dksuddeth

hospitals, schools, prisons, etc are much different things in that they are services that are provided by and available to the whole community. Thats nowhere close to the same as depriving a whole society of something because of the illegal actions of a few.

That would be how things are done in your country, however, here in the US things are written differently. Due to the second amendment, banning any ownership of any weapon should not ever happen. The back and forth arguments about less guns/more guns is only going to provide two effects...either you are depriving a whole nation of a constitutional right therefore leaving them defenseless against criminals with guns, or you leave their right alone and work with them to limit the effect that nuts/criminals can do with them.

It is not that they don't accept your right to your opinion, its that they don't accept that your opinion has merit. You are absolutely free to have any opinion you wish to, it's using that opinion to force others to be deprived of something that is god given that makes it unjust.



Is that anything like saying that Islam is a religion of terrorists because the peaceful ones will not speak up? It's a catch 22, how do the 'sensible' gun owners silent the radicals? If we try to be louder than they, we come off looking like the radicals. It's a no win situation for us.



I believe, as do others, that Washington meant discipline as in being able to use them responsibly, keep them workable, and be able to join together under a common cause with efficiency.


Basically, the major catalyst that started the revolutionary war was when the British army started confiscating arms. The colonists KNEW that this was the precursor to absolute authority for King George to have over the colonists. That was something they were not going to live with because they knew, once they were disarmed, it was all over with. It is the same anywhere/everywhere in time throughout history.


Many of the documents that contain the founders words refer to arms, rifles, muskets, pistols, even swords and knives. They do not refer to cannons that I am aware of. My belief is that they felt that as long as the citizens had the same 'arms' and ammunition as any standing army, they could not be defeated. This may have had something to do with the fact that the standing army back then was only about 2% of the population, not much different than it is now actually.




Two things would happen if guns were hard to come by. 'Nuts' would either wait til they could come upon one to use, OR they would simply use whatever was available anyway. Look at the latest massacre in Seattle. The guy used a shotgun, but he had a handgun, a rifle, a machete, AND a baseball bat. He was ready to use all that he had until he was stopped.

It would be a very long time. Look at Washington D.C. They instituted a gun ownership ban in 1968. Their murder rate rose 200% and stayed that way until just recently. Even then, it's only dropped slightly. Blaming this on the illegal importation is just an excuse. It should also show the gun grabbers that gun control did not work and will not work the way they thought it would. I would even go so far as to say that nearly every murder thats happened since gun control got serious in 68 lies squarely in the hands of those who instituted it and those who advocate it. I wonder how many of those murders may have been prevented, had those people been able to be armed.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."