The second ammendment reads thus:

"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 supreme court has from the beginning until very recently acknowledged that this means the right of the state to keep and bear arms, not the individual, allowing a loophole for gun control laws. Yet the state has the right to protect itself against tyrannical threat from the external threat by maintaining an effective armed militia.

1) The Founding Fathers did not anticipate bazookas and hand-held machine guns and tanks and nuclear weapons and airplanes.
2) In frontier lands, guns were necessary to hunt, yet everybody knew where those lands were. Nobody hunted in Philadelphia, and there were early gun control laws in certain cities.
3) The states do currently keep and bear and armed militia - The National Guard and the Coast Guard.
4) States had a very different relationship to the US Government. Washington's army was not a national one. States were responsible for their own defense. The political landscape of the United States of America is unrecognizable from 1776 standards.
5) We are so saturated with high powered, low powered guns, all guns of all kinds; it's so easy to get them from other countries where how illegal gun trafficking happens anyway; they will never leave our society, no matter how tight our control on our own gun sales becomes.

Resolution: Being stripped of your rights is not in the cards and is something of an auxiliary fear.

"There are arguments that the second amendment's definition of "arms" amounts to the equivalent of that used by the military. But that's another argument..."

Exactly. IMHO, it says that every citizen has a right to own an Abrams tank (and some could actually afford one). And a Tomahawk missile...

As I said before, people in other countries use police to protect themselves from criminals, and quite successfully! Also, most western democracies do not have death sentences, and still have lover crime rates.

There IS something rotten in the state of United States, and the rotten thing is allowing the interest of the few to make general public ignore scientific research about nature of crime... Not something to be proud of, rather something to be considered.

No. The Second Amendment is for self defense. No research or new theories can change the Constitution. Only repealing the amendment can change that. The whole idea of a "Living Constitution" that's the base behind all these arguments undermines and sullies the whole idea of having a written constitution. If explicit clauses can be disregarded at whim, or because they are no longer "relevant," then the whole idea of protecting rights goes out the window. If they can take away guns, they can take away warrants and double jeopardy and equal protection and freedom of speech and religion and even, God forbid, quartering soldiers in time of peace.

You know, I just threw in the Third Amendment reference as a joke, but it really helps to explain my point. Just like the Second people say it doesn't apply to our modern world anymore, but it's still law. Both have the same force of law then as they do now.

That's also why I can get a jury trial in any civil suit over more that twenty dollars.

Well, then, go and amend your Holy Constitution once more... And while you're at that, sign and respect other world-wide documents, like Geneva convention, Kyoto, land-mines ban and all the other stuff ;)

The statistics do clearly show a correlation between less available firearms and less murders (and succesful suicides, which is actually even stronger figures).

People who do decide to murder still will be able to do so but do we want to make it as easy as possible? It should simply be seen as 4 people's lives mean more than 1.

Countries with tight gun-control laws also have much less cases of student massacres and the like. A psycho can be over-powered when he is armed with a knife and runs into a room of two dozen people. He can probably kill ten before that happens if he's armed with a firearm.

A state that has tough gun-restrictions is also morally superior to one without in the aftermath. The state with tough gun-laws has done much more to prevent it in the first place. When the figures clearly show the benefits the legal system has failed to protect its people the best it can.

Also, when guns are only available to highly organized gangs there are much less deaths in areas unaffected by gangs. Making the murders that do occur generally among people who choose to be around drug dealers, gang members and the like. This does actually keep them away from the majority of the population.

"Exactly. IMHO, it says that every citizen has a right to own an Abrams tank (and some could actually afford one). And a Tomahawk missile..."

Technically, this is true. But again, there was NO way for the founding fathers to know what sort of horrific weaponry would be developed in the future.

"people in other countries use police to protect themselves"

Perhaps the police in other countries can respond in nanoseconds. Sorry Denzel, NO police is quick enough to respond to an aggressive intruder intent on killing. "Quite successfully", my arse!

YOU and only YOU are responsible for your own protection. Leaving your own self-preservation in the hands of someone else, qualified or not, is downright irresponsible.

I agree that there is something rotten about the US...but it has nothing to do with ignoring research on the nature of crime. Rather, it has everything to do with MONEY. The US is the most incarcerated nation in the world...and most of those in jail are in there for minor drug offenses. Prisons are big business here in the US. But I digress...

