Gun and gun control

[TRIGGER]

Quote by: Sonart .My, you're certainly having fun inventing circumstances favorable to your fantasy. Let's see... -- Veterans tend to be more conservative and more loyal to the government than most citizens.

.

I am sure that the German people felt the same way you do till Hitler took power. That my friend is a fallacy conservatives are more critical and distrustful of the government and loyal to the constitution. Liberals are the ones who trust the government since they want the government involved in every aspect of their lives, depending of course on whose in power.

Quote by: Sonart . -- Veterans still won't have access to the military's arsenal.

.

They don't have to. There are arsenals all over the US just waiting to be broken in to. But there are also military weapons all over the US in private hands registered and unregistered. In New Hampshire in the seventies a National Guard armory was broken in to. Hundreds of M16's were stolen and none were ever recovered.

Quote by: Sonart . The Civil War has already proven that Americans are perfectly capable of doing just that and under the armed rebellion scenario, it's the rebels who have turned their guns on America and the military who's defending their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands and children from the rebels.

.

For a revolution to get started in the US, the government would have to do something so egregious that the people would rise up against them. Starting with civil disobedience in this phase of the struggle. If the government were to lets say have its army to turn their guns on the disobedient public to quell the up rising this is where an armed revolt would start. The revolt is not something that would start over political differences but by an egregious act perpetrated by a tyrannical government. This is why the scenario you have described above would not happen. Since the revolutionaries would be the ones protecting the public not the military. It would start just as the first American Revolution did if it were to happen.

Quote by: Sonart .And yes, as much as they can possibly train them to be, the military is a mindless killing machine. That's why the more violent video games are so insidious... they use the same process of depersonalizing killing and violence that the military does.

.

If you are correct on this then an armed public is more essential then ever in the defense against this mindless killing machine that is stationed among us over which the public has no control.

Quote by: Sonart .But let's imagine your best case scenario, in which all across America millions of armed rebels take up against the military might of the U.S. government. What we're talking about is a bloodbath the likes of which you can't imagine. You really think that's what the founders had in mind?

.

If it means protecting the public against that mindless killing machine that you have referred to then yes. If the government were to suspend the constitution and quell the civil disobedience with gun fire from its mindless killing machine then yes. Just remember the words of Patrick Henry “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Right... cuz it's working so well in Iraq.

Quote by: Sonart .You're saying that if all 300 million Americans were opposed to the government, they couldn't find a better way to remove it than armed rebellion?? Jeez, we really are a sick society.

.

You are missing the point, maybe I should have been clearer. As in any conflict armed conflict is the last resort. You start with the vote if they allowed to vote and if they don’t tamper with vote. Then civil disobedience, that is if the military doesn’t cut you down. Since they are a mindless killing machine as you claim. If these circumstances came to fruition I would say you are living under tyrannical rule, this is where the militia would be handy but all the above would only be possible if the public were disarmed.

Quote by: Sonart .I live in San Diego, California, home of one-third of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, MCRD and Camp Pendleton Marine Corp training center and Miramar Marine Corp Air Base.

.

And that has to do with this discussion, how?

Quote by: Sonart .And no militia anywhere to be seen. Yet the military, as it has been for the past 200 years, is under firm civilian control.

.

Yes the militia is there you are just too ignorant to see it. By the founders definition all you have to do is look in the mirror. The military takes its orders from federal government. And has never been under civilian control. But the militia by the founder’s definition is under every civilian’s control.

Quote by: Sonart .You're living in a dreamland, TRIGGER. Read where Adams discusses the militia in terms of the reality that the vast majority of the borders of the 13 states sit on wilderness frontier, far from the centers of political power, and therefore in desperate need of a militia that can be quickly called upon when needed.

.

Not really you would like me to though. As all the founders mentioned that the militia is a check against the government and the standing army but also as a form of national defense.

