Keep the right to bare arms

The article started out great with a story about an 82 year old woman defending her property with a handgun like 100% of law abiding Americans do but then the story takes a turn for the worse trying to convince people to disarm America so only the criminals will be armed.

The lady must have been a pretty decent shot to knock out the tires like that. Cheers for her.

Here's an interesting article about Cho's grandfather. Seems him and I share some views about his grandson.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/world...

Just a small correction: Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney is the son of George Romney. George Romney was the govenor of Michigan. Mitt is the govenor of Massachusetts.

Sorry, governor not govenor.

Miss America's use of her weapon is hardly unique. the same thing happens every day, in the United States.

When I drove a taxi, I used my revolver to prevent a crime on three seperate occasions. I didn't even pull the trigger on any of them: the display the weapon and my willingness to use it were sufficient.

But all of this is to the side, as is the tragedy of Virginia Tech. The right to keep and bear arms is not there to prevent crime. It is there to prevent tyranny. The functional difference between free people and slaves is that free people may arm themselves.

It is a pity and a shame that the citizenry of Scotland and England, which used to be the freest countries in the World, should have aquiesced to being disarmed. But that is none of my concern. That this does not happen in the United States is.

I have no problem with debarring mentally ill (such as the unfortunate Mr Cho) persons from the use of arms.

.

First, the "Gun Lobby" may be powerful, but only because "we the people" empower it through both financial donations and contacting our legistators any time a consideration is being made on firearm laws.

Second, remember that there are millions of legal gun owners in the USA who never do anything illegal with their guns.

The ownership of guns sets us apart; it gives us the feeling of being able to defend ourselves rather than depend on someone else for the defense of our essential liberties.

In closing I will paraphrase Benjamin Franklin...
Anyone who gives up essential liberty in exchange for security deserves neither...

James Q Wilson had a nice op ed about this in the LA Times. A couple of relevant facts:

o Rates for murder by other means than guns in the US is about 3 times that in Europe.

It's not the sort of thing you want to put in the tourist pamphlets, but it does suggest that availability of guns might not be the root of the problem.

o Since the Brits pretty much banned guns, gun crime there has risen considerably.

Which is just what one should expect.

Being rid of all the guns would be lovely, but I expect a ban would be about as effective as the existing ban on cocaine. Folks who want it seem quite able to get it, if they are willing to break the law. Why would a gun ban work better?

It's not a new argument, but it's a convincing one: A ban would keep guns from the law-abiding, while the criminals would still be able to get them. I'd rather keep the right to shoot back than rely on a ban which experience teaches is hopeless.

-------------
And: Romney was governor of Massachusetts, not Michigan. He may have been born in Mich; I recall he has some connection to that state.

I'm glad I don't live in the USA, feeling that I have to arm myself to be safe. I can walk down my street with no fear of being assaulted or worse.

My opinion : if people carry guns to defend themselves there is a good chance that they'll come to the wrong conclusion and shoot someone in error.

Key points : I don't feel I have to arm myself to feel safe; if I had to arm myself, I'd feel that my countrymen had let me down.

Its in their constitution, if they feel the need to protect themselves with guns fair enough.

But.. Why do they sell like light machine guns and assault rifles? They ain't for protection there weapons on war man.

Its okay carrying or owning a small calibre hand gun, if someone breaks into your home you could shoot him with you hand gun and he'll probably live but will go to jail. Sounds fair.

But if someone breaks into your home and you have a rambo light machine gun, one of those ones with the bullets coming out from the sides, then you'd probably kill the robber and you could kill someone else because them bullets go straight through brick and everything, small calibres break up inside and disable the criminal.

So they maybe should ban having heavy duty weapons such as Light Machine guns and Assault rifles. Not handguns though, I can see the need for them to protect themselves. Also hunting rifles, don't have any problem with them at all, fair enough there used for a sport (if thats your bag shooting animals).

Comprimise.

"But the vast majority of Democrats remain wary of anything that might risk confrontation with the powerful gun lobby".

I wonder if the silence has anything to do with the fact that 2008 is election year. Nah can't be that.

Probably Jim A, They'll not want to disullusion any gun owners, because they'll lose votes from Democrats and fedup Republicans and those undecided.

Vote for Barrak anyway, Hillarys been in office, she ran the place when Bill was in power it'll be the same old stuff. Barrak's more of a man of the world, he'll make a difference to the world as a whole and America. I believe he will become one of the greatest men that ever lived if you vote him into power, chance for a bit of peace in the world.

