The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Clearly you've never set off the metal detector. quote>

Or been behind someone who does

[The Boy 0]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Clearly you've never set off the metal detector. quote>

Or been behind someone who doesquote>

Oh man, I'm sure that must be a huge pain. I do feel sorry for people stuck like that.

[wir3d 2]

yeah that would suck.

[Danlikebooks 6]

Originally posted by: spa

Originally posted by: wir3d I think that bearing arms is for the safety of the people. I heard a recent rampage that included a guy who killed two people and was stop by another person with a gun. If a law was passed on the no guns then hundreds of people would have died. But since this person had this gun he/she was able to take out the person, before he got to more then 500 hundred people. What could have been 500 people killed was brought down to only 2 people.quote>

Arming people to fight back doesn't work. If it did America, a nation that loves its guns and arms more people then most, wouldn't have one of the worst homicide rates in the developed world.

America is like an alcoholic at the very start of the process. A huge section of the country is in deep denial and won't even admit that they have a problem. It really astounds me. How many high school and university rampages does it really take?quote>

God, I hate it when people stereotype America, even if the stereotype is true.  Just wanted to say that.

Technically you are right.  However, the gun problem is not so bad as, let's say, Iraq(this is just an example).  People in America are horrified and shocked when a gun wielding maniac kills 20-30 people at a mall/university/city block.  I saw an editorial cartoon after the Virginia Tech shootings, and it went like this:  Man one:  33 dead!  I call that preposterous!  Man two:  I call horrible!  Woman one:  I call it terrible!  Middle Eastern man (holding Iraqi death toll sheet):  I call it Monday.

People think guns are bad here?  Live in the Middle East for a year (Or Mexico; gun related deaths are rising there too).

[krbe 193]

An article discussing the Supreme Courts first ruling on this subject in 70 years.

[Voar Tok 4]

Did I miss the thing in there about the Supreme Court's ruling, because I didn't see anything except hypothetical stuff.

[krbe 193]

Tuesday my friend... Today, actually. This is the first time a Supreme Court takes on the Second Amendment in 70 years, with a ruling on DC's gun ban. Is it an individual right, is it tied to militia service, does this apply to states too?

[SpokaneFlyBoy 2]

Originally posted by: crazyyaya

Originally posted by: gabetx W00! Go Second Amendment! Never Ever Ever [...] Ever Ever Ban Guns!!! Then The Government Will Take Us Over!quote>

 

Um...I think the government would have taken over the people if they wanted to by now. Is that actually your reason for supporting the second amendment? 

I hope people realize that the amendment was put into law so that militias could be armed (this was before the government ran an organized military) to prevent the British from invading America. I'm pretty sure the British aren't coming. So once the government began running a military to protect the country, the amendment really became obsolete.

quote>

If you do some study on the subject, quite a few of the of the letters circulating at the time the Bill of Rights was made, it shows that the thought had more to do with the peoples' right to defense against tyrannical governments. Unfortunately, with the nature of modern warfare, we have little means to do such against our government should it become tyrannical. Measures taken after the Civil War helped see to that.

In short, the Second Amendment had every thing to do with views held by the founding fathers. Take note of the Declaration of Independence. This is the fist portion of it.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,

it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, i

t is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."

They had hoped to safe-guard against a government wielding power over the people again by allowing the people to defend themselves against such governments.

[Meg 368]

The 11:00 news here is talking about people camping out outside the Supreme Court building.  The case starts tomorrow.  But apparently there are dozens of briefs involved so it will take a while before the decision.   Not that they rush their decisions anyway.  I imagine it will be months.

[krbe 193]

69 briefs in all, if I recall correctly (and my memory is rumored to be far better than Gonzales'). But camping outside the court? Which camp is this?

I actually just checked the Wikipedia page on him—and applying his logic, there's no express grant of a right to bear arms. And he called himself an attorney?

[pepsi71ocean 2]

We deserve the right to bear arms, regardless of the reasons to ban them. A country without an armed civilian population stands at the mercy of anyone who wishes harm to the said nation.