Quote by: Sonart .I have read it many times, as well as the 8 Courts of Appeals the affirm and expand on it. For example... 9th Circuit Court, Silveira v Lockyer --"Our court, like every other federal court of appeals to reach the issue except for the Fifth Circuit, has interpreted Miller as rejecting the traditional individual rights view. In Hickman v. Block, we held that "the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right." 81 F.3d at 102 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Like the other courts, we reached our conclusion regarding the Second Amendment's scope largely on the basis of the rather cursory discussion in Miller, and touched only briefly on the merits of the debate over [*22] the force of the amendment. See id. After conducting our analysis of the meaning of the words employed in the amendment's two clauses, and the effect of their relationship to each other, we concluded that the language and structure of the amendment strongly support the collective rights view. The preamble establishes that the amendment's purpose was to ensure the maintenance of effective state militias, and the amendment's operative clause establishes that this objective was to be attained by preserving the right of the people to "bear arms" -- to carry weapons in conjunction with their service in the militia. . . . IV. [*106] CONCLUSION Because the Second Amendment affords only a collective right to own or possess guns or other firearms, the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims is AFFIRMED."--

This is the only case that used Miller and it is also the only court to do it. But I want you to know that as I said Miller is about title 2 firearms not regular guns and for the 9th, the most over turned court in the nation (like 90% + of its decisions are later over turned by SCOTUS) I am not surprised with it’s decision.

[TRIGGER]

Continuation of previous post.

Quote by: Sonart .3rd Circuit Court, United States v. Rybar

This case also deals with NFA the illegal transfer of a machine gun. Also up holding the NFA not about the second amendment.

Quote by: Sonart .4th Circuit Court, Love v. Peppersack

This case also doesn’t deal with the second amendment but with state law and a person that had been previously convicted of a crime and there fore is ineligible to own a firearm, which the judge acknowledges.

Quote by: Sonart .6th Circuit Court, United States v. Warin

Also not dealing with the second but with the NFA.

Quote by: Sonart .7th Circuit Court, Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis

This case also has nothing to do with the second amendment but with an individual that was convicted of a crime and therefore is ineligible to own a gun by his previous conviction.

Quote by: Sonart .8th Circuit Court, United States v. Hale

Yet again this case is about NFA not the second amendment. Its pursuant to machine guns.

Quote by: Sonart .11th Circuit Court, United States v. Adams

I’m sorry this case as with the rest of them is not about the second amendment it is about a convicted felon in possession of a gun.

Quote by: Sonart .Not based on the majority of subsequent lower court decisions such as those linked above.

What most the cases you have produced deal with either NFA or someone who is legally prevented from owning firearms per their convictions for perpetration of a crime. Though these cases tried to use the second, they were ultimately decided that the laws that prevented them from owning a gun were not in violation of the second. NFA deals with the interstate commerce clause not the second and regulates machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and all other weapons by taxing the sale of them. There are only 4 to 5 states that don’t allow them in civilian hands and CA is not one of them.
Even though the 9th decided the case that you offered up, (that is in my opinion) that since Miller is about NFA that the courts application of this president is misused, they mixed apples and oranges. I also have offered up a case that the same court decided in the opposite finding in favor of machine guns.

9th Circuit Court, United States v. Stewart

This case was won on an NFA violation but as the others this was not about the second but interstate commerce.

Quote by: Sonart .There you go... inciting an armed rebellion would be inciting a blood bath, and air and naval forces would be called upon in manners similar to fighting insurgencies elsewhere. Sure, the government might exercise more caution than it does abroad, but in the end it will use whatever force necessary to end the revolt. What the government will NOT do is throw up their hands, shout "Boy, you guys are too tough for us" and surrender... at least not until the country is sufficiently awash in blood.

.

I have not incited nor called for a revolution in any of my posts. I have given a sound assessment to counter your assertion that a revolution would be impossible to mount in the US. I have given plausible examples of how a revolution could be mounted. And that to say it is imposable is to under estimate the resourcefulness of the American people.

Quote by: Sonart .Sorry TRIGGER, but there really are much, much better ways to resolve such issues, the most effective being to simply take to the streets in mass protests and civil disobedience.

.

You are right but were they to fail what would you do succumb to the reality that you are destined to live the rest of your life in slavery and servitude to a tyrannical state. You don't seam to grasp point that the militia would be the last resort. If the vote were as Stalin said became decisions made by bureaucrats which if you listen to the democrats they happen in every election they lose. And civil disobedience was met with gunfire. Kent State comes to mind and the apx. 56 Million dissidents that were put to death in the last century by Governments. Is my distrust of governments that ridiculous? I think not.

Quote by: Sonart .Unless, of course, you'd actually PREFER a blood bath. That your idea of a swell time, "TRIGGER"?.

I have not called for anything of the like. And you know this. I have in this debate never called for a revolt. I have said that the militia is the whole people except for a few public officials. And that is a chk against our government becoming tyrannical. Wars are a thing to be avoided if at all possible. But to deny that the possibility exists is nothing more than denial. If you really think that it is impossible all you have to do is look back at the successful revolts that I mentioned in my previous post and it is clear that it can happen.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: TRIGGER That my friend is a fallacy conservatives are more critical and distrustful of the government and loyal to the constitution.

