I urge you to study the gun control argument at a deeper level. Educate yourself as to the positions of both sides. Take a year to do it. Go to a gun store, talk to the employees. Go to a shooting range for a class. Then re-examine your opinions, and blog again. Tahni, did you get your license approved before you wrote your opinion? Did you pass the test that should be required for you to exercise your Freedom of Speech? Were your words approved by someone behind a desk before you could post to the internet? Should we have to pass a simple test to be afforded protection from unreasonable searches? Should we have to submit our vocabularies to insure that we're not going to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater? Should we have to prove that we have stripped libelous and slanderous words from our personal lexicon before we can exercise free speech? NO! I didn't think so. As you read and blog, keep this in mind. Good luck, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

http://a-human-right.com

It is folly to think that the public will be safer if thugs substitute the use of rifles when handguns are banned. A few minutes with a hacksaw will make the rifle plenty small, but the cartridge it uses will still cause many times the injury than any handgun cartridge. Typical lever-action hunting rifles are abundant on the used market at a lower price than modern handguns. They were the original "rapid fire" guns.

Why wouldn't criminals make this substitution?

--

When the Redcoats marched on Lexington & Concord, they were looking for barrels of black powder and some cannon. The townspeople quickly buried these in their fields. Surely, the Second Amendment is meant to protect small cannon and barrels of powder -- it was never mentioned that they would be excluded from the right.

The computer wasn't around when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Just think how easy it is to plagiarize using a computer. Or how an individual can easily put up a blog read by thousands of people. Basically any individual can publish their own newspaper, quickly and easily. Surely the Founding Fathers never thought of that!

So I guess only the "authorities" should have access to computers, while a citizen's free speech should be limited to whatever he can write with a quill and parchment.

Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it?

Midlothian, VA

Tahni,

I too can discuss the gun control argument without anger or vicious personal attacks.

After reading your blog and all the comments on the issue, there is one glaring piece of information that has been left out: that is, what the 2nd Amendment actually IS.

I have followed the gun-control issue for many years and people on both sides have railed on the meaning of: "Amendment II: 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."

Some say it says that it gives people an individual right to own guns. Others say that it gives the States the right to raise a militia, therefore the right is collective.

Both arguments are completely wrong. Why they are both wrong becomes apparent when the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are examined as a whole.

First, where does the Federal Government come from? The Fed exists because the several States gave up certain powers so that it *could* exist. The US Constitution is a specific list of ennumerated powers that the Fed was given. It is a list of what the Fed is allowed to do. Read that again: the US Constitution is a list of what the Fed is allowed to do.

Second, the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) was added because the anti-Federalists were concerned the the newly-given Federal powers would slowly encroach on the States. Paragraph (2) of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights (see below) clearly states this. The Bill of Rights is a specific list of things that the Fed is not allowed to do. Read that again: The Bill of Rights is a specific list of what the Fed is *not allowed to do*. Hence the phrase in the Preamble: "further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added".

What this means is that the restriction is on the Fed. It is not on the people.

The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers also clearly state the Founding Father's positions on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

So, where is all this going, you ask?

You wrote: "When the founding forefathers wrote the constitution and put in the right to keep and bare arms, I think it is important to remember that there was no such thing as a glock or semi-automatic rifle."

You imply that the right to keep and bear arms only exists because the Founding Fathers "put it there". This is hardly the case. Rights do not come from governments, laws, constitutions, or pieces of paper. Rights are natural-born and pre-date every president, king, constitution, and government which ever existed, to the beginning of time. One of those rights is self-preservation, the right to protect your person, home, family, and property from harm, wherever that harm may come from. The Bill of Rights spells out some of those rights and expressly forbids the Fed from encroaching upon them. Gun control restricts the use of arms, it inhibits the right of self-defense.

Governments cannot grant rights or take them away, they can only suppress them. What comes from government is permission and privilige.

Our Constitution niether "gives", "grants", nor "creates" any rights for anyone. It merely tells the Fed that they are not allowed to infinge upon the Right of the People to keep and bear arms.

Now look at the 9th and 10th amendments:

"Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In modern Engish, the 9th means that the Fed cannot excercise any power given to it in the Constitution if it encroaches upon the people's rights that they did not give up. The 10th means that the Fed is not allowed to excersise any power not specifically given to it in the original articles of the Constitution.

On a Federal level, the government is not allowed to implement "gun control" in any form. What about gun control on the State level then?

The 14th Amendment takes care of this one:

"Amendment 14, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What this means is that if you call yourself a US Citizen, a State cannot pass any laws which trample your rights. So, gun control on the State level is a no-no as well.

So where does this leave us?

It doesn't matter if you take an individual view or a collective view of the 2nd Amendment. According to the Preamble, The restriction is on the Fed, not the People. The Fed is not allowed to restrict the Right to keep and bear arms. The States aren't allowed to, either. The People don't have to ask permission or be "granted" a Right which already exists and existed long before the Fed. Thus, every single gun control law on the books is completely unconstitutional.

Yet, we do have gun control laws anyway. If you think that's acceptable, how many other abuses and usurpations of our Constitution are you willing to tolerate because you may think it's "good for society"? Where are you willing to draw the line?

Laslty, crime is a problem. Innocent victims dying as a result of a criminal with a gun is terrible. However, I don't believe that my rights should be taken away because someone else can't excercise them properly. If that's the case, then every newspaper, web blog, TV station, radio station, and media source should be restricted, controlled, or shut down due to the countless lives wrecked through libel and irresponsible journalism.

++++++++++++++++++++++
(1)
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791

PREAMBLE

Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

(2)
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

(3)
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

(4)
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

http://billofrights.org/

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I hope I was able to give you some new information.

Nice fangs, by the way!

Regards,

MadMax

Great post, and very timely as today is Constitution day.

"For the sole purpose of defending one's self, I would always want someone to be able to have access to a gun, just not the big heavy-duty ones that are so often used in violent crimes and mass murders."

According to the FBI, the type of firearm most used in violent crime is a handgun. Which is also the most common choice for self-defense. So you want people to be able to defend themselves with a gun, but you want to ban the guns that people can best accomplish that with? That makes no sense.

If I could re-write the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, this is precisely what I would love to see:

"We, the people of the United States, in order that we shall have the right to preserve a State free for all races, shall achieve this end by the use of less-lethal weaponry only for our continued survival as human beings. This free State entails our personal self-defense as well as our right to our food consumption. In keeping with current government law, if we so choose to possess a less-lethal weapon (be it either upon our persons or within our private homes), we are obligated to store these aforementioned weapons plus any ammo relating to its use in a manner which will serve to protect the welfare of a minor child.

http://www.non-violent.com/guntrol.htm

Smellycat you raise some good points; I just don’t understand how you do it, without logic or reason answering many of your very own points.

