For the record, I believe it is necessary to have that right. Not just to defend oneself from criminals, but also - and this was it's original intention by the founders of our Constitution - to keep the government from controlling our lives. Basically, it becomes impossible for the government to keep running if they become fascist or socialist (god forbid) among other things. That's another reason no country could take us over (or our government, if they ever become totalitarian) besides our geographic isolation: 39% of American homes legally have guns, not to mention those who have them secretly. Many people are critical of our right to bear Arms, but they fail to recognize why we really have that right. Do gun crimes happen a lot? Yeah. Are they worse than government control? Hell no! Once I turn 18, I plan on registering for a gun license, and maybe even the right to conceal. (not that I would, but you never know) And you know what I would buy? A .44 Magnum, the original hand-cannon. Some people might think that we have a gun culture, but their actually wrong. No American wants to use their gun against another person (unless they're a criminal or insane), but god forbid a SWAT team comes into my house USSR style to "clean up" my house because of my political views. Now, granted, that may seem like an unlikely scene for you, but we've seen it happen to other countries, and gradually, it appears that our nation is adopting Socialist ways, a close cousin of communism.

Take that for what you will.

So are any of you ever going to comment on this? What about YOUR country's stand on weapons?

You go huntin?

Stupid - A door open to more crimes.

lol, well then how do you defend yourself against a guy who broke the law and got a gun anyway? Granted, down here we have two teens now who have defended themselves with Katana's but how many people worldwide have access to Katanas? The answer is not many.

Also, when people have guns, the government fears it's people.

If people were unable to get Guns - That fat guy would have not been able to get one - And my defence would have been calling the police or running!

More Guns = More crimes.
Period.

I beg to disagree. Englands crime rate, as far as I know, has been rising, whereas ours has been shrinking. Having guns doesn't increase crimes, it just changes what weapon they are carrying.

I should also mention that CRIMINALS don't follow the law, so they will still get ahold of guns regardless of bans.

Prove what your saying.

Our criminal rates in regards to Guns have been rising due to Americans Stupid Gun culture. We were good until we got caught up in it. When you’ve got a Gun your likely to use it. Why allow society to purchase a proven dangerous thing.




If purchasing guns becomes illegal then these criminals are less likely to get one - the fight for getting a gun will be tighter, and the chances of every criminal getting one will be unlikely.

You beg to disagree? Your damn right you beg to disagree! Do not compare the crime rate of america with britains. Theres too many wackos and wierdos and sickos in america even by ratio wise.

Need proof for both.

Sapahi, come here and see how many sickos you find. Good luck cause you'll be hard pressed to find any. I said that as far as I know there's a rising crime rate in england; not once did I assume it was full of sickos and freaks. If you're gonna go all anti-american on me you'd better have a damned good reason. And I don't wanna hear your bs "America is killing innocent people" Oh really, and what has Pakistan done for human rights lately.

If you think me an arrogant fool, you are mistaken, and I do not tolerate the insulting of my countrymen.

^Aww, very well said.

What I'm gonna do is post different links that I have not read. I will admit that I can bot be sure on the crim rates, so I'll let you guys decide


U.S. through 2004

England and Wales through 2006

make sure you check the tables on each site for accurate information.

More up to date U.S. crime rate page.

Better One That That

How do you defend yourself? not by shooting the guy...
You call the police, or you pray. If it's your time to die you WILL die gun in hand regardless. With a gun in hand there will be a serious increase in gun crime and people will be shooting first and thinking later. The one good thing about britain is there ban on guns. Knife crime is allready at it's peak and alot of young teenagers are dying, so what do you think will happen if guns were legal?

Salaam Rex,

Thank you for your informative post.

It is a common myth that the founding fathers envisioned the right to bear arms to hold government in check; that was certainly part of the motivation, but not the whole story.

The Founding Fathers were enlightenment exiles from Europe who had a deep mistrust of government. And created a political system that addressed their experience of European imperialism and monarchy. The Fathers rejected the idea of having a professional military, (army, navy). And so created voluntary militia which would be run at the state level as opposed to Washington, to deal with the threat of invasion, as well as to prevent America from ever itself becoming an imperial power, and using its military to impose its will on other nations. The remnants of which are the National Guard

Advocates like yourself I’m sure could quote the Constitution; “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But you must not forget the clause “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”, And since the USA for historic necessities now has a professional army does that not invalidate the “right to keep, bear arms”? The Founding fathers never envisioned every average Joe citizen walking around armed.

