There are thousands and thousand of documented cases of candlesticks being used to end lives. We've got to get this shiny menace off the streets and away from our children!!! Don't even get me started on chair-legs and kitchen knives, whew.

__________________
"Those who turn swords into plowshares will do the plowing for those who do not" - Anon

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded emotional and mental development" - Sigmund Freud

Ok lets look at what the second amendment states.

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.

The people’s right to bear arms is pretty clear since WE are the people. Now lets look at the Militia part. The Militias where either states run or small bands of individuals in the revolutionary war. Also there is a believe that WE the People are the militia. Now lets look at one of the definitions of regulate. I know its long but bear with me.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order. <---



b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)

But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be kept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))

And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:

One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

This is how it has been interpreted up until the last 60 years (by the left and the neo-cons). Eleanor Roosevelt carried a handgun when giving speeches about civil rights. The reason is you can't help spread equaility, state your views, or live a happy life if you’re dead. She knew this and we know this today. The other amendments mean nothing without the threat of force to back them up. I agree that in a perfect world gun control would make sense. However we live in a far from perfect world. There are people in the world political, religious, and otherwise who have decided that they feel the need to take another persons life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (property would go under that) or would try if they had the upper hand. Firearms are the great equalizers in our society. It prevents a strong man from being able to take a weak mans possessions.

Now lets look at the real problems in the US today. We have a war on drugs, which creates a black market of unregulated, unsafe, and ever increasingly addictive products (cocaine has nothing on meth). It fuels organized crime. It always has and always will. We could hurt them buy decriminalizing lesser drugs (pot, extacy, and mushrooms) and regulating their productions. This would make the product undesirable to smuggles cause the risk Vs rewards becomes too much for too little (alcohol smuggling has diminished greatly and probably only still exists to avoid being taxed). We also could tighten our borders as with all the money from all the useless pet projects that our politicians like to throw into random bills.

Lets move on the poverty problem in our country that produces the greatest amount of crime. We may have a massive welfare state but it doesn’t solve the problem. All it does is keep most people in a state of limbo living in government housing and just getting enough money eat and have clothing (I know there are people who abuse the crap out of it but bear with me). If we where to require people on welfare to get education’s and provide them with child care so they could do it we could get them out of the ghettos/poverty stricken areas and into better paying jobs. People with access only to crappy jobs/no jobs are more likely to commit crimes. The reason I believe is simple. They want to have all the fancy stuff we take forgranted but don’t have the means to do it. So their only options is to commit crimes since they have the potential to produce quick cash/free items they want.

When someone robs your house they know they are doing wrong but justify it by says "why shouldn't I have nice things" or "I really need the money for drugs, Christmas, etc". This normal rational human being would normal not harm someone. Allot of burglaries take place during the day when no one is home. However what happens when someone IS home. Well-said robber enters the house and finds out that the misses in home. She is unarmed and sees the burglar. He has two options. The first is to run (FLIGHT or fight) and hope he doesn’t get reported (since she will be able to give a description of him and there is a good chance he could be identified). If he is caught most states carry will put you in jail for awhile. There is a stigma that if you go to prison that you will be beaten, raped, and be treated harshly in jail (although that varies on where you get sent and in what state). His second option is to kill her cause she can identify him and he doesn’t want to go to jail (FIGHT or flight). In that moment it’s the path of least resistance to overpower his victim or try to. Now he may get away if he doesn’t leave any evidence behind but in a panic situation they usually do and that helps to catch them.

Either way it doesn’t matter cause that man has now not only ended the life of his victim but also affected the life everyone around him and her. This is actually a fairly common scenario that plays out in America. If you have ever watched interviews with criminals most of these guys are no different from you or me. The difference is that they have taken a life for one reason or another. Allot of murders start out as robberies, rapes, muggings that simply went allot farther than what their original intent was (I’m excluding serial killers and mass murders cause they are a different factor). Lets face it material wealth is something that is very desirable in a capitalist society. People who don’t have it will do lots of things to get it. Sometimes even kill for it. That’s the world we live in.