I own firearms, I've shot them, cleaned them, and am proud to own them. We have no crime in this town, the last time the gas station got robbed in our town, two locals armed with shotguns fought back the robbers at gunpoint and held them until the police arrived 15 mins later. If they hadn't gotten involved the gas attendant would have been shot. The guys that robbed the gas station were armed with illegal guns anyways. Imagine a shoot out with the police. Anyways not to get carried away but, everyone in my town owns guns, of all types and sizes, and everyone knows you don't come into our city to rob anyone.

Another case where guns save people is when 2 guys broke out of the state prison, killed 2 cops and then took their guns and took off for south jersey where i live. The State police can't help everyone especially when they have to cover 1,000 square miles of land down hear, anyways they were found here, where a suto lynch mob of towns people cough them, and they surrendered shorty after, when the State Police Arrived(turns out they were afraid of 20 armed men with shotguns and rifles).

Guns don't kill people, its the people behind the gun, Look no further than Canada for the proof.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

From what I heard, the Justices seem to be pretty gun-friendly in their questions as they hear arguments. I was worried about how this case would be adjudicated, but I'm less worried now.

A tyrannical gov't bans guns first, before it shows all of its true colors. Later come the mass graves.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: pepsi71ocean We deserve the right to bear arms, regardless of the reasons to ban them. A country without an armed civilian population stands at the mercy of anyone who wishes harm to the said nation.quote>

And the army? The task of defence is also the army's task, not the civilians one...

[autoVino 26]

Originally posted by: pepsi71ocean Guns don't kill people, its the people behind the gun, Look no further than Canada for the proof.quote>

 

That is a statement I can agree with.  Guns can help out and protect, but they can also do the opposite.  If taking away guns, though, the problem should be solved.  Of cource, then there's the fact that if oyu really really want a gun you can still get it... no matter if it's leal or illegal.

But I'm rather against gun usage... whether it's for good or bad, getting shot is pretty painful... do people, whether they're good or bad, deserve to get torchered in such a way?  Is there a reason why crule and unuluas punsihment is illegal in the US?  same idea can be applied to gun usage.  Getting shot is rather cruel for the individual being shot.

[hym 358]

Cruel and unusual punishment is talking about the government's ability to punish someone, not the potential living hell that an angry homeowner can give to a burglar.

[Duke87 1,070]

^^^ true. "Cruel and unusual punishment" refers to sentences handed out by a judge for conviction of a crime in a court of law. And I don't think we've sentenced someone to death by firing squad in quite a while. Someone shooting someone else is not "punishment" since it not levied by the government.

Besides, would you rather shoot someone or have that person shoot you? That's why you're allowed to hurt and even kill people in self-defense. We can't expect people to just let themselves get killed. And it's better the attacker be stopped so he can't attack again.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Originally posted by: pepsi71ocean We deserve the right to bear arms, regardless of the reasons to ban them. A country without an armed civilian population stands at the mercy of anyone who wishes harm to the said nation.quote>

And the army? The task of defence is also the army's task, not the civilians one...quote>

You are making a mistake though in the general thinking in American culture. No one person is going to hold back a professional military force, but Americans hold the right to defend themselves from any source of oppression to be an unquestionable right.

[autoVino 26]

Originally posted by: Duke87 ^^^ true. "Cruel and unusual punishment" refers to sentences handed out by a judge for conviction of a crime in a court of law. And I don't think we've sentenced someone to death by firing squad in quite a while. Someone shooting someone else is not "punishment" since it not levied by the government.

Besides, would you rather shoot someone or have that person shoot you? That's why you're allowed to hurt and even kill people in self-defense. We can't expect people to just let themselves get killed. And it's better the attacker be stopped so he can't attack again.quote>

 

true.  But I can assure you that the attacker will take on the same ideas... got to shoot him first before he shoots me!  And the attacker can claim "self defense, he was pointing a gun at me!" (of course we all know that this won't work too well... )

Of course taking away guns, at first, might in fact make the problem worse, since those who defend themselves will not be able to leaglly... and the attackers... well they more than likely will not care whether attaking with a gun is legal or not...   Maybe in the long run, but at first it wont change much.