Mass killings remain rare events, I would accept that and they also happen in other countries, including countries like England (where I am from), which has very tight gun control. However modern America is punctuated by school shootings like those in Columbine, and Virginia Tech. Making any sort of accurate international comparison tricky.

The (IANSA), found 41 school shootings in America between 1996 to Virginia Tech. have claimed 110 lives. IANSA also looks at school shootings in 80 other countries. And count only 14 school gun related deaths outside America in the same period (not including the Russian Beslan terrorist attack).

America has 200 million guns in private ownership, more than half the worlds privately owned guns. America also has 30 times more gun related deaths than England and Wales when the same methodology is employed. In fact Canada which has high rates of gun deaths because it too is new world “frontier country”, has fewer Gun related killings on the northern side, and vastly higher deaths on the southern side of the border region.

Much respect to you Rex, I hope you reconsider your decision.

Warmest Regards.

Excellent post, and I do see your point about the militias. With respect to you, however, I don't envision the average Joe walking around with a gun either. That is, unless he has applied for a license to carry a concealed weapon and has a clear history of mental health. Now, certainly you are correct in that the US currently has no need for a militia. But that is not to say we would not later.

And the founding fathers may not have envisioned men walking around with berettas and Glocks, certainly not Uzis or M4's (the latter two which have no right to be in anyone's hands by my standards) but they did see men with rifles and old-style pistols quite often. As with any truly free society, it is not up to the government to eliminate right given to the people as they see fit. In the end, it all comes down to personal responsibility. Think about how in England they banned guns. Technically a great idea, and certainly with noble intentions. But when the people misusing the guns couldn't get them, what did they do? They picked up knives. The same goes with school shootings in the USA. I'm very sad to say it, but it is a matter of responsibility. You can't control a person's actions, no matter how tragic. If you take the gun away, they turn to other weapons, which can be just as brutal.

The subject of Guns is a very tricky and complex one. I'll get back to it later, but right now my head's not really clear enough to think properly, know what I mean. Kinda tired, got lots on my mind (like a new amp!)

I should also mention, however, that I'm very surprised about how well versed in our bill of rights you are Finally someone else who cares about the literature behind the country

Salaam, Rex

I am sorry if I contributed in any way to your spinning head. Yes I do know what you mean, recently in fact <deep breadth>; but as a Roman centurion once said to his friend who had found himself having a particularly tough week "Stercus Accidit", "Sh*t Happens".

I’ll leave you to recover before addressing the gun issue. It is indeed complex, realising that is the first step to solving most ills.

I wouldn’t say I am well versed on the American Constitution. But I appreciate the compliment, thank you.

On the far more important issue at hand, amps. I have no idea what music you play, or instrument, I’m presuming guitar? I have a vintage Marshall, got it cheap at thrift store in Texas. My rule has always been American Guitars, British Amps.

If money is an issue, I will let you into a secret:
http://www.fatdawg.com/gateway.html

They have a wide range of gear from expensive vintage pieces, to real bargains, all at reasonable prices. If you search the Amplifier section they start from $100. Not to mention an excellent returns policy.

Good Luck, and Rock On

I will be sure to check out the site you mentioned, though I won't be purchasing as I've already just received my new baby, the Peavey Rage 258.

I play primarily Doom Metal/Black Sabbath esque stuff, but as I've only been playing for a year, I'm not really that great at anything yet. Slowly but surely, though, I'm improving.

From the sounds of the amp, it seems like it would be perfect for small gigs. *according to the box it came in it says something about converting 25 watts to 8 ohms, something to that effect* You should check it out: THe entire idea of this amp is to try to get something similar to the Marshall sound.


As far as the guitar is concerned, I've got a Mexican Stratocaster (which is in dire need of new strings)

ANd for the spinning head, today has been a day of headaches and my sister watching movies like Saw III as loud as they will go. So it's been awfully hard to think all day. Not to mention I haven't posted in this topic in a great long while.