LOLOL!! LIke the conservatives supporting Bush. Rightee-O.


.

[TRIGGER]

Quote by: Sonart . LOLOL!! LIke the conservatives supporting Bush. Rightee-O. .

Just because someone supports Bush dosn't mean that they agree with him 100%. I have a number issues with him myself but to me and every conservitive that I know it makes no diffrence what party the president is or in power in congress we won't walk in lock step with either party. Most everyone that is a conservitive that I know wouldn't support any government that would turn it's guns on the american people or try to usurp the rights of the American people they won't support it whether in or out of the military.

[Kizzume]

Quote by: TRIGGER Just because someone supports Bush dosn't mean that they agree with him 100%. I have a number issues with him myself but to me and every conservitive that I know it makes no diffrence what party the president is or in power in congress we won't walk in lock step with either party. Most everyone that is a conservitive that I know wouldn't support any government that would turn it's guns on the american people or try to usurp the rights of the American people they won't support it whether in or out of the military.

Actually, if someone is going against more than 50% of what you believe, it seems awfully strange to give them support.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Trigger I am sure that the German people felt the same way you do till Hitler took power. That my friend is a fallacy conservatives are more critical and distrustful of the government and loyal to the constitution. Liberals are the ones who trust the government since they want the government involved in every aspect of their lives, depending of course on whose in power.

Really? So, out of curiousity...is it conservatives or liberals who support Bush and his bending of the constitution? Do tell...

Overall, I'd have to disagree with you. Liberals are happy to cede the government more responsibility, but are far more stringent in criticising & overseeing it.

[Winter wind]

I'm going to play devils advocate right now, until we have a true pro gun person reply.

Quote by: Sonart You seem to be missing the point... number one, folks don't seem to be avoiding fights, considering that 2007 was a record year for cops killed in the line of duty. And the state with the most cops killed? That would be the state that prides itself with the least gun control... Texas.

You can't compare facts state to state like that. There could be a whole host of other mitigating factors.

Quote by: Sonart There it is... we live in a gun culture, where guns always solve problems and the good guys are always handy with a gun. Folks here blather about rights and self defense, but the sad fact is that they just like having guns. Lots and lots of guns.

Is there a problem with this? A gun can be seen as a work of art (I swear to God, I have seen this argument before). However, I could say the same about you. What is even more horrible, is that you don't seem to care about liberty either. For you gun control people, it isn't that you think guns are dangerous to society, it is more that you don't like the people who do like guns. You don't like the people. (I have seen this one too).


And back to my true opinion

I am a resonable person, so I am willing to say that maybe guns shouldn't be ban outright. I think we can live without them, but that's just me. What would be acceptable to me is if everyone got a standard issue handgun with six bullets and a record of each weapon. Maybe a rifle for hunting, but as little verity as necessary. This could deter crime because someone would have to account for the fact that everyone now has a gun. Also, you could mandate that everyone take all kinds of gun safety courses, like driving a car.
This would be acceptable to me as it would rid the united states of all the other weapons (grenade launchers, and uzi's). And it probably would lower crime rates. It's just accident rates also go up.

[TRIGGER]

Quote by: Matt W Really? So, out of curiousity...is it conservatives or liberals who support Bush and his bending of the constitution? Do tell....

Well I don't know to many Presidents, congressmen and a few courts that haven't bent or tried to break the constitution in the last 100 years. Wilson thought that the constitution was an antiquated document that needed to be scraped, Roosevelt illegally incarcerated tens of thousands of Japanese Americans with out due process, Clinton tried to bend the 4th amendment with illegal searches and seizers in public housing, reasoning that public housing is government property, and wire tapped American citizens after the Oklahoma city bombing. SCOTUS ruled that eminent domain also applied to city’s that wanted to take land under that clause and transfer the land to private developers in an effort to raise revenue through taxes. And others with infringements on the second amendment. And these are just the ones we know about.

Overall, I'd have to disagree with you. Liberals are happy to cede the government more responsibility, but are far more stringent in criticising & overseeing it.