The point here is, again, you and only you are responsible for defending yourself and/or your family. NOT the police. Thank god the founding fathers were aware of this and insisted on granting the people the right to carry arms.

"Perhaps the police in other countries can respond in nanoseconds. Sorry Denzel, NO police is quick enough to respond to an aggressive intruder intent on killing. "Quite successfully", my arse!"

We do not breed "aggressive intruders intent on killing" here. Nor do Canadians, for example. Is it time to question yourselves why they they flourish only in your society?

Besides, ordinary people in Croatia also have the right to own a gun. If they are mentally stable (checked every 2-5 years), have not recently perpetrated domestic violence, and some other criteria...

The main difference is that we here do not have the gun cult, we do not perceive it a s a God-given right, and we are aware that a gun in a drawer has nothing to do with revolutions, self-defense and all the other stuff gun lobbyists in US love to talk about.

"Countries with tight gun-control laws also have much less cases of student massacres and the like."

Funny you should mention student massacres. Ever hear of Virginia Tech? Yep...the school just happened to be a no gun zone.

"Is it time to question yourselves why they they flourish only in your society?"

I completely agree! But what does this have to do with guns? You are making guns the issue when it is not. The issue, as you correctly point out is something far deeper.

"we are aware that a gun in a drawer has nothing to do with revolutions, self-defense and all the other stuff gun lobbyists in US love to talk about."

Then why bother granting citizens of Croatia the right to bear arms at all?

If you want stats...you can take Switerland as an example along with this:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

I'm still not coming down on one side or another, but I would point out Darwyn, that VA Tech might have been a "gun free zone" but it was also within Virginia (and let's not forget it's also within a town, which as far as I know had no such ban), which is one of the easiest states in which to get a gun in the entire country. I'm not really sure that Tech's ban on guns is really a good example of what a tighter nationwide, or even statewide gun control regime would lead to. A gun-ban on such a small area of land is hardly a good example one way or the other.

@ Darwyn this: "!=" means DOES NOT EQUAL
How about you read posts more carefully before you act like your the only one who has a bit of sense

Perhaps DrOct. I more or less used this example to refer to the comment of student killings. Because there is a story, which I cannot find, of a student going on a rampage that was killed by another student who ran and got his gun in the car. The killer only managed to kill two students before the other one shot and killed him...ending the violence. I wonder what would have happened at VTech had it NOT been a gun free zone.

However, Archonix did frame the question with the country in mind...so instead, I shall point to the example of Switzerland as proof that guns do indeed deter crime.

Furthermore, if I were a cold-blooded killer intent on killing as many people as possible, where would I go? Somewhere where guns are banned? Or somewhere where they aren't?

"@ Darwyn this: "!=" means DOES NOT EQUAL
How about you read posts more carefully before you act like your the only one who has a bit of sense"

Hey, whoa! DrOct politely explained that to me...I thought it was a typo, I had never seen that shorthand before. I apologized above. We seem to agree here.

"Then why bother granting citizens of Croatia the right to bear arms at all?"

Some of them are hunters. Some of them want to keep a WWII trophy Luger in their family. Some of them work as security guards.
If you don't provide a meaningful reason for owing a gun, you don't get a license.

In Switzerland, every able-bodied man really has a high-quality weapon at home:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_550

Yet, the number of murders performed with that particular weapon in Switzerland is still 0.
Then number of foreign civilians killed by Swiss soldiers in past two centuries is also 0.
Please, do not make any comparison between the Swiss and the USA :)

"Some of them are hunters."

you used the phrase "a gun in the drawer" which implies a handgun. What do you hunt with a hand gun?

"If you don't provide a meaningful reason for owing a gun, you don't get a license. "

Self defense is not a meaningful reason?

As to the Swiss...you rightly point out that a weapon at home = 0 murders. This is precisely my point. I'm not even trying to compare USA to the Swiss...that'd be an insult to the Swiss, I'm sure. ;) The only point I'm making is that guns do indeed deter violent crime...as also evident in the town of Kennesaw, GA USA.