#10 Skirvy, what you say makes sense. I am a gun owner and an assult weapon is a waste of money and time for the average citizen. They could hit anything and if they hit anybody it would probably shooting themself in the foot. You say a small calibre handgun. What claiber, a 22, would never do. Something else, if you don't kill the intruder he can sue you and he would win big time. Inside your home shoot him dead, case close, if he lives hope you have lots of money to pay him which you will. Can't say who I am going to vote for, all of them are rotten to the core.

#6 Josh Geller makes the salient point about gun ownership in the USA. "The right to keep and bear arms is not there to prevent crime. It is there to prevent tyranny."
We would not have gained our independence if our citizens had not been armed. The character of any people is molded by their nation's history. America's "love affair" with guns is found in her love affair with the history of her birth less than 250 years ago.

#13 Aoda, last year here in Michigan they changed the self defense law. Before last October if you shot someone in defense of your life or home and didn't kill them like you said they sued you, or if you killed them the family sued you. Not anymore, as from 1st October last year in Michigan we no longer have to retreat and you can no longer be sued in a legal self defense shooting. We had a guy here try to sue a lady who shot him after he broke into her house, there wasn't a lawyer in the State would touch it. This change of law came about by the public through their state reps putting pressure on our Democratic Governor.

for the pro-gun people:

I think it is a good thing to own guns myself. But the people at Waco in Branch Davidian building in 1993 had lots of guns. They supported themselves as gun dealers and had a huge arsenal of guns on hand. The government attacked them and they were all killed except for a very few survivors who received long jail terms. The guns they had did not protect them.

my point - the government has ways of dealing with you.

#16 Wally, fair enough but I don't see what your post has to do with the average law abiding citizen wanting to protect themselves, their family and their homes

Re: Waco...The firearms they had DID protect them, the feds had to use tanks and poison gas to get their way...Another example of the need for the second amendment, the tyranny a large organization can be capable of is almost unspeakable...

There is absolutely nothing wrong with people being allowed to have guns to protect themselves and their homes and families. It is not legal gun ownership that causes the problems. As for being allowed to shoot and kill anyone that breaks into your home, I'm all for it.

In the UK, the knee-jerk reaction to Dunblane, of banning all legally held hand guns, has done nothing to prevent gun crime. There is now far more gun crime, especially in England, primarily from hand guns, and primarily involving "Yardie" gangs, than there was before the ban.

The problem with firearms is usually caused by the nut behind the butt; but if the nut can't get hold of a gun, he will use something else. Just look at the number of knife crimes and murders in the Glasgow area, or even the number of axe murders in London.

As for the shooting in Virginia, the only criticism I have to offer is that a resident alien was allowed to buy a gun. The right to bear arms is surely for American citizens only. Anyway, if that nutter hadn't been able to get hold of a gun, he would have found something else to kill people with.

This is just an incidental comment, but if you write articles in newspapers you want them to be accurate? (I don't class the Sun, Star etc as newspapers, so they don't count)

The B52 didn't fly operational till the early fifties, what the article should say is B17.

The Scotsman should produce better stuff than this.

I hope that is the only error in the story.

#19 Guga, Hiya mate, well I agree with nearly all you say apart from one wee bit ;-) "The right to bear arms is surely for American citizens only". I'm a legal resident alien (ALF) here in the US and apart from a couple of things like I can't be President, certain jobs I can't do, (unless I take citzenship) and I can't vote I have the same rights and privileges as a US citizen. I'm not a nutter, I obey the laws, work hard, and pay my taxes and I have a concealed weapon carry permit. I've had a lot of firearms training, I was a firearms instructor in the Army, and dare I say it? I am a heck of a lot safer with a firearm than some of the people I have seen with firearms over here. For the most part people here with firearms are safe but some of the fools I've seen on the range get upset when you say something to them about gun safety. America is a great place to live and work but unfortunately there are a fair few bad people out there and I think I should have the right as a law abiding person to defend myself and my family should someone want to do harm to me or mine. If the bad guy comes kicking in my door I don't think he's going to take the time to find out if I'm a citizen or not, and hey if I can help it he's not going to get the time. There you go mate, just my tuppence worth for what it's worth.

#20 Perkins, well spotted sir, your prize is in the mail :-)

#19 Guga,
Not only can a resident alien have a gun permit, but resident aliens can join the military. There are lots of "Aliens" serving in the US military who are not citizens.

Josh Geller.. Tyranny..

USA vs The World what's left to say....

Oh the nodding dog UK follows suit!