Before we get started I’d like to pose a question:
Instead of depriving the Law-Abiding of the most viable means of protection available, while it does NOTHING to stop criminals: Why not use something simpler, more straight forward and directed at the very root of the problem: If they are walking the streets as a ‘’ freeman’ they should be able to carry whatever weapon they wish. However, if they are menace to society, whither due to criminal behavior or mental disorder, put them in prison and leave them there as long as they are a menace.

You have stated several times: “People should have access to something to defend themselves with, but you don't need the kind of heavy-duty weapons I'm talking about to do that.”
What kind ARE you talking about? What are these mysterious “heavy-duty weapons” you keep mentioning but haven’t given a name or discription? What weapon would be reliable to stop home invaders, or rioters like the Korean shopkeepers had to face when the cops ran away during the “Rodney King Riots”?

What you don’t seem to understand, is that it is NOT the type of tool available, but rather the misuse of any tool that is the problem.
God forbid, but if one of your loved ones were knifed to death, I doubt you would exclaim: “Well, yes she was raped, her throat was cut, and she was stabbed 38 times. But THANK GOODNESS the murderer didn’t have a GUN, or he might have SHOT HER! Or WORSE! What if SHE had had a gun, he might have taken it away from her and used it on her!”
I would rather my loved one had the ABILITY to protect herself, even if she fails, rather just be quietly slaughtered like a defenseless sheep.

Let me address a few of your points:
1) “Whenever the debate about gun control comes up, I always hear the following arguments: "If someone is going to kill another person, they're going to do it whether they have a gun or not, so why put more restriction on guns?"

OK. There are several places in the USA where STRICT gun control laws have BEEN enacted for a number of years: NYC, Washington, DC, and Chicago to name just 3 such cities.

Question: Where have STRICTER gun control laws, lead to LOWER violent crime rates?

In 2000, 20% of ALL U.S. homicides, occur in FOUR cities that represent just SIX PERCENT OF THE POPULATION – New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. – most of which have/had a virtual BAN on private handguns. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for 2000, p. 79, Table 5, "Index of Crime by State")

Washington D.C. has BANNED gun ownership for 30 years and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000.
While just across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is NOT regulated, and the murder rate is a mere 1.6 per 100,000.

“Duh, the DC killers are getting their guns from unregulated Arlington, Virginia!”
So if the guns ARE the problem: Why aren’t Arlington’s murder rates at least on a scale with DC’s?

If you had a headache, and so you hit yourself in the head with a hammer, and the blow LESSENED the severity of the headache, I could possibly understand hitting yourself in the head with the hammer AGAIN, or even using more force.
But if the blow made your headache WORSE; why would you try it again with more force or even a BIGGER hammer?
Sounds insane doesn’t it?
Everywhere gun control has been enacted, violent crime has gotten WORSE.

2) “When the founding forefathers wrote the constitution and put in the right to keep and bare arms, I think it is important to remember that there was no such thing as a glock or semi-automatic rifle.”

But if back then you misused a muzzle loading pistol, rifle or shotgun: the effect was the same as in modern times.
In fact, had Cho HAD a Glock, in the Founder’s time, the victims would have undoubtedly been far fewer, because in that day men were ARMED and were not raised to be cowardly sheep and to just lay down and die at the hand of a goblin. While they may die, it would NOT be on their knees as helpless victims!

Criminal misuse of something, gun, knife, car, or club, is still criminal misuse.
Criminals are called “criminals” because they ignore the law.
Thus new laws against guns will be no more effective then the other 20,000 ineffectual laws against guns that are already on the books. This is because gun laws will only affect those who would OBEY the laws in the first place, called “law-abiding”.

Example: Meth is illegal to possess anywhere in the United States; yet how hard is it to obtain meth, if one is willing to violate the law?

3) “It wasn't so easy back then to walk into a crowded place andk knock off twenty people. Considering the time it would take to load and then reload the rifles they had back then and the accuracy of those guns...I'd say maybe three fatalities or so, but then again I'm no expert.”

How many mass shootings have taken place in the present time where the intended victims were ARMED? What was the body count?
Guns were TOTALLY BANNED at VA Tech, Columbine, and the Xerox headquarter in Hawaii; How’d that work out for them?
Yet, there are THOUSANDS of guns at any of the many gun show around the Nation; how many “Gun Show Massacres” have you heard about?
So just by simple reasoning it would appear that GUNS are not the problem.

Let’s look at a few FACTS because: “Feelings” don’t save lives.
Columbine had 5, heavily armed and highly trained, SWAT Teams on the school grounds within minutes/Pearl High School had one armed vice-principal.
Body count tally: Columbine 13/Pearl 3

VA Tech, which has a TOTAL BAN on LAW-ABIDING students possessing guns on campus, and the Appalachian School of Law are 132 miles apart. Both schools have had people, willing to commit murder, come onto their campus and commit murder: Cho went to VA Tech and encountered no armed resistance, while on January 16, 2002, 43-year-old murderer Peter Odighizuwa encountered ARMED Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges.
Body count tally: VA Tech 32/Appalachian School of Law 3.

Texas law at the time of the incident forbids the common law-abiding peons from carrying guns. So on October 16, 1991, in Killeen, Texas: George Hennard believed his intended victims would be defenseless sheep to be slaughtered, drove his truck through the window at Luby’s in Killeen, TX, and proceeded to murder his defenseless victims. Yet, just 2 months later, robbers thought Shoney’s Family restaurant in Anniston, AL would be another good place to rob and possibly commit murder like they had the week before.
Sadly for them; Thomas Glen Terry was eating there with his wife, when the robber/killers attacked and herded their 21 intended victims, including Mr. Terry’s wife, into the walk-in cooler. Mr. Terry sent one robber/killer late to breakfast in HELL, and critically wounded the second.
Body count of the innocent: Luby’s 23/ Shoney’s 0.

Where has being defenseless saved lives when murderers attacked?

“But bare in mind that a gun makes it much easier to kill someone and more importantly, it makes it possible to kill many, many people in a short amount of time.”

There were no guns involved during 9-11 or the OKC Bombing, The Happy Land arson fire March 25, 1990 (87 deaths), Bath, Michigan bombing (45 deaths).
Again, where has there been a mass murder where the victims were not first disarmed; either by “company policy” or Government mandate?

“If the resources for the killers were limited, it is entirely possible that lives could have been saved in each of these situations.”
Again, not so: Even with today’s gas prices the Happy Land massacre could have been carried out for $3.
Even 6 years later; the box cutters used on 9-11 can still be bought for less than $5.