I'll have to say that I would disagree with you since the liberals want to socialize the health care system this will bring the government in to your doctors office, all you have to do is look at how corrupt Medicare is to see what your health care would look like. Remember Teddy Kennedy brought us HMO's. Not to mention trying to strip the public of their second amendment rights which puts all the cards in the hands of government. To me and most of the conservatives that I know we are very displeased with the way the government has handled social security, the school system, Medicare, and illegal aliens. They have botched every social program that they have gotten their hands on. And look who is trying to get amnisty for illegals.
For me in a real democracy you should be able to chose if you want to subscribe to a government program but the liberals won't allow us to, Social security, medicare and the school system no voughters.

[Matt W]

Actually, I'd argue that Healthcare could end up looking like Norway or Sweden. Now that, as they say, would be a significant improvement.

[Kite]

I've used this argument before, the difference in crime rates between metropolitan and rural areas. Metropolitan areas have much higher crime rates, despite restrictions on concealed carry and gun sales in general. Rural areas on the other hand, are a very pro-gun environment, and criminals know that. City people are much easier prey, since they have been de-fanged by the laws that are supposed to protect them. Similarly, criminals tend to stay away from rural areas because, as an ex-con acquaintance of mine said, "some crazy hillbilly ass mo-fo will problably cap you as soon as you set foot in the door."

[TRIGGER]

Quote by: Winter wind I'm going to play devils advocate right now, until we have a true pro gun person reply. You can't compare facts state to state like that. There could be a whole host of other mitigating factors..

True. But you need to give reasons for you argument. Here are a few the crime rates will be higher in states with multiple large city's. The fewer large cities the lower the crime rate look at CA which has over 2,000 homicides a year twice that of Texas. Texas and California both have large illegal alien populations. CA also has a large population of violent gangs MS-13, Bloods, Crips, Hells Angles, Mongols and others.

Is there a problem with this? A gun can be seen as a work of art (I swear to God, I have seen this argument before). However, I could say the same about you. What is even more horrible, is that you don't seem to care about liberty either. For you gun control people, it isn't that you think guns are dangerous to society, it is more that you don't like the people who do like guns. You don't like the people. (I have seen this one too)..

You are partially right on this I don't know where this would fit in to a debate but some are a work of art here’s and example. http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/trig51b/mgn008.jpg It's not that they don't care it's that they don't understand the reasoning behind the second and believe that the US government will always be a benevolent government. I am not so inclined since we had a president that if he could have would have scraped the constitution, Woodrow Wilson. And with how the Presidents and Congress and some courts have assaulted the constitution twisting and bending it, I would believe that they would scrap it to were there no the threat of the armed public behind it. President George Washington said it best in a speech to congress; The Second amendment comes second only to the constitution its self as a whole, It is the peoples liberty teeth under which all others are possible. 99.9% of them by their silence means they are in safe sane hands.

If you have a problem with this last sentence I will prove it.

And back to my true opinion I am a resonable person, so I am willing to say that maybe guns shouldn't be ban outright. I think we can live without them, but that's just me. What would be acceptable to me is if everyone got a standard issue handgun with six bullets and a record of each weapon.

I don't agree here’s why. Not all guns are equal and neither are the people who own them in either their ability or even how the gun fits in the hand. You would also have to be able to practice to become proficient with it. Cops usually need to qualify with their sidearm twice a year, and to be able to do this they need to at least practice a few hours a week. Every gun in the US is traceable unless it is illegally made or stolen. Though the records are not with the government but with the FFL holders that sell them.

Maybe a rifle for hunting, but as little verity as necessary. This could deter crime because someone would have to account for the fact that everyone now has a gun. Also, you could mandate that everyone take all kinds of gun safety courses, like driving a car..

I have a problem with variety since it's not very democratic you should be able to choose to what you wish to own and own as many as you wish as long as you are able to secure them from unauthorized individuals.

This would be acceptable to me as it would rid the united states of all the other weapons (grenade launchers, and uzi's). And it probably would lower crime rates. It's just accident rates also go up.

This wouldn't lower crime rates by getting rid of all other weapons. When was the last time you heard of a grenade launcher used in a crime? If you want to lower crime rates here’s how you do it. Take an example from NY City. Before Rudy Guliani became Mayor NY was a cesspool crime was rampant. Rudy mandated that the police stopped looking the other way with minor crimes. The police started arresting people for minor crimes like jumping turn styles on the subways and found that most of the people arrested on these minor crimes had warrants. He also had the DA start prosecuting all the cases no free passes. In essence they started locking these people up. The result was a large drop in crime in NY. Second start enforcing the laws and put restrictions on judges and DA's. Don't allow DA's to plea-bargain cases except under extraordinary cases. No more swallowing the gun, this is a tactic that DA's will use to get a criminal to plead guilty by dropping the weapons charge and in most cases changing the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor. Don't allow judges any leeway in sentencing. The US is the only place were a person that beats another to death with a club because he was in a fight gets 5 years and serves 4 then kills again right after release. Or is let out on probation after being convicted of sexual assault on a child.