To say that ordinary people have a constitutional right to have and use fire guns to defend hearth and home is easy but in practice it is impossible to guarantee that the guns are used only in defense. In other hand why US should face some bloody disasters for misusing this right . This alleged constitutional right is contrary to other’s constitutional rights such as freedom and security . The experience of other countries in banning guns can teach US good lessons .for example in Iran nobody is allowed to even carry a fire gun . carrying guns is punishable up to 10 years in imprisonment, but we Iranians have not rejected this policy and this criminal strategy has resulted in security for us and always welcomed . What happens if selling guns is banned in USA? WHAT COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN HAVE LOST IN BANNING FIRE GUNS ?

From #19 Guga onwards

Couple of points. The killer in question legaly had a gun, he no doubt would have found other ways to kill people but I doubt he would have killed so many, so easily.

Knife crime in Scotland is often mentioned in some posts and agreed it is grim, however what would the figures be like if people in Scotland had easy access to firearms, my guess is it would make the States look like a playground.

My admittedly biast opinion is only the military should be armed, not even keen on the police carrying weapons as the have a tendency to screw things up.

Opening up gun ownership what damage would untrained people with little first hand knowlege of the effects of firearms cause. Many would panic and open fire for little reason, no rules of engagement here.

Ban all bloody fire arms including airguns, except for individuals who must use them, ie gamekeepers, farmers etc, for the sporting types, lock weapons up on the ranges after use.

Saying all that, hats of to Ms Ramsey, must be some lady.

Rulesbutnotrulers, the US Constitution says that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;" it does not mention the rights of the militia.

Faramars, what has Iran lost in banning weapons? How about any chance of standing up to the fundamentalist crazies who want to enforce censorship, ban freedom of choice, and otherwise restrict your daily life? They have guns, you don't. You lose.

Why is no one commenting on the fact that guns are used between 500,000 and 2,000,000 times per year in the USA to PREVENT crimes? Does that fact not fit into the brainwashing your leaders gave you when they took away your weapons?

Is this really about gun control? Effectively this person had all the classic signs of a sociopath (illusions of grandeur, inability to achieve status quo with peers, loner, etc.) and although there were alerts to authorities; he still managed to commit a horrible crime.

Perhaps the greater issue here is the lacking (or more appropriate: indifferent) mental health care in U.S.?

Maybe you should try living here Josh. It's wonderful to be able to walk the streets of my capital city without the fear of a gung ho trigger happy nutcase pulling a gun for no good reason.

I for have difficulty in coming to terms with a constitutiuon which effectively allows the slaughter of thousands of citizens annually with what amounts to the tacit agreement and approval of the US Government. I have some difficulty also in accepting how automatic rifles, assault rifles & light machine can be legally puchased in the name of "self defence" Such weapons are by no stretch of the imagination defensive.

We have a police force and an army for security. Our police have armed response units which they feel are adequate. Despite yours and other (usually American) citizens assertions that gun crime has increased in the UK, the unassailable FACT is that crimes involving firearms are still relatively rare. Allowing totally unqualified and untrained civilians access to firearms would only serve to reverse that trend.
I find it strange that Americans are incapable of seeing the connection between tightly restricted gun use and, low levels of criminal use of guns.

Wally...

I'm surprised you approve of the right to bear arms.... Does that approval reflect the kind of society you have in so many areas of the US where many believe their lives are in danger if they do not have quick and easy access to a firearm.

I have spoken to American visitors to this country (UK) who have admitted they feel uncomfortable here because they are denied that quick & easy access....

Scurvy in #10
Just wanted to bring a few errors in your statment to your attention and I think you will have a better understanding of some of the weapons you are referring to. No insult meant by my statments, but I think alot of the opposers of certian firearms is there misunderstandin of them and just a general lack of knowledge about firearms. Anyway on to the statment.

"Its in their constitution, if they feel the need to protect themselves with guns fair enough."

Thank you, couldnt agree more.

"But.. Why do they sell like light machine guns and assault rifles? They ain't for protection there weapons on war man."

Machine guns are not for sale to the general public. They are VERY hard to obtain since the backround checks are very rigorous for them (which they should be). Most people who own and collect machine guns do so as a hobby and alot of the guns are antiques from previous world wars and just wars in general. No shooting rampages have been commited with automatic weapons because they actualy check these people well and keep a very close eye on them. As far as assault weapons, they are actualy not that different than some hunting rifles because they use pretty much the same rounds... Assault rifles are light durable and built compact to make them usable in somewhat close combat conditions. Just to let you know I own an assault rifle, an AR15 which is basically an M16 that is only semi automatic vs full automatic.