I dont mind handguns, shotguns, etc...

BUT,

allowing copkiller bullets and automatic weapons?

What, your gonna kill dear with an M-16???? yea right.

Look at Australia and other countries with gun control laws to see the actual effect of gun control. violent crimes reduced a lot.

I agree with you simba.

The problem with the right to bear arms clause that everyone refers to is 2 fold, one it is misused as explained above in that it is intended for the use of a militia (of course this was as a olive branch towards southern states so as for them to sign the new constitution as opposed to the Articles of Confederation which proceeded it), two, it is used by people who want to abuse this clause by not referring to the second clause, and through highly paid attorneys and corruption, make gun control nearly impossible in America. Even if you believe in the right to bear arms as a principle, the ease with which guns can be procured is a devestating argument against the view held by many that everyone has the right to bear arms and that this should be legal outside of just a militia to protect ourselves from a governmental takeover (despite the fact that our country legalizes acts such as martial law). If you approve of the right to bear arms, I daresay that you must also provide means to prevent arms from being used in a way unintended from the constitutional intent. And this does not mean filing forms like we have now that clearly dont work, see v tech, columbine, or nearly any other crime.

And isnt it ironic that the very justification that has been given here is for the protection from criminals? Isn't that why we have police, and even more so, isnt that the problem with legalizing guns outside of the protection from the government.

Actually in some ironic sense, criminals almost fit the justification that many people use for the allowance of arms through their misinterpretation of the constitution more than people hoping to protect themselves from the criminals (WHICH THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T GIVE AS A REASON TO LEGALIZE ARMS, probably in the hope that it doesnt become so easy to procure). After all, isn't it criminals that try to protect themselves from the most "fascist" forms of our government, our police forces? I mean, if we want to consider the constitutional intent for militia to mean individuals who wish to protect themselves from the threat of governmental control, isn't that exactly what the criminals are trying to do, protect themselves from police who intend to imprison them?

here is where the flaw presents itself in this interpretation of the constitution. Rather, it seems, the constitution seems to indicate that a militia should be allowed to hold weapons. Now what determines a militia? That is the question, but no matter how you answer that question in the frame of the constitutional intent, it is clearly not the intent of the founders to have weapons to protect ourselves from criminals that got weapons with ease, perhaps by themselves getting it for protection...

Now please don't misread this post, I do not advocate criminals having arms or that police are fascist tools of the government and justify criminal action. I however, do not believe that each individual should have the right to bear arms for protection or for simply having them, because it is this very circle that allows for it to continue, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a circle that intends to solve the problem that is ironically the cause of the problem!

But if you take away the guns of the people now then the criminals would have the upper hand.

Im all for it. I shoot competively at tournements as a sport. I do not hunt, I do not carry except when transporting to a show or competition and they are always unloaded. I do however keep 2 of my guns loaded at home for the purpose of self preservation in the event that someone attempts to break into my house and harm myself or one of my dogs. Id never kill anyone though. A warning shot will 99% of the time do the job.

The main issue with guns in america is the attitude of alot of americans this day and age. Just look around while walking down the city streets...Alot of people are unhappy, tense, and for good reasons. The ecomony sucks, the gap between rich and poor is widening, ect. Why do you honestly think there has been an uprising in random killing spree's? People are snapping and for those people, having guns is a recipe for disaster. I honestly believe that there should be an increased limitation on guns in america, whether its mandatory training classes or a license just to purchase one from the state. Im in Virginia, we dont even have to register our guns, not rifles or hand guns. I find it to be a little disturbing so I make sure that everytime I obtain a new gun or sell an old one, that i report to the city/state of the sale or purchase.