[SpokaneFlyBoy 2]

Originally posted by: autoVino

Originally posted by: pepsi71ocean Guns don't kill people, its the people behind the gun, Look no further than Canada for the proof.quote>

 

That is a statement I can agree with.  Guns can help out and protect, but they can also do the opposite.  If taking away guns, though, the problem should be solved.  Of cource, then there's the fact that if oyu really really want a gun you can still get it... no matter if it's leal or illegal.

But I'm rather against gun usage... whether it's for good or bad, getting shot is pretty painful... do people, whether they're good or bad, deserve to get torchered in such a way?  Is there a reason why crule and unuluas punsihment is illegal in the US?  same idea can be applied to gun usage.  Getting shot is rather cruel for the individual being shot.quote>

It's not even guns. It's knives, cars, ropes, bricks, shovels, poisons, propane tank IEDs, scissors, ball-point pens, bare hands, etc. If someone has set it in their mind to kill, they have all the tools they need. If we bas a gun shot as cruel and unusual and the reason for banning then we must ban all other objects that can be stabbed into someone. Having spoken with gang members when I used to do ministry on the streets, I've heard that knife attacks generally feel about the same as - if not worse than - gun shots. Neither sounds particularly pleasant to endure.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

For lack of a better thread to post this in...

http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=30618664

Slow-motion video of a tank-fired shotgun shell.

[KamiKaZantA 1]

No guns in circulation, no people killed by guns (though people will and does find other means to kill people without fire-arms, but since guns is the topic I only include guns in this answer).

Lots of guns in circulation, lots of risk (please note the word "risk" and apply it to the rest of the sentence) people using them in rash anger, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, plain accidents, unresposible handling of fire-arms (like leaving it in the reach of children) and probably a lot of other scenarios my limited mind didn't include.

Guns are designed to kill or injure. There are exceptions like tazers and bean-bags for shotguns and the like, but more often that not, guns ARE designed to kill or injure.

Guns can be used to protect other people as well as kill or injure other people.

My opinion would be to ban or limit guns for civilians. Instead the fire-arms industry would focus on coming up with guns that can quickly and effciently incapacitate the target instead of killing or injure it.

I realise that it can be fun to go to the shooting range and squeeze of a few rounds. When my sister visited USA as an au pair the local police offered an introduction (or what I should call it), to people in general, to police training and work. Among other things they learned to handle and shoot fire-arms. As far as I know my sister is not violent and had no previous experience with fire-arms, but she found it exciting and fun to shoot a fire-arm on a gun range(please note "on a gun range").

Im sure I would find it fun to use and fire guns. I would very much like to fire a .50 CAL weapon sometime in my life.

But what if I owned fire-arms and used it responsibly? I had it locked up as required to, I never pointed it at other people (loaded or not) etc.

But what if someone raped or abused my sister, killed one of my brothers or a pedophile raped my nephew? What if I knew those people who did it? Then I am in an emotionly (bad spelling I know) very upset state of mind, and I have a locker with guns. Would there be a risk of me using those guns in a very bad (but some people might say "justified") way? If someone raped my 9 year old nephew, I knew the person who did it and I had acces to guns, what could happen?

By law it is illegal for me as a civilian to take matter into my own hands and kill someone who had raped or murderd one of my family members, no matter how justified I think that person deserved death. If it was legal, would it still be the right thing to do?

Edit: People will always find a way to kill other human beings, always try to put an advantage over others using force. "Then guns should be free to all to protect ourselvse!"

My opinion is no. Modern guns are very effective at what they do (kill or injure), they have been designed like that. 

Ban guns and people could make guns themselves, but how effective are those guns compared to guns made by experts in specilised workshops?

Where would you find ammo if there is none? If there is no gunpowder, you could maybe make some yourself, but is it as effective as factory made gunpowder? 

If you need to protect yourself guns isn't the answer. Damnit! What game is this community playing? A game called SimCity 4. How do you reduce crime on the long term? Build more police stations and jails? Or do you build schools, museums and parks and promote athletic sports program? Where would you feel more secure? Would you want to live where you only feel secure with a gun close at hand? Or a place where you meet friends and go down to the basket-ball court and have a game?