This is nuts... America is armed to the teeth. Invictus, who are "They"? The Democrats? Currenlty and historically all abuses of power against the American People have come from the Conservative movements, including the right to free speech, the right to keep your house against a cheap government buyout (yes, the GOP has decided that it can buy your house now for commercial reasons like a mini-mall), the right to read any book you like, the right to protest (Pawlenty did a great job breaking the constitution in St. Paul a few weeks back). Look back at the Alien and Sedition Acts! Conservative affairs. Patriot Act. Conservative. McCarthy and Communism witch hunts. Conservative. Torture. Conservative. Somehow the hippy movement and others like it are going to steal your guns. The hippies hate guns! The extreme left wing wants you to have more personal power than the extreme right!

... wow I really blew up over that one... how'd I do?

My bad, I was out of line there Darwyn. I'm the one who should be sure to read more carefully. I was just a little outraged at being misunderstood.

Did I say anything about the Democrats, AngrySeas? Did I say anything about Conservatives?

When I said "they" I meant government. Any government. Government by its nature seeks more power, and once the precedent is set where the Constitution can be ignored, rights can be abused. By anyone.

"Government by its nature seeks more power"

Exactly. Those who seek power are the very ones who should not have it.

No problem El_Perro... :)

Invictus, Darwyn: I still fail to see how guns stop the American government from limiting a person's rights. That has never been explained to me. Persons who are attracted to the same sex no longer have the right to maintain a healthy, mature adult relationship in marriage. Guns have not helped them overcome a very clear case of constitutional abuse. Guns did not help some number of people from the government forcibly purchasing their land for highways and mini-malls. Guns did not help protect aborted children in Roe V Wade. Guns did not help African Americans desegregate in the 1960's. Martin Luther King rallied without guns, and so did Malcom X. The National Guard had guns when protecting their entrance to public schools, but it was the American people of both colors who made that happen, not the guns themselves. Can you give me a clear example of how guns have protected Americans in a very specific, non-generalized way?

You're using ass-backwards arguments here. Of course guns don't affect issues like gay marriage (and it looks like you think it was legal at some point), eminent domain, abortion, or the Civil Rights Movement,

Whoops. Pressed post too soon. Laptops.

The right to bear arms is to allow the use of force after EVERY peaceful means has been exhausted. That hasn't happened in American history yet. Although if the incumbent politicians continue to ignore the people's wishes it might just actually occur.

So, if both sides lose their heads over gay marriage, eminent domain (a faulty interpretation of the Constitution, but the Supreme Court made it so that's that) is abused, a drastic change in one way or the other with regards to abortion, race relations deteriorate, or just a general despotic development or breakdown of society, THEN guns would be used to protect American liberties.

Also, whenever a gun in used against a home invader an American is protected.

While these things have happened in history - the raid on Harper's Ferry by John Brown, Bacon's Rebellion, several other examples of slave uprisings (they weren't allowed guns yet they got them), The entire War of Northern Aggression (though arguably that's not modern and it was a conflict among states) I will never understand as long as the United States is not in some form of chaos. I think we've established that civil liberties are violated every day with the courts siding for the violators - Bush becoming president was very arguably an unconstitutional procedure - yet no one has resorted to his unconstitutional right of armed revolt. Timothy McVie and the Unibomber? A state of chaos would find guns all over America from foreign providers. It's not hard to make a zip-o either.

More kids are killed from their father's guns, and more fathers are killed when they draw a gun and get shot themselves (Jason Taylor), more civil liberties are infringed upon by those carrying guns (in the case of lynch mobs and the KKK, border patrols near the Mexican border) than homes are defended by guns. Actually, my friend almost mistook me for an intruder in his home one day when he heard a strange noise upstairs and forgot I was there - looked up to see a loaded hand gun pointed at me.

I guess I'll always be confused about this issue. The word "guns" is used in place of different kinds of guns. We don't talk about levels of gun control. We just say guns. A nail shooter is a kind of gun. The Constitution does not actually protect the individual's right to bear arms. It talks about State Militias. The argument seems to come to "I can carry my dear hunting rifle, and so some dude out there should carry an AK."

No sense. Thanks for chatting about this with me. It's good to get some clarity through discourse.

The Constitution does protect an individual's right to own a gun. The Supreme Court just ruled on it about six months ago.

As to the courts abusing civil rights, yes it does happen but there are still legitimate legal was to challenge those rulings. If President Bush were to stage a coup or something crazy like that, then we'd all be glad people had guns.

I hate to bring this up since you were so nice at the end, but why do you call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression"? You're not a Confederate sympathizer, are you?