Now I wanted to get to my last point in my mess of run on sentences and () everywhere . That is the real reason we have the second amendment. The revolutionary war was fought with firearms. These weapons where primitive compared to what we have to day (hell bows and arrows had faster firing rates than the old muzzleloaders). The founding fathers knew that in order to keep the republic free the people needed to be armed as a safeguard against the possibility of government abuse. They knew that absolute power corrupts absolutely. They also knew that older democracies/republics often decayed and fell apart because over time leaders became more and more powerful and the rights of the populace often fell by the way side. They usually ended up being the rich running the many or the one running the many.

So a populace with firearms becomes untouchable or to costly to do so (although in the past 50 years the government has shifted to incremental destruction of liberties and the people haven’t caught on but that’s a different issue all together). Lets look at World War II and the Nazis. There is one nation that was almost immune to Hitler and that was the Swiss. The reason being that everyone had and knew how to use a firearm (at least the men) even if they just knew how to fire (no military training other that firing a weapon). The German army reported to Hitler that if the Germans invade Switzerland that they would either take massive casualties or they would lose. They feared the prospect of having to fight for every inch of a country from the farms to the major populated areas. They would have to do this after they broke through the massive mountain fortresses and the modern Swiss army. Now lets look at a country like Russia, which had a gun ban on the population at the time. The only thing that saved the Russians from total defeat was our help, the Russian winter, and the stupidity of Hitler. During the beginning they literally didn’t have enough weapons for their populace/army to defend themselves and where often slaughtered (by both sides). Most of the peasants had no weapons either or did so at the pearl of being arrested for owning one.

From these examples one could argue that in a non-nuclear war of invasion it would be more beneficial to have an armed population than an unarmed one. That’s what the founding fathers knew. There will come a time when our armies are rendered pathetic ruined hulks of metal. When our warplanes can no longer achieve air superiority. When that day comes who will protect you, your family, your liberty, or you property? People will say that what I have just said is ridiculous but its even more ridiculous to ignore history and to pretend that nations never die, become weak, open to attack, invasion, or corruption. I’m all for peaceful solutions and trying to fix the injustice and abuse in of rights but there may come a day when the only option may be revolution. I just hope that day never comes

Also I wanted to point out that collateral damage from high-powered weapons might become a thing of the past with some of the current developments in ammunition. In the near future I will be able to unload a fully automatic weapon inside my house or apartment and not have it travel in to another because the rounds I’m using will detect the temperature difference between a person and an inanimate object and will expand/detonate inside the human body or shatter into dust if they hit a wall. This technology is not to far out so it may very well help lessen what ever damage carrying a concealed handgun my cause because stray bullets will be less likely to ricochet and harm innocent people.

I bet some trespassers are willing to take the chance. Those ones are the ones you should be worried about.

Yes. Protect your home. Blast his brains out.

Wuss. Take some responsibility and defend your home.

There's and even greater and more realistic chance that when you run out of your home, you sniveling coward, he's going to take your stuff and escape before the cops can catch him.

Cops use this idea called the One-Up rule. If the criminal whips out a knife, they are not going to whip out a knife also, but rather a gun.

I think a golf club would be a step down. Have fun getting killed.


Even if they truly are the ones that need guns the most, you might still find yourself in a position where you will desperately need a firearm.

I know this is a terrible example, but watch The Hills Have Eyes.

WOWWWWIEEEEE. Dude who under the name of "guest".... Your post was WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY too long. You think i'm gonna read that. Goodness.

__________________
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely----Lord Acton

Thats actually a very good idea - but if it was used criminals would come to recognise the bluff and just carry on with whatever they were going to do

Years ago, I cycled the action on my pistol behind the head of a worthless mope, who was attempting to break into my car.

Even back then, I wouldn't have shot someone over a possession... and I certainly wouldn't now. I'd say, most people wouldn't. But when one hears the distinctive sound of a round entering the chamber (especially on a shotgun), even the most insane or stupid person probably wouldn't want to roll the dice to see if the person holding the gun is bluffing or not.

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

Interesting viewpoint.

Some people prefer to count those killed by criminals ..others prefer to count criminals killed by their vicitms.

I prefer the later. .

__________________
McCain 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much."
"Oderint dum metuant"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

I agree. Statistics show that legal gun ownership is safe. For home defence I have a 12 gauge pump. Very safe, point and shoot, it won't go through a wall and hit someone it's not supposed to. The original post was started by someone from Canada which has higher per capita guns and lower crime than the US. Kind of a paradox from his point of view.