We have a government that lies to us and a culture which encourages the law of the jungle among humans (replace the word "fittest" with "best-armed"). We need to be afraid of our government, afraid of crime, afraid of terrorists, afraid of the end of the world, afraid of aliens, afraid of leaving the house.

And when we have a Columbine or other such event, the first ones to jump up and say it isnt their fault is the gun makers and the NRA to he sure our very right to be a gun nut is protected.

Yes, Finland has guns and gun owners. But note the REASON-it is important. They are not trying to shoot the neighbor because his stereo is too lud. They are not looking for Bin Laden under their bed. They are not preparing fir' armageddon. They are getting their food.

Well, I own guns and I hunt in this country, too -- what's the difference?

The simple fact of the matter is that the protection of weapons ownership in the U.S. Constitution isn't about hunting -- I know you'll say that the 2nd Amendment protects the collective right to a militia, but there are now two federal district court rulings and a federal appellate court ruling that say firearms ownership is an individual right, like free speech.

Mostly, I collect antique firearms, but I've been around enough guns of all sorts to know that there are no good or bad guns -- there are merely good or bad people.

I agree about good and bad people.

That isnt an excuse though for making high powered automatic weapons available to any nutjob who hasnt been arrested yet.

Sometimes the best way to compromise is to have much better control of what might be considered highly dangerous "tools". If I need something more than a regular drivers license to drive an 18 wheeler, then why is it any different with guns? Let the average US citizen purchase hunting weapons easily-but make it hard as hell to get handguns, assault weapons, and other things which have no practical hunting use.

The American Revolution was possible in a large part because the civilian population had near arms parity with its English governors. This is a pretty free country, and it's more likely that the sort of tyranny that we should be primarily worrying about is the kind that seduces us into willing submission, rather than the one that forces us into it, but I still say that it's a healthy practice to keep the idea that such things are possible in the backs of our minds.

Of course back then, the colonists and the English were using single shot weapons and the colonists did not own their own cannons.

The NRA would have you believe it is your god given right to carry an uzi in one hand and an AK-47 in the other. This isnt personal defense-that is the ability for one person to slaughter many. One wacko can take out many people-not a problem our forefathers had to deal with or consider at that time.

The reason that the federal government can regulate your access to an 18 wheeler, but not to a gun, is that driving an 18 wheeler isn't a right, but owning a gun IS a right.

Now, having said that -- most hunting rifles are actually more powerful than most assault rifles ("assault rifle" is a turm that evolved from a German word, "sturmgewehr." Traditionally such rifles have had rounds that are reduced in power compared to "main battle rifles" like the M-1 Garand used by the U.S. armed forces from the 1930s through the late 1950s). A handgun is merely a shortened long gun, so are you also going to have licensure for hacksaws?

But the real issue is "practical hunting use." The right to own a firearm in the United States permits people to hunt, but the right isn't about hunting -- it's about something else.

hellifiknow:

The American Revolution was possible in a large part because the civilian population had near arms parity with its English governors. ... I still say that it's a healthy practice to keep the idea that such things are possible in the backs of our minds.

Unfortunately the modern american state has nuclear weapons, Abrams tanks, cluster bombs, guided missiles, depleted uranium projectiles, nuclear submarines, killer drones, not to mention a host of torture techniques and secret prisons to make you bend to their will. Are you seriously suggesting that private citizens be able to own these things?

icemilkcoffee:

hellifiknow:

The American Revolution was possible in a large part because the civilian population had near arms parity with its English governors. ... I still say that it's a healthy practice to keep the idea that such things are possible in the backs of our minds.

Unfortunately the modern american state has nuclear weapons, Abrams tanks, cluster bombs, guided missiles, depleted uranium projectiles, nuclear submarines, killer drones, not to mention a host of torture techniques and secret prisons to make you bend to their will. Are you seriously suggesting that private citizens be able to own these things?

It's certainly not an argument for reducing the deterent yet further. You could just as well argue that Freedom of the Press is no longer useful, because what good is paper against a nuclear missile?

Indeed, despite the government's superior power, the "insurrection theory" was most recently proven just after WWII. Do a web search on "The Battle of Athens, Tennessee."

On the other hand, I think the most likely form of government intimidation of dissenters would be the passive, unacknowledged removal of police protection -- letting street criminals do the dirty work. We saw this in Cincinatti a few years ago, when police responded to anti-police protests with "de-policing" -- a reduction of service to the affected communities. This tactic would be abused much more frequently if not for the ability of private citizens to provide their own protection.

For example, I think it was the Albequerque police force that called off a strike in the 1970s, when the absence of police caused street crime to diminish. You see, concealed carry was outlawed back then, but open-carry of a gun would get you picked up for disturbing the peace. With no police force to protect or arrest them, good people began carrying guns openly. The routine thieves and muggers were terrified.

Fsil: Well said.

Im sure the Columbine killers, the nutjob at VA Tech, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Tim McVeigh, and a whole host of other mass murderers would thank you for such a defense of their rights to purchase small personal arsenals.

Your belief that ordinary citizens having guns deterring crime is a joke. Most mass murdering is done in places where gun ownership is common (look at Iraq-a great place for gun ownership and mass graves). Guns being easily accessible is the real issue.

If guns are hard to get, the criminals arent much more likely to be armed then the cops and more importantly, they will be reduced to simple weapons which wont do so much damage.