"Its okay carrying or owning a small calibre hand gun, if someone breaks into your home you could shoot him with your hand gun and he'll probably live but will go to jail. Sounds fair."

If he is armed when he is in my house this man would not survive to be arrested. Unarmed he would not be shot and I would use the weapon to keep him subdued until authorities arrive.

"But if someone breaks into your home and you have a rambo light machine gun, one of those ones with

Right after the shooting in VA Tech, I read that 28 people were killed somewhere in the US, by a guy driving a car over them...I wish I had Marked the incident, but I did not.

In a town near Chicago, it is unlawful for ANYONE (except police) to have a gun. The crime rate soared there.

In a town in Georgia (US) it is MANDATORY to have a gun, IF YOU ARE NOT A FELON, OR MENTALLY INCOMPETENT. The crime rate there is nearly non existant.

Go to Ann Coulter's website to see her comments.

28. Mike M
This debate has no political aspect. We are happy not to have guns in our hands. No guns = no violence = no student killing =we are lucky.

Skurvy (continued)

The reason that a normal handgun round is less likley to kill is because it stays intact and only damages its imediate area.. Assault riffels however, the rounds explode inside the person causing extesive damage and the exit wound is big. To give you an example I had some hollow points I wanted to play with in my 9mm Beretta and shot up some pumpkins, the exit wound was about 2in in diameter and the round just mushromed gut did not fragment... This was also the first day i shot my AR, the round exploded and destroyed the pumpkin on the ground split in half with a 6in or more in diameter exit hole.... I would not want to be on the buisness end that is for sure!!

"So they maybe should ban having heavy duty weapons such as Light Machine guns and Assault rifles. Not handguns though, I can see the need for them to protect themselves. Also hunting rifles, don't have any problem with them at all, fair enough there used for a sport (if thats your bag shooting animals)"

I dont ever believe in all out bans on ANYTHING, but I think the reason that you see assault riffles missused is that they need to be as strict in letting people posses them as they are with automatics (or machine guns)... I think it would be very effective. Also just to let you know, a man can do just as much damage with a good hunting riffle as he can with and assault riffle.

Just think people get a wrong feed on this issue because they dont know alot about firearms. They need to be treated with respect care and knowledge. I do not hunt since I do not like to kill but I love target shooting and assault riffles are a blast to shoot.

#1 LOL Scottwebb especially with the summer coming oan.

Vince @ 33...

28 people died after a guy drove his car over them..!!..??

What kind of country do you folks live in?

The American constitutional right to bear arms dates from the days when the Royal Navy was blockading Boston harbour, and the revolutionaries (quite rightly in my view, btw) took up arms against tyranny, and freed themselves.

The Royal Navy is now no longer blockading Boston harbour (in fact I remember in my navy days being made most welcome!!! - but enough about that) and the USA is no longer menaced by tyrants, so surely there would be no harm in a review of that part of the constitution?

If that leads to a ban, fair enough. If it leads to an amendment, fair enough as well. If it means no change, well that's OK as well, but it is for US citizens to undertake - and them alone. Some of the condescending comments on these pages about American gun laws by non-americans are of no help whatsoever.

Ta, ta.

The former Miss America was actually aiming for his brain but UNFORTUNATELY missed and hit his tyres.

The word is tires here in the U.S., not tyres. Now that was good shooting be Mrs. AMERICA!

Faramars, this debate does have a political base, at least in the USA.

In your country, is everyone free to wear the clothes they themselves deem appropriate? Free to gather on the street corner with friends and protest whatever they want - the government, religion, whale hunting, etc.? Free to read or write or say anything they want?

In my country we are, because 231 years ago some people used guns to break away from a government that did not believe in those rights. For that reason, guns have always been held special in America. The framers of our constitution were the men who used those guns, and they believed that guns in that hands of the general public would prevent tyranny in the future. That is why they prohibited the government from infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

That is why the debate does have a political aspect.

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution states " 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."

At the time of the writing of the Constitution the US did not have a standing army, hence the need for the people to be armed in case of invasion. Today, the US military has taken over the responsibility of defence. Even if one were to argue that the People still have the right to bear arms, it would be for the sake of having a 'well regulated militia' - and we all know there is little regulation of those who buy guns.

Technically, one needs to go through a criminal check to purchase a gun in the US, but in practice it doesn't always happen as anyone who attends one of the many gun shows can testify.

Having lived in the US for 25 years, I have a deep, deep love for the place and the people, but I was never able to understand the majority attitude concerning gun ownership. There are many people (and things) I miss about the US, but I do feel somewhat safer living in Scotland.