"Even if you make it illegal to own guns, they're going to find one anyway." This is true. It is very possible that killers like Cho Seung-Hui could still have gotten their hands on a glock, could still have killed many other people before going down themselves. But it would have been much, much harder for them to do so. Chances are they would have had to settle with something less powerful and less quick, in which case even just one or two more lives could have been saved. Isn't than better than having lost all the people who were killed?”

Wrong again.
Had the Columbine murderers not been so inept, so as to have properly wired their propane bombs, the death toll would have been staggering . . . especially considering the police KEPT the children trapped inside WITH the killers, while the police hid outside in safety.

Federal Gun Control laws BARRING Cho from possessing ANY gun made it a FELONY for him to have those guns no matter how he may acquire them.
If a criminals is willing to commit MURDER, why would they obey ANY lesser law or restrictions?

However ARMED fellow students or faculty like the Appalachian School of Law or Pearl High School had; could have stopped the massacre.
In response to the PLO targeting and killing hundreds of their school children, the Israelis started arming their faculty, parents, grandparents and even older high school students, where upon the attacks immediately STOPPED.
They have had armed schools for over 20 years now, with no school shootings.
The USA enacted the “Gun-Free School Zone Law” and in the 11 years since its becoming law there have been 35 school massacres. How many school massacres did we have before assuring the killers they would encounter no armed resistance?

“Lastly, I want to note that I am not talking about rescrticting all guns. While I was raised in a home with firearms, I hate guns - they terrify and sicken me.”

That is only because you have a mental illness called Hoplophobia. (An irrational fear of tools or weapons.)

Irrational, because the rational mind see only an object incapable of harm without misuse.

If you started sweating, became terrified and panicked when I cursed at you and grabbed a large chef’s knife out of the knife block in my kitchen and came after you; that is a reasonable reaction to a dangerous threat.

If you walked into my kitchen, and SOILED YOURSELF, when you saw my chef’s knife laying on the counter where it was laid after cutting up carrots: this is NOT rational behavior.

Downheartedpink stated: “i think that guns should be limited to the people who use them in their line of work . . .”
Like convenience store and bank robbers?
Cops have LESS need of guns than the common citizen.
Cops seldom arrive in time to even apprehend a suspect. (Witkin, Gordon, Guttman, Monika and Lenzy, Tracy. “This is 911 ... please hold.” U.S. News & World Report, June 17, 1998)

Doubt this? It is really easy to prove: ask ANY cop to make a list of all the felony ‘crime reports’ he’s written. EACH report is a serious crime, which happened so close to that very cop, that he actually took the report . . . but didn’t STOP the serious crime. Now ask the very same cop to make a list of all the felonies he has stopped and “brought the criminal to justice”. Want to bet which list is longer?
While cops are seldom present when an innocent is criminally attacked . . . the victim is ALWAYS there.

But cops inability to protect the citizens is really irrelevant: Cops have no duty to protect individuals!
Want proof?
OK:
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

As for your comment: “and whether or not guns prevent murder or not, they encourage violence.”
While this is a very foolish opinion, with no basis in facts, you are none the less entitled to it.
I personally see nothing “morally superior” about a woman being raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, I prefer instead; a woman explaining to the cops how the rapist, with the long history of crimes against women, got the fatal bullet wound.

Downheartedpink please do us all a favor and start wearing a pin that states: “If you see me being criminally attacked, please do not come to my aid as violence only begets violence.”

truelife90 your thinking is interesting as well!
“My friends gave me evil looks every time I mentioned that I want to own a gun.”
Why do your friends feel you are that irresponsible and untrustworthy? Sounds like you need to make some serious life changes . . . or get some more worthwhile friends!

“The issue is the person who uses the gun more than the gun itself, right?”
That is absolutely correct!
Think about it logically:
Which is worse; someone robbing your mother with a knife, you hear her scream and go there, only to be able to watch as her throat is cut and her attacker then turns on you with the bloody knife . . . or you putting a couple of holes into her attacker when he goes to cut her throat?
“That could never happen!”
Really? Are you SURE? Maybe if Ron Goldman had been ARMED his last night on Earth, he would be agreeing with me.

The Anti-Freedom Nazis keep telling us: “What if you HAD to kill someone, with your big bad GUN, how would you be able to live with yourself?”
I say: “Much easier that I could live with myself KNOWING I hadn’t protected my loved ones to the best of my ability, and THEY paid the price for my failure to take personal responsibility.”
truelife90 said: “I thought having a gun is cool, like movies you see in Hollywood.”
Hollyweird glamorizes stupidity, and depends on their audiences’ ignorance.
Think about it! Think of the premise of so many movies, and how quickly they would be over with ARMED responsible citizens: “Oh MY! The neighbor’s giant dog, Cujo, is rabid, has gone crazy and is trying to kill me!”
BAM-BAM-BAM!
“Good thing I had my Glock!”
Movie over, lights come on.

Think about it!
“Oh NO! A psycho wearing the skin of a previous victim as a mask is ATTACKING my boyfriend with a CHAINSAW!”
BAM-BAM-BAM!
“BOY, I’m glad I had the Model 19 Smith & Wesson he gave me for our last anniversary!”
Movie over, lights come on.

Come now truelife90, you’re more intelligent than that!
truelife90: “If I have children, I'll probably throw my guns away...wouldn't want them to play with it.”
Instead of shirking your responsibility as a parent, why not TEACH them proper gun safety?
It could be VERY helpful:
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/nation/14649811.htm

Besides, in 1993, there were 1,334 drownings and 528 firearm-related accidental deaths from ages 0-19. Firearms outnumber pools by a factor of over 30:1. Thus, the risk of drowning in a pool is nearly 100 times higher than from a firearm-related accident for everyone, and nearly 500 times
for ages 0-5. (National Center for Health Statistics, and the National Spa and Pool Institute.)

My children were raised with guns, both toys and real guns, I imposed the same safety rules with either.
I started teaching my children gun safety when they showed an interest in the guns.
By they were 5; they knew “The 5 Basic Rules of Gun Safety”.
My children were given their own guns on their 8th birthday, and I’ve never had a reason to regret it.

i hate to tell you this, but a "less dangerous" weapon, also means that it is less capable of stopping a bad guy... owning a gun is not about wanting to kill someone, even in a case where i am a victim of violent crime... it is about stopping a very bad situation from getting worse... the only reason to use a gun for self defense is to stop the threat in a quick and decisive manner...

the problem is not guns, never have i hear of a gun getting up, walking across the street and shooting someone... its irresponsibility and lack of education that causes the problems... i take my 8 year old son to the range on a regular basis to teach him safety and responsibility.. and you know what, i feel more comfortable when he goes to his friends house... because if one of his friends ever says "hey look what i found in daddies desk" my son will know what to do and how to remove himself from that situation...

he at the age of 8 already knows and follows these rules, why is it so hard for teens and adults to do the same?

