Gun Control

[ATFFL]

Uhh... well that's how they do it in most other world democracies, including the entire European continent. Police and Army have guns. Joe Smith does not.

Bet the Jews wish they had private gun ownership in the '30s.

The purpose of the second ammendment wa to allow the public to defend themslves from the government/military in case it ever became too dictatorial.   The public currently lacks this ability.  

This needs to be rectified by allowing the ownership of everything required to form a credible fighting force.

Mandatory locks and training hould also be included.

[ATFFL]

The purpose of the second ammendment wa to allow the public to defend themslves from the government/military in case it ever became too dictatorial.

It's fair to say that the government has become too dictatorial.

Then try and rise up in armed rebellion.  You'll fail, miserably, because you won't get many people with you and then you will be locked away to protect the rest of us.

[ATFFL]

If a real totalitarian govt comes to power, private gun ownership won't help one bit.

The Jews would largely not have defended themselves until too late. Many Jews eventually did- see Mordechai Anielewicz and the Warsaw Ghetto uprising- for all the good it did them.

And democracies like Britain and France are fairly well established. Certainly they qualify as "modern republics".

They also did not have guns until too late.

Also, the Brownshirts would be a lot less likely to have gone on the Krystalnacht rampage if the Jews could have put up a defense.

[ATFFL]

If we were going to ban guns, we probably should have done it a long time ago. Trying to do it nowadays just -- wouldn't work. Period, and I wouldn't blame people for putting up a fight.

Nation,

Self defense goes hand in hand with the American culture...which is a culture of personal responsibility first and foremost.

Exactly!  Banning guns takes America out of the American.

Then we would all just be "n"s.  

[ATFFL]

It is my own private business what sort of weapons I may own.

Why should you have more right to own a weapon than to own a car, for instance?

I also disagree with licensing of cars..

How would you make sure that everyone is insured?

I wouldn't.  I don't care if they're insured, and its none of my business.

You a trial lawyer?  They would LOVE this.

Every fender bender leads to a lawauit.

[ATFFL]

A government would have to be pretty crazy to use nukes against a rebellion. First off, a tyrannical government wants to rule, so they'd have to be a bit more selective in who they kill, rather than just launching a nuke. Second, nobody nukes their own soil - making your own soil an uninhabitable wasteland seems a bit dumb if you ask me. Nukes are clearly meant to be nation against nation weapons. Use of such weapons may also fuel more rebellion and dissent.

The Second Amendment is meant for guns, and possibly lower weapons like knives and swords. If indeed we were allowed to have tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, and other such military weapons, I would be fine with requiring people to keep them at home, since such weapons would be impractical in almost any situation except a military one, such as a rebellion. I do however, believe people should be allowed to carry handguns concealed on their person, as a handgun is a practical means to defend oneself against your everyday common street thug.

But neither handguns, automatic weapons, or any kind of easily concealable guns were around when the amendment was signed.  By your logic the 2nd amendment shouldn't protect those either.

Also, does would the prospect of living in England "scare the hell out of you"?  They don't have any constitutional rights at all, and yet they are in many ways more free!  For instance, they don't have a 1st amendment, but they have a lot less censorship.

Yes, the Official Secrets Act is a sure sign of a bastion of freedom.

[ATFFL]

A personal favorite.

[ATFFL]

NickG, I htink he is listing legitimate civillian uses.  He could do with a few more qualifiers in there.