Keep deluding yourselves:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2...

According to European Sourcebook of Crime & Criminal Justice statistics, between 1997-2001, violent crime in the United Kingdom increased by 26 percent, while the gun-mad U.S. saw a 12 percent increase. The increase for 2000-2001 was 11 percent in the U.K. and 1 percent here.

Between 1997-2001, robbery in the U.K. increased 92 percent; in the U.S., the figure was 15 percent. The increase for 2000-2001 was 28 percent for the U.K. and only 4 percent here.

#43--Mike M--in addition, the USA 300mil- population, UK?..........

Rulesbutnotrulers - fortunately for us, the courts of our country do not agree with you. Have you seen the recent decision from the 4th circuit court of appeals overturning the Washington, DC gun ban (a ban which, incidentally, sparked one of the biggest increases in crime in a city this nation has ever seen)?

From the decision:

"...the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right," the court ruled, "existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense...."

"Despite the importance of the 2nd Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

Venus Ramey,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/venus_ramey

this feisty little lady, stood in front of the perps car & demanded they stop & when they didn't, she shot the tires w/a gun that looked as old as she. they had been stealing 100yr/old farm equipment from her barn for scrap metal, & she was determined to catch them. bravo Venus:)) you did good!!

Mike M : “ and they believed that guns in that hands of the general public would prevent tyranny in the future. That is why they prohibited the government from infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms.
DEAR MIKE
If the guns are in the hands of people to prevent tyranny why nobody is using these arms against the contemporary tyrant, namely GW BUSH .
Mike, about 3320 of your countrymen have been killed in an illegal war based on some lies and wrong policies of your president and his henchmen . your leaders are giving American lives and dollars but they receive hatred and blame . US nation is against war . democrats have called to stop war . many US officials have said that US strategy in Iraq is bankrupt but there is no ear for your president to hear these voices . why ? Because he has no logic and in fact he is a tyrant .

"the founders of this country would not distinguish between the right to keep & bear arms & the right to aquire & possess those arms. and that's one of the reasons why we're not wearing red coats & sipping tea in this country"
..."John Velleco".."gun owners of America"..........

no disrespect to our friends from across the pond:)

From Mark Steyn's Chicago Sun article this morning:
"A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told 'em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased 'em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where's the nearest place around here where you're most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors."

#48--Faramars---we are a free country, in every aspect (except to shout "fire" in a crowded room), & you have the advantage of use of our "free press". is the press as free in Iran & do you have a link to any newspaper web-site, that gives truth of what is happening in Iran?

42 albanman

On the money! Seems the NRA and the rest of the gun-lovers forget all but the last clause. Notice that it says 'the security of a free State' - not barns or wagons. Unfortunately, it would be difficult to disarm such a large population and keep new guns from being brought in.

#50--entropent-- www.gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm

#19--Guga---i agree 99.9%....

51. sandy,
we live in iran and better know what is going in our country . sorry to say that some websites full of lies about Iran are blocked .

This is scary
I was not aware that so many USA citizens are absolutely mental.
Hell - and thay basically rule the world, what chance is there ?
The arms law was right 200 odd years ago - Ding Dong - that was then - this is now . Times have changed (though obviously not for the USA)
Rules made in the past should sometimes stay in the past.

I meant to state - I take it that all you nutters that have posted on this site have posters of Charlton Heston on your bedroom walls.

sandy
i forgot to say that the press here is not as free in USA and we are not happy of this .

Thank you Faramers, for your views on tyranny. While the war in Iraq is another subject totally (I voted for Bush twice, so I certainly have no interest in overthrowing him), I will ask you; where do you get your news? Isn't the internet heavily censored in Iran?

I guess it is fortunate that your government has decided to allow you to visit this site, otherwise we could not have this discussion.

What scares me Ian is that they don't seem to accept or believe that guns were developed for one purpose, and one purpose only - TO KILL -

The whole gun worshipping culture out there just has to be seen to be believed....

#15 George
That's interesting. One day after Virginia Tech there was talk of sueing the shcool.

#16 Wally
And the results of Waco produced Timothy McVeigh....
who was out to bring down the FBI, along with innocent women and children too. He was a decorated ex-military vet waiting for a 'cause', he was also a meth user

Drugs are related in some way to most violent crimes.. using drugs, or making them, or buying or selling -
Cho was on a prescribed drug- we don't know yet if he was using the prescription correctly

#32 James
From what I understand most of the rapid fire weapons are Licensed to COPS and ex-cops

#33 Vince
There was a Islamic college kid who drove into a crowd at school a year or two ago

Ian, which posters do you have on your walls?