1. Treat all firearms as if they are loaded.
2. Never point a firearm at anything or anyone you are not willing to destroy or kill.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger, and outside of the trigger-guard, until your sights are on the intended target and you are ready to fire.
4. Know your target, what the projectile (ammunition) can do, what's between you and your target, and what is beyond.

i dare say that it is because of irresponsibility on the part of parents and lack of education, not because a specific type of gun is legal...

and a great majority of legal gun owners do not commit crimes with their guns, in fact most will never even fire their weapon in self defense (but they are prepared to do so if necessary)... every gun owner i know actually dreads having to use their weapon, because to do so is a very decisive and life changing act, and they know that it is a great responsibility

Thomas Jefferson:"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."

Alexander Hamilton: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."

Its called the bill of rights not the bill for suggestions for when there convenient. The fundamental rights expressed in the first 10 are before and beyond any government of men. Although I will admit that there are some reasonable restrictions that can be placed upon firearm ownership. I would be fine with banning only fully automatic guns or guns with magazines of over 10 rounds. Small load handguns and shotguns are the ideal weapons for defense and should not be banned.

Gun bans wrongly and wrongfully affect non-gun owners because bans disarm only the law-abiding. Nothing new, until you see how this spreads. As usual, criminal laws do not interfere with crime until after-the-fact; gun control interferes with only the honest and before-the-fact, and then again after-the-fact, often within a system which victimizes constituents twice. Lifting gun bans can enhance crime control and lift government burdens. For some officials, carrying burdens is desirable, but it is an abuse of the law against the interests of the United States.

Understand that citizens play a role in crime control -- you might say that it is a burden that is ours to carry - and gun bans unreasonably and illegally freeze the citizen out of the process entirely. Police are utterly a reactive force. Reliance on a reactive force to the exclusion of the citizenry is a trap. Assumptions have been that only police can control crime, or that it is their job to protect individuals who summon them. Both are false, and let’s get real on this right now. Advice such as "Don’t do anything until we get there," – "Be a Good Witness." — "Give them what they want," – "It’s the Police’s job," have all proven to contribute to individual tragedy and to crime overall, and to do nothing to stem it. Nothing.

The fact is that Police have no duty to protect individuals. Not since the inception of an organized police force in the middle 1800's, and not today. It has been merely an assumption, and perhaps very important for the head of a household to know.

The answer is, of course, not to react to violence as any single political answer, but to meet it instance-by-instance, and regular beat officers know very well that the target is the first line of defense. This burden is ours, and nothing will ever change it. It is wrong to interfere with it merely for political reasons.

Police, attorneys, judges, gun owners and others also know that citizens are possessed of all legal authority to stop a crime in progress, especially their own rape, robbery or even murder. We can even come to the defense of another. All gun regulation seeks to attack this citizen authority.

Right-to-carry states [where citizens carry their guns] comprise a super-majority not only on these principles, but on an entire philosophy that an armed citizenry doesn’t contribute to violence, an armed citizenry de-escalates it. Isn’t this how crime should be fought — with no one getting hurt?

The FBI agrees. As a central destination for crime reports handed in by law enforcement around the nation, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report gives national figures of shooting deaths of about 29,500 each year; the Bureau furnishes its companion figure of citizens who use their gun to de-escalate a crime in progress to be more than 2.5 million times a year. Understand that Police and gun owners are not foes, but allies.

For the nearly 30,000 who die unarmed, there are 2.5 million who don’t die in a crime because they have not only superior force, but full authority to act, and they use both. 2.5 million times a year.

Here is how gun laws affect the non gun owner. Bans are an exquisite example of how constituents fear their city managers more than they do criminals. managers then come to know this and the principle spreads.

From disaster preparedness and disaster recovery, education content and violent crime — constituents are increasingly frozen out of the process of shaping tragedy and disaster of what could be a societal plane crash into a much more preferable controlled descent. Citizens are the supreme authority in this country; why freeze them out of a healing/recovery process? Consulting officials in cases such as the Virginia Tech Shooting and refusing to give greater weight to parents and students is ludicrous when the intended target and the supreme authority there [students] are one and the same.

Gun bans are no different. Gun control fails because it obscures and punishes the authority to act when facing grave danger. This principle of hiding your authority spreads to other political issues. It’s that simple -- many of which are based on a fraud of fighting crime and hate.

In the months ahead, constituents need to remember that the Second Amendment is not about guns – it is about abuses of the law. The founders didn’t care about weapons of the future – but they did anticipate recurrences of what they had just defeated: abuses of due process for political gain – a looting of the nation by keeping crisis going, to put it in modern terms.

How does a gun law affect me, if I don’t even own a gun? It works to dissolve the legal force which backs your citizen authority against boondoggles, such as those claiming violence or hate. Fraudulent programs then grow, in pre-emptively ascribing hate and violence to all, and that includes you. When crime or hate is used as a reason to take the force - and the choice - out of the hands of you, the non-criminal, the non-hater, because they cannot disarm the criminals, when it is used to criminalize the honest, then you have an abuse of the law.

Abuse of the law was the very reason the Founders wrote that the citizens be the supreme authority, and not only vigilant, but armed to back that authority. In any era.

I believe in owning a gun. Just because you own a gun does not mean you are going to shoot someone. People will get guns no matter what, even if the law says you may not own one, they will find one. instead of banning guns, society should have certain rules for owners of guns weather your gun is legal or not. I believe if you tell someone that they cannot have something, they want it more. so let them have the guns and give them rules to follow.

...it seems that the pro 2A folks can be a bit overwhelming as I predicted in an earlier post. On the other hand, there are many well reasoned and polite comments relative to the virtues of gun ownership.

I guess that you may be feeling that you have opened up a can of worms here but the important thing to take away from all this is the fact that there are an awful lot of gun owners out there who care passionately about our right to keep and bear arms. We are right Cat and, more importantly, we are on the right side of the constitution and bill of rights.

To your credit, you have kept a level head but unfortunately, you retreat to ill advised positions that leave you open to further attack. For example, a common thread in your posts is the idea that “more powerful weapons” should be restricted. But this is a completely indefensible position for all of the reasons mentioned in the blog.

Take a gun class Cat, and then you will be able to appreciate our point of view. As an NRA Certified Firearms Instructor I would be more than happy to give you such a class but I’m in NJ and I think that you are not in NJ.

All the best,

Paul

You're uncomfortable about guns because you haven't had even a small amount of training. The unknown makes most people uncomfortable.