UNDERSTAND THAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS ADDED TO ENSURE THAT THE SOUTHERN STATES WOULD STAY WITH THE UNION. IT WAS NOT UNIVERSALLY DESIRED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS. PEOPLE DON'T SEEM TO THINK THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE POLITICIANS, THEY DEBATED AND DISAGREED AS MUCH AS OUR POLITICIANS DO NOW. THE DIFFERENCE WAS THAT AT THE TIME THEY WERE BUILDING A UNION WHICH REQUIRED CONCESSIONS IN ORDER TO PREVENT AN ATTACK. IMAGINE LIVING IN A NEW COUNTRY WHICH JUST DEFEATED THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE WORLD, NOW REVOLUTIONS AND WARS ARE STARTING EVERYWHERE AND HERE IS THIS NEW COUNTRY DIVIDED INTO SMALL REGIONS (STATES). CONCESSION WILL BE MADE SIMPLY FOR PROTECTION, JUST AS VERY OFTEN WE DON'T CHANGE PRESIDENTS DURING THE WAR BUT VOTE IN UNPOPULAR PRESIDENTS (SEE BUSH). THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WAS AN OLIVE BRANCH TO SECURE SOME STATES LOYALTY, DON'T TAKE IT AS SOMETHING UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. THE CRIMINALS ALWAYS HAVE THE UPPER HAND BECAUSE THEY AREN'T FOLLOWING THE LAW. HOW DOES HAVING A GUN MAKE YOU SQUARE. YOU DON'T EXPECT SOMEONE TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOUSE BY THE TIME YOU GET TO YOUR GUN YOU HAVE GIVEN THEM TIME TO SECURE THE AREA. WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT THE GUN WILL FLY TO IT. WHY NOT RUN AWAY RATHER THAN RUN TO YOUR GUN.

HOW DOES A GUN GIVE YOU EQUALITY. GETTING OUT TAKES LESS TIME ESPECIALLY IF YOU FOLLOW SAFETY MEASURES LIKE LEAVING YOUR GUN UNLOADED OR IN A SAFE. AND IF YOU DON'T DO THAT THEN YOU RISK YOUR LIFE WHEN THERE IS NO CRIMINAL. IT SEEMS LIKE YOU HAVE ACTUALLY GIVEN YOURSELF WORSE ODDS WITH A GUN.

ALSO, AVAILABILITY IS AN ISSUE. SURE, CRIMINALS CAN STILL GET GUNS BUT IT WILL BE A LOT HARDER TO GET ACCESS TO THEM. ALSO IF THEY ARE UNIVERSALLY ILLEGAL THAN POLICE CAN TRACK THEM DOWN MORE EFFECTIVELY.

ADMIT TO YOURSELF THIS, YOUR DESIRE FOR LEGALIZED GUNS AREN'T BASED ON YOUR PROTECTION BUT RATHER FOR SPORT, FOR FUN. WHETHER HUNTING OR SKILL SHOOTING IT IS TO FULFILL DESIRE RATHER THAN SAFETY, OTHERWISE ACCIDENT RATES WOULD DISUADE YOU FROM THEIR USE.

First thing one question Cameron have you ever been on the other side of the law? The bold statement is so inaccurate its not funny. How many guns do you think that are out there are even from the states to begin with? How many of them do you think were even ever registered in the states? Criminals will always have guns. So how would you suggest the cops are able to track these guns if they are not even on the radar yet? After you have answered my question I will know how to explain this to you more. By the way I don't hunt, sport/skill shoot, or shoot guns for fun.

Are you kidding me. Unregistered guns are the most widespread form of illegal weapons, followed most likely by certain illegal weapos like large assault rifles. Just because illegal guns are out there doesn't mean no guns don't reduce the crime rate. I.e. 100 people have guns, (I'll even give you a high percentage as illegal) 60% illegal 40% legal. Ban that 40% from having legal weapons. Sure some of those 40% will by illegal weapons, that means a total of that 100 gun owners only 70% have weapons by the end and they are all illegal now. Now if you believe that only illegal weapons are used in crimes then you are sorely mistaken as most crimes are by registered weapons. Also if you believe that the easy availability of legal weapons has no effect on that of illegal weapons you are naive. And if you believe that not allowing any form of gun would make it harder for police and the DAs to prosicute people who have guns (now illegally) then you are full of it.

You have only attacked one point, but only the concluding statement not the reasons, if you don't attack my reasons then you have no argument. Also you have not argued against how legal weapons as a form of protection are effective. I have explained how to say that they stop crime is ridiculous and is used by people to argue why they should be able to keep their toys.