Personally, I own a nice home, tastefully decorated. Sorry, no posters on the wall.... :)

I am interesting in learning why I am a nut for believing that I have the right to protect myself, rather than relying on the government for protection.

(Or, I could have answered: "And I suppose all of you nutters have the police emergency phone number on your wall, so when you are affected by your skyrocketing violent crime rate, you can have the police come and clean up the mess?")

Either way, it's just a friendly discussion on my part; I understand that you are used to centuries of enjoying only the rights that were given to you. Therefore you can be happy with whatever they choose to give you.

We are used to (just a few) centuries of enjoying rights that we believe we were born with, and that the government is not allowed to infringe upon.

Makes for a very big cultural difference, and one that will probably not be resolved in our lifetimes.

I would never trade my lifestyle and rights for yours, and you sound equally content. I guess that's what matters, isn't it?

59. Mike M
Dear Mike
Iran and Iranians are not the same as are intrduced to you in westren media . nobody is prosecuted for using internent and visiting even immoral sites . we are friends .

#50 entropent
Good story!
When I lived in Vermont I went to the rifle range for an hour about twice a month- as did a lot of people. Vermonters are rural and in the mountains of the country but they are also well educated and d#mned independent.
Vermonters are so independent they are in the process of impeaching Bush.

#63 Faramars
Unless you are a woman and protesting-

Do you deny women are routinely persecuted and jailed for speaking out?

#25
Sorry, not sure where you live, so not sure of your understanding of USA consitution..."The milicia" that you refer to is not the Army. The Armed forces are forbidden to operate inside the USA, to help ensure that coups never take place. We have the National Guard, but that is a late arrival to the political scene, and they are in Iraq anyway. There is some discussion over whether or not the should be allowed to do both; serve overseas and perform in our country.

The militia is a unit that can be called out by any state's govenor. In a time of crisis a state's govenor can form a militia from the citizens of that state, and use them as a military force to secure our country or to fight an uprising or secesion.

The intent of the framers of the constitution was to ensure that every person could be armed, and not with just small calibre handguns, and could be called out by a governor in the instance of a civil war, attack from another country, etc.

So that answers the questions as to why we have assault rifles (I still think each household should be issued an assault rifle; I believe some other country does this, maybe the Swiss), and why small calibre handguns are not the way to go.

Guns are like tools. Choose the right one for the job. My home defense is a 9mm (Ruger p89dc). I have other guns for other purposes...I am not going to grab my .243 Winchester bolt action to go after an intruder unless I can't get to anything else...

Mike ...

No one would deny you the right to protect yourself, but is it surely a sad indictment on your culture that so many of you feel the need to be armed at all times?

Jonboy, where are you writing from? According to some statistics I have seen, the UK is a far more dangerous place than America. Perhaps not for gun crime, but certainly for violent crime.

You are willing to give up your right to a gun in exchange for a five times greater chance of encountering violent crime than my chance of the same? (Average violent crime in the USA=469/100,000. Average violent crime in the UK=2,300/100,000. Figures from the US FBI and the British Home Office.)

I cannot understand that, nor can I understand the people who would argue that NOT having a gun makes you safer. There are 300 million guns in the USA, and our rate of violent crime is five times lower. Someone explain how the UK is safer?

DRIVEL

I was in a pub once when a complete stranger came over and punched me. If I had had a gun, I could have killed him and then lined up his two friends and shot them too. Then I could search their bodies and taken their keys. It wouldn't take long to go around and kill their families. I see now that I NEED a gun.
It would cut the crime rate.
The only thing is that if the nutter who hit me had had a gun, he might well have shot me instead.

Drivel? Ian, those are hard numbers from the UK government and the US government.

How do you argue with that?

Groucho, if everyone there is like you, you're right - you people don't need guns! :) (Tongue-in-cheek, as I assume your post was.)

#42
You commented about gun shows.
Every vendor at these gun shows must posess a FFL i.e. Federal Firearm License. This is hard to obtain and keep. They must call into the FBI when selling a weapon and get a background check.
#57
No I don't have a poster on my wall of Charleton Heston, but I have his image in my head as he is a champion, he marched with Dr Martin Luther King when it was not socially correct and many other fights of freedoms of people too many to mention.

To all on this site
We will never solve the issue by all this retoric about who's right or wrong.
Each person must strive to solve the wrongs in their countries before condemming others.
What does the good books say about a spec in your eye?