The irony is that with the training you will become comfortable with guns because you will have an understanding of gun-safety and how guns works.. I love to watch people's eyes light up the first time they put a bullet in the bullseye ;-)

Women make excellent shots. Shooting is a mental game, not a physical one. It's all about concentration and understanding some basic rules.

Anyway I hope you give it a try. Until you've tried shooting, you really won't understand what fun it is.

Midlothian, VA

First, I think part of where gun banners are veering in the wrong direction comes from a distinct lack of understanding as to what the Second Amendment means, the reasoning behind it and what it actually stands for. The Second Amendment was not intended to solely or even primarily record the right to hunt or engage in a recreational activity with a firearm. The primary purpose of enumerating the Second Amendment was to provide for legally binding language to cement the right of the people to resist a tyrannical and oppressive government using the implements that would be used against them, i.e. arms. To clarify for simplicity's sake, the Second Amendment provides protection for the private citizen to arm themselves in order to fight against a standing army or force (foreign or domestic) using military arms. So whatever the soldiers have in the way of arms, the citizens have the ability to arm themselves equally. This is also in accordance with service in the unorganized militia. Private citizens, reporting for militia duty (which is not the national guard as some people erroneously believe) were to equip themselves with arms comparable to those that were fielded by soldiers. In the 1700's, that was a musket, today that should equate to an automatic rifle as used by our modern military.

Private citizens were meant to have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, it is absolute absurdity to think that the founders, who went to great lengths to enumerate that right, would handicap the very citizens they meant to protect by mandating that the military should have stronger and more useful arms. If you meant to secure the right for someone to defend themselves against something, you don't hand them slingshots when their opposition has cannons. To think otherwise is completely bereft of logic.

The founders also knew that with rights came certain inherent dangers to society, but they felt that individual liberty was more important than the security of the whole. This is exactly why they enumerated the right for people to be secure in their persons, papers and homes even though it would obviously make the state's job of investigating and prosecuting crime more difficult. Do you not think society as a whole might be safer if the government had the right to arbitrarily walk into any home it wants without needing a warrant to investigate and arrest people for any criminal acts or contraband they find? We might be more safe, but we'd also be less free. Freedom has a price, but the benefits far outweigh the costs. Benjamin Franklin reportedly once said, “Those that would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” That's the spirit behind the notion that in a free society, the rights of the individual outweigh even the most compelling popular interests.

On the surface, passing laws criminalizing the possession of certain items to combat crime almost makes logical sense, except that making something illegal does not make it vanish from the face of this earth. Criminals get guns and they break the law to do it. Making more laws will not hinder or hamper the criminals because the very thing that makes them criminals is that they willingly break the law. Only the law-abiding abide by laws. If you want to see this phenomenon in action, look at the current war on drugs. They're illegal, yet criminals still manage to get them and run their criminal enterprises around them. Has the war on drugs and the countless drug laws hindered and reduced the flow or proliferation of illegal narcotics? No, it has not. In fact, since the so-called “war on drugs” was waged, drug smuggling, sales and use have risen dramatically.

Furthermore, it goes back to the argument above that even if guns in and of themselves did cause crime, the purpose of having a society of armed individuals is to have a free society that can effectively resist oppression and tyranny in the form of a government or army (foreign or domestic). Crime has no bearing on this whatsoever. However, if it did, it is interesting to note that despite the fact that legal gun ownership is on the rise (and has been for many years), according to the the FBI's 2006 Uniform Crime Rerport, “for the 10-year trend (2006 compared with 1997) violent crime fell 13.3 percent.”

An interesting part of this discussion is where we talk about achool and workplace shootings. The problem with the Virgina Tech massacre and others like it, is that by forbidding civilian gun owners from carrying firearms in such places, you give the perpetrator the opportunity to kill fish in a barrel. One needs only to realize that the far and wide majority of such incidents take place in so-called “gun-free zones” to understand this.

Why does a person pick their school to play executioner instead of say, their own neighborhood where his or her classmates likely also live or somewhere else? It’s the same reason why the KKK doesn’t go to Harlem to lynch black folks, and why skinhead gay bashers don’t head off to Pink Pistol rallies to go curb some homosexuals. It’s why gang bangers don’t assault police stations for initiation rights and it’s also why terrorists hijacked and flew commercial planes into commercial buildings instead of hijacking military vessels and flying into Fort Bragg. It’s like sucker-punching a nun who has one arm. It’s not fair, but it’ll work, and if you can find a one-armed nun to punch that also happens to be blind, well, even better. This is how the kinds of cowards that kill unsuspecting innocent people think, remember that.

Think of the whole thing as choosing the path of least resistance and putting the odds in your favor by using your strengths and your target's weakness against them. If you want to kill a lot of people, you have to have a lot of people available to kill and you have to live long enough to kill them. So the obvious solution is that you go to where there are no guns, few armed police officers and enough people for you to kill a lot of them quickly. That’s why people perform massacres at schools and why they shoot their co-workers at work; firearms are generally prohibited in both places. And it’s also why wolves hunt in packs and lions hunt at night.

School shootings like the Columbine and VT incidents and workplace shootings like we saw at the postal offices in Edmond, Oklahoma in 1986 and Goleta, California, in 2006 are relatively rare. There have been approximately 30 incidents of actual massacres in schools since 1966.

* University of Texas at Austin massacre - Austin, Texas; August 1, 1966
14 dead (not including his wife and mother whom he stabbed to death before the shooting), 31 wounded (2 hunting rifles, an M1 Carbine and three handguns)

* Orangeburg Massacre - Orangeburg, South Carolina; February 8, 1968
3 dead, 27 wounded - the shooters were Police Officers

* Kent State shootings - Kent, Ohio; May 4, 1970
4 dead, 9 wounded - the shooters were members of the Ohio National Guard

* Jackson State killings - Jackson, Mississippi; May 14-15, 1970
2 dead, 12 wounded - the shooters were police

* California State University, Fullerton Library Massacre - Fullerton, California; July 12, 1976
7 dead, 2 wounded (.22 caliber rifle)

* Cleveland Elementary School - San Diego, California; January 29, 1979
2 dead, 9 wounded (.22 hunting rifle)

* Parkway South Junior High School shooting - Saint Louis, Missouri; January 20, 1983
2 dead (not including the shooter who committed suicide), 0 wounded (2 handguns)

* Stockton massacre - Stockton, California; January 17, 1989
5 dead (not including the shooter who committed suicide), 29 wounded (Ak-47)

* University of Iowa shooting - Iowa City, Iowa; November 1, 1991
5 dead (not including the shooter who committed suicide), 1 wounded (.38 revolver and a .22 handgun)

* Simon's Rock College of Bard shooting - Great Barrington, Massachusetts; December 14, 1992
2 dead, 4 wounded (SKS rifle)

* Richland High School shooting - Lynnville, Tennessee; November 15, 1995.
2 dead, 1 wounded (.22 rifle)

* Frontier Junior High shooting - Moses Lake, Washington; February 2, 1996
3 dead, one wounded (hunting rifle and 2 handguns)

* Pearl High School shooting, Pearl, Mississippi; October 1, 1997
2 dead (not including his mother whom he stabbed and beat to death), 7 wounded (hunting rifle) - NOTE the shooter was stopped by the Assistant Principle who went to his car and retrieved a .45 caliber Semi-automatic pistol and confronted the shooter.