I always use caps IT IS MY SECRET WEAPON IN THE ART OF PERSUASION. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Dude I'm naive. You are thinking that the import of illegal guns in this country wouldn't increase if outlawed or banned. So we are winning the war on drugs huh. They are totally illegal and once found by cops are tracked down a bit. Guns used in crimes will always available. If you make them against the law to own then guess what your percentage numbers change but the end number is the same. I still haven't gotten to your scenerio yet cause you have not answered my question. Have you ever been on the wrong side of the law?

It's not a quesiton of the import of illegal guns. Illegal gun import is already illegal, even if it increased post ban the increase would not be as substantial as the decrease in guns overall. My analysis isn't the question of the amount of gun's owned legally versus legally but those owned overall. Less overall = less overall gun crimes. Give me a scenario in which owning guns legally decreases crime. Sure there will still be illegal guns, but overall less. And yes illegal guns will rise because there aren't any legal guns. But there are still net less guns overall. My percentages are to show this. The question isn't of illegal gun ownership but overall ownership. No one should own guns. Are you seriously saying that we shouldn't make something illegal because people will break the law. So drunk driving should be legal because people do it. Murder, rape, etc. should be legal because it is done? That makes no sense.

Why does it matter if I have broken the law. Is your question do I want to own guns so I can shoot cops, because I am against that. Just as I am against shooting civilians, or allowing people easy access to the tools to do that.

Do you honestly believe that drugs (as is your example) are as readily available as if they would be if legal. Sure, it isn't hard to get drugs, but it isn't as easy as getting it if there wasn't a ban. Let's take an example of something that has been legal and banned. Alcohol was banned and yes people got it. People drank if they wanted to in places like speak-easies etc. But overall less people had access to alcohol because it was harder to do and people feared the consequences of getting caught. There was a net-decrease in the number of alcohol consumers. That is what should be done with guns, a net decrease.

I Believe in a right to own guns simply because as soon as I can get one I will, and if I ever need it I will wave it around, and hope I do not shoot my foot off... ok so yea I will go through all the training and classes, so the latter of what I said isn't so plausible. Anyway::



Blah blah militia = an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. Army = a large body of persons trained and armed for war. A militia is an army but not "professional?" GREAT! So if I get together a somewhat "large" group of people who are "trained" for war I have a militia. (Not sure where I was going with this so whatever)



Arms = good because most people get them to defend themselves. From the gov't, from other people, from other nations. (And some for sport) so yea I think guns are good to have for defense against whoever threatens you.



Granted the bad thing about this gun ownership is people WILL use them for crimes. If it was illegal for me to have a gun and I didn’t get one, and then some guy broke into my house, had a gun, I would be out of luck. If he wanted to kill me I would have no friggin chance. Hmm.. I would rather have a gun and not need one, than need one and not have one.



“Gun crimes” oh such a dumb phrase. Why different? If a guy beat somebody to death, and another guy shot someone to death, which one is worse!??! Hm… wow. Violent crime as a whole is bad, so somebody has a gun and it is “easier” to kill with. So it is worse?



Maybe. But I do not think so. Advanced weapons elevate the playing field, and it makes it easier for people (everyone) to attack and defend stuff. Ex. A knife wielding professional army unit tries to take a building with normal citizens with knifes would be easier than a professional army unit that has guns to take a building with normal citizens with guns. I hope I explained that well enough.



The right to bear arms is a good thing in my opinion because it will allow me to defend myself if I need it. END OF STORY

I like Canada's law's zero tolerance for hand guns......

Americans have all the luck...and fun. I intend to acquire a hunting rifle in the future and well...go hunt with it.

But seriously, I think an issue that people in this country should consider are more stringent measures in the acquisition of guns. Too many unfit and unqualified people seem to have access to guns (even the military spec automatic weapons). For example, in my country you have to undergo and pass a drug-test, neuro-psychological exam as well as seminar on safety and proper handling just to be able to get the license. Getting the permit to carry is even more difficult!

Good luck on your endeavors and I hope that you make a wise decision regarding the matter.

Peace to All.

Its quite simple, america should be disarmed.