Lets get the illegal aliens out of the US. I have heard that up to 30%+ of the homicides in the US are committed by Illegal aliens.

[TRIGGER]

Quote by: Matt W Actually, I'd argue that Healthcare could end up looking like Norway or Sweden. Now that, as they say, would be a significant improvement.

I think it will look more like Canada or Cuba. And we'll be dieing on a list waiting for treatment.

Listen you can't ignore that the US has one of the best health care systems in the world. People don't fly in from all over the world to go to Canada or Cuba. They do to the US John Hopkins, Mass General, the Mayo clinic, and many more. Our problem is with health care insurance. The company I work for paid between employees and the company 2.5 million 2 years ago for health insurance, the insurance company paid out for my company apx 250 thousand. They took in 10 times what they paid out. There is more to this but will save for another day.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: TRIGGER I am sure that the German people felt the same way you do till Hitler took power.

{{YAAAWWWN!}} Please don't bore me with this old saw. There are many, many peaceful democracies all around the world that have survived just fine with strict gun control. The major difference between them and us is that we are considerably more violent as a society.

Quote by: TRIGGER I don’t have to there have been no insurrections,

No Trigger, there's actually been quite a few... just no successful insurrections.

Quote by: TRIGGER They don't have to. There are arsenals all over the US just waiting to be broken in to.

Provided we can break into them. Look Trigger, you can invent all the positive scenerios you want, the result of an armed rebellion in the U.S. today would be a massive blood bath, with the rebels losing badly, and everyone knows it. There are vastly better ways to change the government. India, 1948. The Phillipines, 1986. And many more since. You're rationalizing a national catastrophe for the sake of justifying gun ownership.

Quote by: TRIGGER For a revolution to get started in the US, the government would have to do something so egregious that the people would rise up against them.

And personally I don't see that happening, and definitely not before other, less drastic options have been used.

And yet you would prefer our country continue indefinitely as the most violent, murderous 1st world country on earth just in case something that can't really happen should by some nightmare actually happen.

Quote by: TRIGGER If it means protecting the public against that mindless killing machine that you have referred to then yes.

YOu really don't get it, do you... either that or you're arguing just to argue. What you're talking about it not "protecting the public against that mindless killing machine". You're talking about unleashing the 'mindless killing machine'.

Quote by: TRIGGER Since they are a mindless killing machine as you claim

Only if they are ordered to do so, but the one thing that will guarantee such orders would be ARMED REBELLION.

Quote by: TRIGGER Right... cuz it's working so well in Iraq.

Look at Iraq and then think hard about this statement.

This (Silviera v.Lokyer) is the only case that used Miller and it is also the only court to do it.

No it wasn't. You need to learn to read, Trigger.

Examples:

Love v. Pepersack -- "In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939).

Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right.Love has likewise not identified how her possession of a handgun will preserve or insure the effectiveness of the militia."

Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis -- "Although the limited nature of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment may not deprive Gillespie of standing, it does foretell the outcome of his challenge. For Gillespie has not convinced us that he can demonstrate a "reasonable relationship" between his own inability to carry a firearm and "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S. Ct. at 818. Because Gillespie has no reasonable prospect of being able to demonstrate such a nexus between the firearms disability imposed by the statute and the operation of state militias, Judge Barker was right to dismiss his Second Amendment claim."

United States v. Hale -- "Since the Miller decision, no federal court has found any individual's possession of a military weapon to be "reasonably related to a well regulated militia." "Technical" membership in a state militia (e.g., membership in an "unorganized" state militia) or membership in a non-governmental military organization is not sufficient to satisfy the "reasonable relationship" test. Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387. Membership in a hypothetical or "sedentary" militia is likewise insufficient. See Warin, 530 F.2d 103.

Applying these principles to the present case, we conclude that Hale's possession of the weapons in question was not reasonably related to the preservation of a well regulated militia. The allegation by Hale that these weapons are susceptible to military use is insufficient to establish such a relationship. Hale introduced no evidence and made no claim of even the most tenuous relationship between his possession of the weapons and the preservation of a well regulated militia."