* Heath High School shooting, West Paducah, Kentucky; December 1, 1997
3 dead, 5 wounded (22-caliber handgun, two hunting rifles and two shotguns)

* Jonesboro massacre - Jonesboro, Arkansas; March 24, 1998
5 killed, 10 wounded (two semi-automatic rifles, one bolt-action rifle and four handguns)

* Thurston High School shooting - Springfield, Oregon; May 21, 1998
2 dead (not including his parents, teachers at a local high school, were killed in their home that morning, not in the school), 25 wounded (.22 rifle, a .22 handgun, and a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol)

* Columbine High School massacre - Littleton, Colorado; April 20, 1999
13 killed (not including the shooters who committed suicide), 24 wounded (Intratec TEC-DC9, Hi-Point 995 Carbine, Savage 67H pump-action shotgun, Stevens 311D double barreled sawed-off shotgun)

* Heritage High School shooting - Conyers, Georgia; May 20, 1999
0 dead, 6 wounded (.22 rifle, .357mag revolver)

* Santana High School - Santee, California; March 5, 2001
2 dead, 13 wounded (handgun)

Appalachian School of Law shooting - Grundy, Virginia; January 16, 2002
3 dead, 3 wounded (.380 caliber semi-auto handgun) - NOTE: the shooter was apprehended by armed students who were also police officers)

* Rocori High School shootings - Cold Spring, Minnesota; September 24, 2003
2 dead, 0 wounded (.22 handgun)

* Red Lake High School massacre - Red Lake, Minnesota; March 21, 2005
7 dead (not including the shooter who committed suicide or the two people he killed before going to the school), 7 wounded (.22 handgun killed one person before school, all other shots came from a stolen 9mm Glock and a Pump Action shotgun - stolen from his grandfather, a police officer and one of the people he killed before he went to the school)

* Campbell County High School - Jacksboro, Tennessee: November 8, 2005
1 dead, 2 wounded (.22 handgun)

* Platte Canyon High School shooting - Bailey, Colorado; September 27, 2006
1 dead (not including the shooter who committed suicide), 0 wounded (handgun)

* Amish school shooting - Nickel Mines, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; October 2, 2006
5 dead (not including the shooter, who killed himself), 0 wounded (9mm semi-automatic handgun and a shotgun)

* Weston High School shooting - Cazenovia, Wisconsin September 29, 2006
1 dead, 0 wounded (brought a shotgun, but that was taken from him, killing was done via a handgun)

* Virginia Tech massacre - Blacksburg, Virginia; April 16, 2007
32 dead, 17 wounded (.22 handgun and a 9mm Glock)

If my math serves me correctly, that's 130 dead and 222 wounded in those 27 massacres (9 of those that died and 48 that were wounded were at the hands of military or law enforcement) over 41 years (that's 3.25 dead and 5.55 wounded people being accounted for per year).

Some conclusions:
It seems that .22 caliber weapons are prevalent amongst school shootings. Note that .22 caliber weapons are not normally carried or used for self defense, their use is relegated to hunting and recreational shooting (the very kinds of firearms many gun grabbers say they'll let us keep). Hunting weapons accounted for more shooting incidents than semi-automatic weapons that would normally be used for self defense. If need be, we could surely do the mathematical analysis to come up with some solid rations, but I think it is overwhelmingly obvious that most school shootings do not involve the types of guns that gun banners seek to ban or further restrict. So for some to say that they're not targeting hunting rifles because they're not the problem is simply disingenuous and intellectually dishonest given the facts. Even if we go outside of the realm of school shootings, so-called non hunting guns rarely factor into crime at all. In fact, reports from the FBI, law enforcement agencies, the Department of Justice, criminologists and other studies (many of which can be found in the Gun Facts publication noted at the end of this post) show that so-called assault weapon are used in less than 2% of violent crimes.

Furthermore, as horrific as they are, those types of school shootings occur infrequently (more people are killed by swimming pools), coming in at a rate of about 0.66 per year. Even if you add the few smaller and lesser-known incidents, the rate is less than one a year and the number of wounded and dead don't increase very much at all. It's also, it is apparent that when such killer are confronted by other armed individuals, the massacre stops (note the Appalachia and Pearl High School incidents).

As for workplace shootings, according to a study by Handgun-Free America (which seeks to ban private handgun ownership) there were 164 workplace shootings in the United States between 1994 and 2003, in which 290 people were killed and 161 were wounded. 164 shootings divided by 9 years = 18.22 workplace shootings per year.

How many people owned guns during those years? 514,707. So that means that 0.03% of firearm owners assaulted someone at work with a gun. Oops, actually, that’s not how many people owned guns during those years, it’s how many people applied for Concealed Carry Permits in the state of Pennsylvania alone from 2000 to 2004.

86706 (2000)
101206 (2001)
101440 (2002)
118070 (2003)
107285 (2004)
Source: The Pennsylvania State Police (http://www.psp.state.pa.us/).

So how many people really did own guns during that time frame? Surely the number is much larger, right? The answer: 2,250,867. So that means that 0.0073% of firearm owners assaulted someone at work with a gun. Oh, wait one minute, wrong figures again. That was simply the number of firearms legally purchased from 1998 to 2003…in Pennsylvania. Those numbers exclude all 49 of the other states in this country.

374,356 (1998)
396,709 (1999)
381,441 (2000)
318,228 (2001)
388,001 (2002)
392,132 (2003)
Source: The Pennsylvania State Police (http://www.psp.state.pa.us/).

So then, how many people really owned firearms during that period? We don't truly know, but here is some information from the U.S. Department of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov)

“From the inception of the Brady Act on March 1, 1994, to December 31, 2002, nearly 46 million applications for firearm transfers were subject to background checks. About 976,000 applications were rejected.”