I have yet to see any proof that mass gun ownership reduces crime. For every example you can give me of low crime in high gun ownership countries, I can counter with low crime in low gun ownership countries. you know this too. The only reason gun ownership is in there as a right is because it was how we got ourselves free from england-and of course it feeds into the ultra paranoid American mind-fear is the mind killer (thanks Frank Hebert).

In the same way that you have yet to see any evidence that mass gun ownership reduces crime, I have yet to see any evidence that mass gun ownership leads to crime.

I can cite a number of places, Switzerland comes to mind, where most people have not just military weapons, but fully-automatic weapons which are heavily regulated in this country -- and they don't have high crime rates. Where I grew up, rural Missouri, pretty much every house had at least a rifle and a shotgun, but violent crime was nearly non-existent.

We also have not seen crime spike in any of the 20 or so states that have simplified concealed carry over the last ten year. Simply put, the guns don't cause the crime, the criminals do.

The reason I, at least, believe banning any form of guns is useless is that it ignores the definition of "criminal" which in its simplest term means "someone who ignores the law." You are willing to disarm the law abiding, you won't affect the criminal -- and the law abiding aren't causing any trouble.

McVeigh and the Columbine killers were in violation of many laws already in place -- I'm not certain David Koresh was in violation of the law. The charges the BATF wanted to bring against him was that he was modifying semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons. If that was the case, what happened to the modified guns? They were never presented to the American public as evidence of Koresh's wrongdoing. "They burned up" won't fly as that fire wasn't hot enough to burn steel -- and the parts you modify to achieve full auto are made of steel.

My point really is, though, that if people like McVeigh or the Columbine killers were already breaking the law (the Columbine killers were in violation of 19 state and federal gun laws), what are you going to do? Make it MORE illegal?

Because we need them,

While you are correct that the Columbine killers and others were in violation of the laws, the fact is that the laws are really hard to enforce-who is going to stop someone at a gun show from selling without a background check? Who is gonna stop the buyer from presenting a falsified ID which would pass?

I support legal gun ownership of hunting firearms-no one needs an AK-47, etc. Out in Missouri and other backwaters you need a gun to handle wildlife, farm area predators like wolves, raccoons, feral dogs, etc. You have a reasonable argument for such a weapon and it cannot be concealed easily (legally).

The problem we have is twofold. One, gun manufacturers are making guns which are not for any other use but killing people (street sweepers, handguns, etc.) and then the distribution and sales system is regulared, but there is little to no enforcement of those regulations. So we make the product available and we have a large distribution network to sell it--if you make them, they will come, and it is only a matter of time before the nutties get one.

If laws are not enforced-and they really are not when it comes to most hand gun regulations in particular-it doesnt matter that the law exists-it becomes academic once the damage is done.

Buying a gun is much too easy in this country. We need to enforce our laws, require training, etc. And just as we need to get a new inspection sticker to be sure our car is safe to drive, we need to make gun owners keep taking training and keep passing a background check (maybe last year you were sane, but this year you are not). Things need to be done to reduce the gun violence in the USA. It is out of control.

Well, we're back to the statement I made before -- there aren't good guns or bad guns -- there are good people and bad people.

The myth is that something like an AK-47 is more deadly than say, a Remington Model 742 in .308 Winchester -- but mechanically the do the exact same thing. The difference is that one "looks military" and that scares people. There is no such thing as a "hunting" gun versus a "people" gun -- and by the way, my brother has taken five deer using a handgun.

It is clear to me that you've never purchased a gun at a gun show -- enforcing the insta-check system happens at virtually all of them. The so-called "gun show loophole" is merely what happens if I sell you a gun -- in most states one private party can sell a gun to another private party without going through the government. You probably believe that's a bad thing -- I don't believe that the selling of a legal item fromone private citizen to another private citizen is really any of the government's business (yes, I'd include cars,etcetera).

I'm also not certain in what way you feel the laws are not enforced. It seems to me that they are enforced pretty rigorously -- they certainly have been whenever I've added or removed a gun from my collection. In any case, passing additional laws isn't going to make enforcement any easier.

As for requiring training -- are you required to have training to exercise any of your other rights enumerated in the Constitution? Is there free speech training that is required (it was the writers and orators that started the revolution)?

As for gun violence being out of control, it has actually been on a downturn for the last two decades. According to the Brady Campaign, there are more than 60 million gun owners in the U.S. -- there were 30,708 gun deaths of all types recorded in 1998 by the Centers for Disease control (the most recent year for which its web site shows statistics). That's gun deaths of all types including suicides and accidents. You can do the math, but that means the chance that a firearm will result in a death is less than one-tenth of one percent. That it will be involved in a violent death, a murder, is even lower. This hardly seems "out of control" to me.

" don't believe that the selling of a legal item fromone private citizen to another private citizen is really any of the government's business (yes, I'd include cars,etcetera)."

So party A with a clean criminal record purchases a gun legally. He then sells it in a private sale to party B who could not hope to pass a background check. So this does indeed violate the law and would easily put guns in the hands of criminals (how do you think they get them today anyway-every illegal gun possession begins legally).

As for training, yes, it damn well should be required. I dont care if it is a right-it should be a privledge-not a right. For obvious reasons. Note this is true to some extent-most ex-criminals cannot legally get a gun when they are free and they are citizens and are now out of jail legally.