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: KamiKaZantA No guns in circulation, no people killed by guns (though people will and does find other means to kill people without fire-arms, but since guns is the topic I only include guns in this answer).quote>

But then there's the point about no guns being in circulation.  If someone wants to have a gun to use for a crime, they're going to get one.  It's not that hard to obtain them illegally, so why should we assumed that if we ban them, they won't be in circulation.  We've banned other things, and they're still in circulation.

Lots of guns in circulation, lots of risk (please note the word "risk" and apply it to the rest of the sentence) people using them in rash anger, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, plain accidents, unresposible handling of fire-arms (like leaving it in the reach of children) and probably a lot of other scenarios my limited mind didn't include.quote>

A vast majority of the people who would be making those kinds of mistakes shouldn't have had one in the first place.  Even people like myself who advocate the right to own one think that just anybody should have one.  A background check to make sure that they don't have a history of violent crime or child negligence should be a step, as well as an intensive training session for any new kind of gun you buy would be good places to start.  For the most part, that kind of a system would weed out the idiots who shouldn't have the thing because they'd probably not be interested in going through with all that.

Guns are designed to kill or injure. There are exceptions like tazers and bean-bags for shotguns and the like, but more often that not, guns ARE designed to kill or injure.

Guns can be used to protect other people as well as kill or injure other people.quote>

Yes, guns are designed to kill or injure people.  That's the idea behind protecting yourself with lethal force if necessary.

My opinion would be to ban or limit guns for civilians. Instead the fire-arms industry would focus on coming up with guns that can quickly and effciently incapacitate the target instead of killing or injure it. quote>

Can you think of a single gun that doesn't kill yet can easily incapacitate you?  The simple reality of the situation is that defensive force requires some sort of contact.  If all you have are your fists, you're going to have to punch him to defend yourself.  If you've got a gun, it's basically the same concept - hit him with an object.  By simple logic, if you don't injure your opponent when engaged in self-defense, he'll injure you.  Even rubber bullets, which were designed not to kill people or even penetrate the skin still cause considerable amounts of trauma to the body where they hit, which leads to massive bruising and other complications depending on where you hit them.  What's more, at closer range, they can even penetrate the skin just like a real bullet.  Then there's plastic bullets, something that was designed to shatter when it hits the skin.  They hurt like hell, but with a little training, they are completely worthless for incapacitating someone.  (To cite an example, US air marshals are subjected to training exercises that require them to take down a person from with nothing but their bare hands while the person is shooting plastic bullets at them and continues to do so until the trainee learns to fight through the pain).

But what if someone raped or abused my sister, killed one of my brothers or a pedophile raped my nephew? What if I knew those people who did it? T

[Meg 368]

GUNS IN RESTAURANTS

Advocates to Press Point at Eateries in April

By Anita Kumar

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, March 21, 2008; Page B04

RICHMOND, March 20 -- At least twice in recent weeks, Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw proclaimed on the Senate floor that customers who bring guns into restaurants in urban areas of the state are asked to leave.

Gun rights advocates say that's not true. To prove the Fairfax County Democrat wrong, they are planning to bring guns into restaurants in his district each Saturday in April.

"It was a crazy statement," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. "We're going to set the record straight."

Saslaw's comments have prompted conversations among gun-rights advocates on Web sites and blogs, many of which are promoting the April events. Some people described their own experience of bringing guns into Northern Virginia restaurants.

Thirty-four states allow customers to carry guns into restaurants that serve alcohol, according to the National Rifle Association. Maryland law allows customers to carry concealed weapons in restaurants as long as they have a permit. The District, which has the nation's most restrictive gun law, does not allow customers to bring guns into restaurants.

Members of Virginia Citizens Defense League plan to carry guns into restaurants for lunch April 5, 12 and 19 and then for dinner on April 26. Van Cleave said 80 people have signed up for the dinner.

Dave Vann of Falls Church, who organized the April events, declined to specify the restaurants for fear that someone will warn the owners.

Tom Lisk, a lobbyist for the Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association, which represents about 1,100 restaurants in the state, said his group is considering alerting Fairfax restaurants so that they will not be surprised or alarmed.

"What they are planning to do is certainly legal," Lisk said, adding that "they are using restaurants to advance their political and legislative agenda."

Lawmakers debated gun control several times during the legislative session that ended last week, considering bills that would have loosened restrictions on where a person may carry or place firearms. The issue often divides legislators from urban and rural areas.