United States v. Warin -- "Agreeing as we do with the conclusion in Cases v. United States, supra, that the Supreme Court did not lay down a general rule in Miller, we consider the present case on its own facts and in light of applicable authoritative decisions. It is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right. In Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir. 1971), this court held, in a case challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1):"

etc. etc.

Quote by: Winter wind You can't compare facts state to state like that. There could be a whole host of other mitigating factors.

Explain the mitigating factors here.

Quote by: Kite Rural areas on the other hand, are a very pro-gun environment, and criminals know that. City people are much easier prey, since they have been de-fanged by the laws that are supposed to protect them. Similarly, criminals tend to stay away from rural areas because, as an ex-con acquaintance of mine said, "some crazy hillbilly ass mo-fo will problably cap you as soon as you set foot in the door."

If that's true, Kite, then why are countries with stricter gun control than ours so much less murderously violent than we are?

.

[Kite]

Since when are we talking about other countries? I thought we were talking about gun control here, not in other countries. Heres an example, find me some statistics on the violent crime rate in Switzerland, where people can have fully automatic weapons in their houses.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Trigger True. But you need to give reasons for you argument. Here are a few the crime rates will be higher in states with multiple large city's. The fewer large cities the lower the crime rate look at CA which has over 2,000 homicides a year twice that of Texas. Texas and California both have large illegal alien populations. CA also has a large population of violent gangs MS-13, Bloods, Crips, Hells Angles, Mongols and others.

This isn't a great stat. It is, at best, post hoc ergo proctor hoc (connecting evidence without proof); at worst it is out-right garbage.
Also, you haven't said that guns weren't a factor, you just said that there is another factor that maybe involved

Quote by: Trigger You are partially right on this I don't know where this would fit in to a debate but some are a work of art here’s and example. http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a68/trig51b/mgn008.jpg It's not that they don't care it's that they don't understand the reasoning behind the second and believe that the US government will always be a benevolent government. I am not so inclined since we had a president that if he could have would have scraped the constitution, Woodrow Wilson. And with how the Presidents and Congress and some courts have assaulted the constitution twisting and bending it, I would believe that they would scrap it to were there no the threat of the armed public behind it. President George Washington said it best in a speech to congress; The Second amendment comes second only to the constitution its self as a whole, It is the peoples liberty teeth under which all others are possible. 99.9% of them by their silence means they are in safe sane hands.

First off, the obvious difference between a gun and a work of art, is that you can't hold up a bank with the mona lisa.

Also, I don't think the government cares too much about the public being armed when it comes to scrapping the constitution or not. They have a pretty nasty army that could flatten you whether you have a gun or not. No if they wanted to get rid of the constitution, the people being armed will be a very small factor in the decision.
As for the 99.9% thing, well you could say the same thing with a WMD, only take one to cause disaster.
Same with a gun. If the United states is composed of 300 billion people, .1% is equal to 300,000 people who will abuse a gun. how many crimes is that?

Quote by: Trigger I have a problem with variety since it's not very democratic you should be able to choose to what you wish to own and own as many as you wish as long as you are able to secure them from unauthorized individuals.

The fun part of this argument is that it is slightly hypocritical.
I'm going to assume that you are against WMD's being made available to the general public (so i can skip the post where you say yes).

So when I say (about WMD's being illegal)
"but you should be able to choose to what you wish to own and own as many as you wish as long as you are able to secure them from unauthorized individuals."
You say
"But WMD's are dangerous and should be regulated."

You see my point. You believe in government regulation just the same as I do, we just draw the line at a different point. Which is fine, just don't use the argument above. It's just hypocritical to say everything should be legal when it shouldn't.

Quote by: sonart Explain the mitigating factors here.

I'm just saying what others said to me when I used that exact stat

Quote by: Trigger I think it will look more like Canada or Cuba. And we'll be dieing on a list waiting for treatment.

This is pretty much false, (I'm kicking myself for going off topic, but what the hell)
People in Canada or Cuba have to wait for specialized operations like getting eye treatment. People in America go bankrupt paying for treatment their insurance say is "experimental." (or just die, being unable to afford it.)

As a result, America has one of the worst health systems in the developed world by WHO standards (ranked right next to Slovenia) and has the highest infant mortality rate, and one of the lowest life expectancies of the developed world (means among countries like japan, uk, france, canada, etc)