Mike M...

Writing from a rural Scotland village where many don't even bother to lock their doors at night...

Who was it once said - "There are lies, damned lies and statistics....

I've seen so many completely contradictory sets of statistics appearing on these fora - I know longer bother to read them....

All I can suggest is that 90% of all violent crime in this country would probably be confined to inner city areas, mostly in England, such as London, Manchester, Birmingham - generally areas with large immigrant communities.
The worst area in Scotland is probably the Glasgow area, where there are major problems with drug abuse...

Violent crime involving the use of firearms is very low across the UK as a whole...

There is no need for anyone here to have a gun....
How often in the US is someone accidently shot by a gun getting into the hands of young children?

One other thought - for anyone from the UK contemplating a trip to the US, reading some of the posts on here from the pro-gun lobby would surely make them think very carefully about going to a country where everybody but them is highly likely to be armed....

#37, Jonboy: I recall an incident when an old guy inadvertently drove his car into a crowd and killed a fair few folks. Maybe that's the one?
Can't remember where it was, though it was somewhere in the U.S., where anybody of any age and any mental (in)capacity and (lack of) physical well-being is allowed to be in charge of a potentially lethal piece of equipment, and I don't mean a gun.

"Drivel" means: Don't bother, my mind is closed.

"a country where everybody but them is highly likely to be armed...." While this is an absurd exaggeration, if widely held, it may explain why many visitors behave themselves.

#58--Faramars---do you have a particular link to an Iranian newspaper(in-english)web-site, that we may read?...as Mike M-@#59 aptly posted, "i guess it is fortunate that your gov't has decided to allow you to visit this site", perhaps your gov't will reciprocate & allow us to post on an Iranian site. do you think it's possible? if not, what could they possibly be afraid of? opinions of everyday folks from around the globe?

http://infowars.com/articles/us/va_tech_shooting_feds_ord...

here's a link from journalist Alex Jones. Jones has developed info from multiple sources saying that the federal government is responsible for the stand-down where local law enforcement did not go after the shooter until many had been killed. Why did they fail to respond? Just like columbine where the police officer who could've prevented most of the killings was told not to. Shouldn't the police chief at the university police be fired?

Most Americans don't really worship guns although there is that minority who do. Most people do believe it is a good idea to allow gun ownership though and many households do have guns, but I don't think a majority. In the US the crime rate is very low throughout most of the country and then high in inner cities - same phenomenon occurs in UK.

Why would the people who rule us want to stand back and allow this carnage as I suggest above? Because it terrorizes people and the terror causes them to want government to be more powerful, it promotes gun control & confiscation, it distracts people from other news. There is a very evil clique that rules our country.

Jonboy, I live in the city near Phoenix, Arizona - the 5th largest metro area in the US. I also rarely lock my doors at night. Our biggest criminal elements are meth users and illegals from Mexico, not armed criminals shooting everyone in the city.

Almost no one goes armed, or feels the need to go armed. The difference is that we CAN if we choose to.

I would, however, agree with you that most violent crime takes place in or near large cities. I'll bet that's the same world-wide.

Your last paragraph is funny.... didn't all of the posters from the UK on this thread state how much they enjoyed their time in the US?

Ian With you all the way mate. What I find appauling is the fact that very few of the gun toting populace of the US actually see the problem staring then in the face. Own a gun and a normal argument becomes a killing. Have a breakdown, kill many people at a college where a woman knocked you back. The right to baer arms does not indeed give you the right to point the damn thing at another person simply because you have not had a good day. This page reminds me of the old joke. Arm everyone on a plane and there will be no hijackings Absolute crap. The sooner the US puts aside its love of firearms and starts to behave as normal members of the global scociety the safer most of us will feel. The comarison of driving a car with gun ownership is facile and stupid

"here's a link from journalist Alex Jones."

Now, THIS is drivel.

Josh Geller # 9 says:
"The right to keep and bear arms is not there to prevent crime. It is there to prevent tyranny. The functional difference between free people and slaves is that free people may arm themselves."

What a hoot. Maybe the Second Amendment ought to be amended to be more all-encompassing: Make it a right to The right to buy and keep any and all products - as a tricvial example, the right to buy any one of 400 hundred different sizes and flavours of sweet fizzy drinks, and any franchise food product at all at any time of day. Meanwhile, the current US government defrauds its voters with Diebold voting machines; it tells bald lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; it carries on its Keystone Kops Chase for the Bearded Pimpernel (Osama bin Laden); it knackers its intelligence agencies by outing spies like Valerie Plame; its Attorney General makes up "clever" laws which violate the Geneva Convention and sacks politically non-compliant DA's, its Vice President is intimately associated with Halliburton, one of the major private contractors in Iraq, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Well Josh, you need to remember that your constitutional right to buy and carry guns was granted in a time when it took more than 60 seconds to fire one round. I doubt that the US founding Fathers ever imagined it would one day be possible to fire 60 rounds in one second.