Under Virginia law, people may carry guns into any of the 6,000 restaurants in the state that serve alcohol, as long as the weapons are displayed openly and not concealed. They also are allowed to take concealed weapons into the 11,000 restaurants that do not serve alcohol, as long as they have a permit.

The House and Senate passed a bill this month that would allow people to carry concealed weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol. Gun advocates have tried to change the concealed weapon law every year since it went into effect in 1995, but this year was the first time it passed both chambers.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) vetoed the bill, saying it would endanger restaurant employees and customers.

He said he based his decision on recommendations from the law enforcement community. Legislators tried but failed to override Kaine's veto.

"In most urban areas, you walk into a restaurant with a gun on your hip, they're going to tell you to get out," Saslaw said March 5 during a debate to override the veto. "You're not going to get any meal or any drink."

Saslaw said in an interview that he and his wife dine out "all the time" and that they have never seen anyone in a restaurant in his district with a gun. He said he did know of the April events.

"If the owner . . . wants them to get out, then they need to get out," Saslaw said.

Mike Stollenw

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Sounds like a bad idea to rob a restaurant in VA anytime of year, but especially next month.

VT: You're right, high quality powder is very easy to manufacture, and low-quality is even easier. 

When I was younger, I bought several declassified Special Forces 'Improvised Munitions' manuals at an Army surplus store (they're quite valuable now). They were all tested and official recipes for everything from black powder to plastic explosives to anti-tank and anti-personnel devices, step-by-step from easily available materials. 

I still know how to make RDX and HMTD, but I would never ever do it...they can give you life in prison just for making it (plus I have no use for it, I'm just not mad bomber material). But just 3 commercially available ingredients will make substances many times more powerful than TNT. 

No, I've never told anyone the recipes, and certainly wouldn't now. Too many crazies out there. 

The internet stuff can be dubious, there are people out there who have put bad info on the 'net just for kicks that will blow up in someone's face if they try it. This has happened, I've been told.

Edit: What's really scary is how easy it is to make nerve gas.

[icecreamforbreakfast 0]

A certain low pH substance and a particular hydrocarbon will do it.

[deadwoods 542]

So reading through the responses I can see three main reasons why many Americans feel they need to own and carry guns; 1) hunting, 2) incase the govt. suddenly turns on them, and 3) to protect themselves from someone else with a gun.

I can understand the first (although I'm not a supporter of hunting in most cases). I seriously doubt the second will occur so quickly that you need to have guns loaded with ammo and in the truck or lounge room.

The third worries me. Is the social fabric in the US so unstable that the level of gun ownership needs to be as high? Is America so dangerous to innocent people? I've spent much time in the US over the last ten years and have never felt threatened enough to feel I needed a gun; perhaps I've been lucky enough to avoid the dangerous parts. I sincerely hope that America is not generally that dangerous a place to live, cos' if it is, it's about time someone spent time addressing the issues at home (rather than spending all the budget invading foreign countries).

[autoVino 26]

Originally posted by: deadwoodsThe third worries me. Is the social fabric in the US so unstable that the level of gun ownership needs to be as high? Is America so dangerous to innocent people? I've spent much time in the US over the last ten years and have never felt threatened enough to feel I needed a gun; perhaps I've been lucky enough to avoid the dangerous parts. I sincerely hope that America is not generally that dangerous a place to live, cos' if it is, it's about time someone spent time addressing the issues at home (rather than spending all the budget invading foreign countries).

quote>

 

I agree, I've never felt in danger in America.  No mater the race or nationality of the people (and unfortunatly this still is taken largely into consideration in America, regaurdless of what they tell you at school... racism still exists... quite unfortunatly) I've never felt threatended.  I've had some people even try to sell me drugs before (and this is no joke...).  I just quietly said no thankyou and they leave me alone.  No need for guns.

Then again I could just as easily been a lucky one.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: deadwoods

The third worries me. Is the social fabric in the US so unstable that the level of gun ownership needs to be as high? Is America so dangerous to innocent people? I've spent much time in the US over the last ten years and have never felt threatened enough to feel I needed a gun; perhaps I've been lucky enough to avoid the dangerous parts. I sincerely hope that America is not generally that dangerous a place to live, cos' if it is, it's about time someone spent time addressing the issues at home (rather than spending all the budget invading foreign countries).

quote>

No, but every country has people in it that are willing to flout the law to get what they want, and that's what the guns are for - in case they try it on you.