The number of gun owners in the United States of America is generally estimated to be between 60 and 80 million or more. The reason we don’t know for sure is that tracking and requiring a background check for firearms purchases did not begin until 1994 with the Brady act, so we can only estimate what happened all those years prior to that process being put into place. Considering that we had 45 million legal gun purchases during those 8 years alone, I think the ‘[b]80 million gun owners[/b]’ figure is probably closer to the real number, but it's still probably a little low.

According to the FBI, there were 1412 justified homicides during the span of 1987 to 1991. Under the FBI definition, a killing is counted as a justified homicide only if the shooting was defensive in nature (i.e. someone protecting their own life or the life of another) and it occurred during the commission of a felony, and obviously only if the felonious individual wound up dead. During the last ten years, sources from the FBI say that number has risen approximately 33%. The number of justified defensive killings (where the deceased was not in commission of a felony or felony charges were not involved) is thought to be at least four times that. Now that’s only killings. What is the number of defensive shootings or defensive uses of a gun without shooting in the US each year? The National Self-Defense Survey, a privately conducted survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the period of 1988-1993. Even if that number is not statistically sound, justified homicides alone outweigh the number of school and workplace shootings, indicating that firearms do more good than harm (and predominately do only good in the hands of non-criminals).

As free people, we reserve the right, as provided for by our creator and enumerated by the constitution of this republic, to secure the means necessary to defend ourselves against a tyrannical and oppressive government when all other legal remedies have failed. The soldiers or tyrants, enemy invaders and criminals will not be armed with hunting guns, but instead with the very arms the gun banners seek to ban.

As far as advocating using other means of self defense such as a knife or pepper spray (which many anti-gunners say is a reasonable alternative to firearm ownership), using a knife in such a capacity is a messy struggle, it is in no way like the movies portray it. In oder to stop an attack using a knife, you would have to do so much damage that the aggressor would lose enough blood to die or fall into shock or some other debilitating condition. To do something like that in a defensive struggle requires a lot of endurance, strength and time. In the time that you can bleed someone out, they will also be injuring you, possibly with a knife of their own or a gun. The end result is that you might even die first, or you might both die. Self defense is not about killing the aggressor, it's about stopping the attack before harm can be done to you. Knives and pepper sprays do not afford one that opportunity, despite what the movies tell you. Even pepper spray is not 100% effective, and if you spray someone holding a gun to you, they can still fire at you without aiming, possibly injuring or killing you and/or bystanders in the process.

Again, the entire underlying premise of the Second Amendment is to provide a means for us to secure a defense against the very people the gun-banners seek to arm with guns they would not have in civilian hands. It's to ensure that someone such as Hitler cannot come into power in our country (Hitler was constitutionally chosen to be the Chancellor of Germany and the Germans that exterminated the Jews were government soldiers following orders given to them by their commander in chief). In the end, this can be a rational argument, but first those on the side of banning or further restricting guns need to possess all of the facts instead of going on hoplophobia, innuendo, anecdotal evidence and logically folly alone.

Links and Sources:
www.gunfacts.info
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.2/GunFacts4-2-Screen.pdf

The National Self-Defense Survey
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/kleckvita.htm
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/gertzvita.htm

FBI Uniform Crime Reports
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

Heller vs. D.C. (formerly Parker VS DC via http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/)
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Words are more dangerous then guns. With out words it's hard to convince people to kill for your cause.

Religion is more dangerous then guns ... more people have been killed over religion then gun debate or by guns themselves.

Planes are more dangerous then guns ... Just three planes on a single day have killed more people then all the school shootings in the past 50 years.

Banning free speech, freedom of religion, and planes seem unreasonable, right?

Well, banning a fathers ability to defend his children seems unreasonable. Banning students from being able to defend themselves from a lone gunman seems unreasonable. It seems unreasonable to depend on the police which typically take a few minutes from the time they are called to arrive let a lone handle a situation.

I got one better for you. Most murders are committed by black man and most victims are black men. Maybe we should ban black men ... Unreasonable? How about we take away the right to bear arm away from black people ... that's seems reasonable ... doesn't it?

Why should the rest of the country suffer over the actions of a few? Just because it will make you sleep better? All of us the feel safer for having the ability to defend ourselves.

You want to deter gun crime how about you don't threaten criminals with possible jail time, if the police can figure things out cause they sure as hell arn't going to be there to stop a crime, but rather the possibility of return fire. I'm a lot less likely to rob a bank with the treat of a customer shooting me while I have my gun on a teller.

The police can't keep you safe. Laws can't keep you safe. Chances are you probably will never find the need to defend yourself with a gun. But wouldn't you rather be able to defend your self rather then being victimized, all the while thinking "I made it possible for the attacker to be the only person her with a gun."

Why is it you are afraid for guns? Without a finger on the trigger you might as well fear a rock on the grounds. Fear the man who may point that gun at you and think of the best way you can defend yourself against that attacker.

If you really think that creating more laws criminals will break will save you then by all means don't partake in gun ownership ... but for my families sake don't take away my guns.

You'll never know how many lives could have been saved if only a would be victim broke the rules and carried his legal firearm to VT. Those statistic will never be known, but even the statistics that exist now don't support you argument ...

Just by curiosity how old is the original poster? I'm guessing he's under 22 with out children based on some things mentioned in his posts.

I'm a father and I grew up in a neighborhood were the majority of people who could afford a gun were those that would buy them illegally with the intent to make money illegally. I understand fear of guns and I felt the best way to defend myself against such a threat wasn't to rewrite the constitution but to take advantage of it.

Not to mention the 2nd Amendment wasn't meant to protect the right to hunt or defend against criminals but from the government ... after all without firearms we'd all be speaking English right now ... er that is we'd still be governed buy the British.

I could get more into how a single shot fire arm won't save you if you miss and other weak suggestions but until you can collect all the firearms in the world that don't I don't think i'll be trading my guns in just yet.

And as an expert (22 years Army and AF, rated expert pistol/rifle/machine gun, competitor, state ranked, weapons courier, armorer, instructor, researcher, reviewer, product tester, writer), I'm under no obligation to consider anything you offer. I'd recommend researching a subject before commenting. I don't comment on heart disease, because I know very little about it.

However, I'll respond. Not that I think it will have any effect:

First, extrapolating your own argument, the Founding Fathers couldn't have known of the internet. Free Speech and Press applied to the village square and lead type. Why don't we have "reasonable" limits on internet access for child safety? If it prevents one abduction, isn't it worth it?

Second, rapid fire weapons certainly DID exist in that timeframe. So your argument fails of its merits. They knew of them and endorsed them.

Third, a good many revolvers hold more rounds than some semiautomatics, and many lever actions and pumps fire as fast, as do revolvers.

Fourth, there is no mechanical difference between a "hunting rifle" and a military rifle. In fact, most "hunting rifles" use the old Mauser military action, and most modern self-loaders use the recoil and gas systems designed for military semiautos 120 years ago.