[jglei701 8]

Originally posted by: deadwoods So reading through the responses I can see three main reasons why many Americans feel they need to own and carry guns; 1) hunting, 2) incase the govt. suddenly turns on them, and 3) to protect themselves from someone else with a gun.

I can understand the first (although I'm not a supporter of hunting in most cases). I seriously doubt the second will occur so quickly that you need to have guns loaded with ammo and in the truck or lounge room.

The third worries me. Is the social fabric in the US so unstable that the level of gun ownership needs to be as high? Is America so dangerous to innocent people? I've spent much time in the US over the last ten years and have never felt threatened enough to feel I needed a gun; perhaps I've been lucky enough to avoid the dangerous parts. I sincerely hope that America is not generally that dangerous a place to live, cos' if it is, it's about time someone spent time addressing the issues at home (rather than spending all the budget invading foreign countries).

quote>

 

I hunt, and my father-in-law's brother-in-law (so, my wife's uncle) is originally from Wales.  He has talked at length about how restrictive the gun laws are in Britain and how, though it isn't illegal to own a gun, it has to be kept in certain places and used only at certain times.  He came to America years ago and is in hunter's heaven here in Northern Wisconsin.

Hunting is a culture.  And, to be honest, it really is needed.  For all the squawks that the anti-hunting people have put forth here, they haven't come up with a solution to quell the over-population of deer.  Hunting kills the animal, yes, but it does it in a quick and humane way.  The other solution is to let the deer starve to death.  That isn't humane at all.

I'm not worried about the government turning on me... unless you mean them taking my money by raising taxes... By no means am I about to take up arms to combat this though... I'm just going to continue to educate those around me about the direction that the country will go in with these tendencies.

And whatever your position, you can't discount #3 as viable.  Those who want guns will get them whether their legal or not.  If someone comes in my house and wants to hurt me, my wife, or our unborn child, I will do WHATEVER it takes to protect them, no questions asked.  I don't have a gun in my home, but I do have a broad assortment of knives and swords, in addition to my 6'10" 320 lb frame to protect them.  But I'm not going to be able to do a whole lot if Mr. Nasty pops a cap in me before I'm within striking distance.  I would feel, and we would all be much safer with a gun at our disposal.

My last point is this... I just watched the movies 28 days later and 28 weeks later.  Ironically (or not) these take place in England where there are pretty severe gun restrictions.  Up against a wild mob of rabid "infecteds," the ONLY people who could save the populace was the military.  Now, there are 1.4 million soldiers in the various military services, which is only .5% of the populace.  About 380,000 of these are abroad.  That leaves only about .3% of the populace in the military.  And now, I know that the US military is the best equipped and probably one of the best prepared in the world to deal with a crisis, but they're much BETTER equipped to deal with a conventional force than with a dissenting population (or a militant minority therin), as shown in both Iraq and Viet Nam.

Now, in a chaos situation, what is the best way for me to protect myself?  Is it to wait for the military, which may or may not be available to sweep in and rescue me and my family?  Or is it to take up arms and put an END to whoever tries to harm u

[deadwoods 542]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: deadwoods

The third worries me. Is the social fabric in the US so unstable that the level of gun ownership needs to be as high? Is America so dangerous to innocent people? I've spent much time in the US over the last ten years and have never felt threatened enough to feel I needed a gun; perhaps I've been lucky enough to avoid the dangerous parts. I sincerely hope that America is not generally that dangerous a place to live, cos' if it is, it's about time someone spent time addressing the issues at home (rather than spending all the budget invading foreign countries).

quote>

No, but every country has people in it that are willing to flout the law to get what they want, and that's what the guns are for - in case they try it on you.quote>

But that's my point. Every country has these people. In most western countries (Australia, Canada, UK, Europe) the risk to ordinary folks from these people is so low that average folks don't need guns. It's only in America that the risk of deadly home invasion is so high. That's the problem.