Fifth, we've had these weapons (self loaders, or semiautomatics) for 120 years. NOW you think there's a problem? That would indicate the problem isn't the device we've had for 120 years, but policy and sociological concerns.

Sixth, self defense is covered by Amendment IX. Amendment II is strictly about fighting invaders or dictators. You lefties seem horribly distrustful of the current administration (not without reason). So why would you think it's a good idea to limit the means of rebellion? Do you imagine future administrations will never be worse? See Title 10 USC, Ch 311. Also see www.odcmp.com where the government will sell you a military rifle, as is your right and duty to own, as much as voting is.

Seventh, if, as you say, inanimate objects of any kind "frighten and sicken" you, some therapy would be in order. A firearm can do nothing without an operator.

Eighth, there is no "correct" firearm. It depends on the purpose, the user and the environment what will work. There are times I don't bother, times I carry a pocket .380, and times I have a battle rifle handy.

Ninth, non-lethal force has been conclusively proven to be far less effective than lethal force. Tear gas only works on 9:10 people, and doesn't stop them from raping, killing or beating you. If you imagine you can use a "small knife" against an experienced thug and not get your throat cut, you need to put down the crack pipe. Your best defense (speaking as an expert in the field, remember) is something that works at a distance and delivers incapacitating force. That's a gun. If an effective air taser gets perfected, I'd add that in, too, but not as a replacement, only a supplement. If it gets to the point where you need to use martial arts, you're already losing. And no, I can't just "run away" when I have my 6 year old son along, nor can my friend who needs a walker to get around. How elitist and bigoted a suggestion, yet I hear it all the time.

Tenth, use spell check.

No offense intended if the tone seems harsh. I was in a hurry. Diplomacy takes time.

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/2779-2/pinkrifles0511.jpg
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/2782-2/morrigan_michaela0677.jpg
here's my 9 year old daughter (and a friend), by the way, with her "assault rifle." She's been trained from an early age and is very safe. Firearms are easier to operate than bicycles.

Not really but I think my daughter does.

She was also raised around guns, and was never comfortable with them. I try to be sensitive to people’s reactions to what is, for me, a hobby and a tool. So I tried to never forced them on her.

During a discussion on the subject one day her comment to me (she was 25 at the time) was "I don't think I could ever hurt somebody on purpose, even if they're trying to hurt me, so I'll never need to own a gun", Buddhism was her guiding light at the time and I had a great deal of respect for her point of view even if I couldn't share it.

Two years ago she had a baby boy and we all rejoiced, I call him Winston because he has that discerning scowl Mr. Churchill was so well known for, whenever he meets somebody new.

This winter her husband died from leukemia and our morning still continues. He was a great guy, strong, funny, and a great sense of security.

A few months ago my daughter was coming home after picking up my grandson from preschool when she noticed a couple guys hopping out of her window with a pillow case full of valuables (yes, I too thought that the bad guys only used pillowcases in movies). She was scared stiff, literally. An ugly part of reality had invaded her life. Her blood and the only thing she had left of the man she had loved so dearly was no longer safe and secure.

A day later, at her request, we went to the pistol range. She was disappointed that she couldn't shoot a clean hole out of the target at 15 yards (she always wants to get an "A" in everything she does). She still doesn't "like" guns, but now see's them as tools to protect her most precious, our most precious, Winston. And to do that she wants the best, most effective, gun she can handle. She still follows a very eastern philosophy to do no harm, but now knows she may have to make a choice between philosophy and reality.

While I see that your have made a HUGE leap of viewpoint (I congratulate you, that's no small accomplishment) from the start of this thread, your original premise would have denied my daughter the means to protect my grandson to the best of her ability.

Would I like to make sure those guy's that broke into my daughter’s house never had the opportunity to lay their hands on a gun? Absolutely! Do I think a law will accomplish that? Overwhelming evidence says NO.

If it were possible, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world without weapons. I would love to see a world without the NEED for weapons. But as long as the human condition remains as it is, if all the weapons disappeared today, before the morning came, someone would pick up a rock and start it all over again. Until then it is our duty to protect each other as best as we can.

There is one and only one good reason for gun laws as far as I know, that is, for those in power (and above, or exempted from, the law) to gain more power.

Suicidal tendencies that is. That's why I did lots of things that could have killed me, things like working as a bouncer at a biker bar, amateur auto racing/demolition derby, working the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, the list goes on and on. I never got around to skydiving (one of the few things I didn't do) and after much expensive counseling I find I no longer want to jump from perfectly good planes. I still have a job that could kill me, working high steel (30 to 300 feet up) and around very high voltages (up to 500,000 volts) but I don't take the chances than I used to.

At it's worst I did sit and contemplate the loaded shotgun barrel in my mouth. Something happen in the midst of that experience that I can't quite explain in a rational manner but it was the last time I ever actually contemplated outright suicide. Please don't take that as a recommendation to put a gun in your mouth (not you personally but anybody reading this).

If I understand your comments, then the best way I can relate to your feeling is that I used to be uncomfortable around cliffs because I had a strong urge to jump off…. Weeeee <-(attempt at self directed humor)

I don't agree that there should be more restricitons, just that there should be more enforcement of the rules already on the books - of which there are already thousands. In such experiments as the Kansas City Gun Project and andother such project in Boston where the laws were enforced and police activity in problem neighborhoods intensified, gun crimes dropped. Compare that to the total handgun ban in Washington D.C. where handgun crime was not affected period.

Also, the majority of guns that criminals get to commit their crimes are received in the second hand market, the black market, drug dealers, straws, or fences. So it is actually quite easy to obtain a gun without going through the primary market.

Going back to the days of the Revolution, it actually was possible, if you were skilled with your weapon as many of those people were, to load, reload and shoot your weapon up to twenty times in a minute. Again, this was mainly for those in the militia or military who were experienced with their rifles, but it proves that is was quite possible for the old rifles to be just as effective in killing many people.

As to saving as mnay lives as possible, peole who use guns for defensive purposes can save their lives as well as the lives of those around them. Comparing the number of gun deaths, accidental gun deaths resulting from defensive uses are a small percentage. Many people believe that because they had a gun, they were better able to protect themselves, their property and the people around them. Surveys of criminals have found that they are more afraid of encoutnering an armed victim than a police officer.

And as to not banning hunting rifles, some people if you give them an inch they take a mile. Once you start banning one type of gun, they'll keep going. Just as they have done with smoking. Ban in it public places, ban it in bars, ban it in your car, in you own home.

We are guranteed the right to keep and bear arms, all arms, not just the ones that the government sees fit for us to own.