I also doubt they could imagine that anyone as stupid, venal and compromised as draft-dodger George Bush could ever become President of the United States.

Who do you suppose bought, and owns, your embarrassing Commander-In -Chief? Maybe the NRA bought his shortandcurlies. I doubt he had anything more down there than he has on his shoulders - no brains and no cojones.

Still waiting to hear about the UK gun ban and the fact that you have a rate of violent crimes FIVE TIMES higher than ours.

Obviously, I certainly would never feel as safe in the UK as I am in the US. Criminals can (and apparently do) attack with impunity there, knowing full well that not a one of you will be able to defend yourself.

Depending on which numbers you believe, guns are used to PREVENT crimes somewhere between 500,000 and 2 million times per year in the US.

Imagine how much lower your crime rate would be if you found a way to prevent that many crimes!

Problem is that there is NO interest in any kind of compromise in this country. I grew up with guns, hunting, trapping and some target shooting. I also had NO semi automatic weapons. Elimination of private ownership of gas operated semiautomatic weapons would go a long way towards eliminating the style of massacres that have plagued this country for years. For the RIGHT wing idiots in the NRA (I am a member also) you must bring yourself to see that gas operated semiautomatic weapons have only one purpose .. TO KILL PEOPLE. I find a double barrel shot gun and a small 22 revolver sufficient for all the target shooting and hunting a person could desire. We need sanity in our gun laws. If you follow the idiots logic, everyone in the US will end up carrying an AR 15 and several clips of ammo wherever we go. For those who say that criminals would still have semiautomatic weapons, I say, set the penalties so high that no normal criminal would come near one. We also need a buy-back program to eliminate the weapons already on the street today.

#75--ex ex-pat--"i recall an incident when an old guy inadvertently drove his car into a crowd & killed a fair few folks".....this happened at the "farmers market" in Santa Monica, Ca. about 5yrs ago.

#85--GaryK--"for the RIGHT wing idiots in the NRA"...........you would be more credible if you were to mention that left wing idiots are members of the NRA as well...........excluding that, your post is very sensible.

To all those who believe that the right to keep and bear arms is out-of-date, I offer that in 1991, I learned firsthand how important that right still is. After my car broke down at work and I received a ride home with a co-worker, the empty driveway attracted the attention of a man who burglarized my home. I awoke to the sound of my guest room window being forced open, and responded by arming myselfd with the ,45 Colt that I kept nearby.

The youing man was quite disappointed when he realized that he had brought a sharpened screwdriver to a potential gunfight, and surrendered immediately. It took the first deputy sheriff nine minutes to arrive at my house, and that's nine minutes in which I could have been killed.....but I wasn't because of that pistol.

Footnote: The guy had been out of jail for only six weeks, having served six months for an earlier burglary, wherein he was allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanor breaking and entering. At the trial for burglarizing my home he was again allowed to plead guilty to B&E, received another six month sentence, but because of crowding at the jail, was released after serving sixty-three days....

...and you think the problem in America is guns?

#83--faithfulskeptic----perhaps you should seek help, since you obviously can't get over Pres. Bush having won in '00 & '04...he is our President & thank God he is during this war & not algore or john kerry....so get over it & move on....

#88--TwilightMarine---you nailed it!!

Go Granny! Gun Control=a tight shot group!!

for 81, Not Tom or Harry:

can you tell us an explanation as to why the local police at this university did not respond to the incident? From what I can tell the police were notified of the first murder at 7:15 AM. and then they finally rushed the shooter a little short of 10:00 AM. And beginning at 9:00 AM the shooter was happilly shooting people for about 45 minutes with no disruptions whatsoever from police.

Won't you agree with me that the police chief should be immediately fired? Alex Jones the journalist spoke to many local people and developed the story that the federal government had ordered the local police to stand down.

all those students with cell phones witnessing all that violence and the police took so long to get inside the building and stop it. There is no excuse. One woman said she played dead for an hour before it was safe to get up. The shooter didn't even have a semi-automatic gun, it was 9mm handgun, shooting small bullets one at a time. and he did all this damage. because nobody opposed him.

There's something horribly wrong in our country. I'd recommend people do look at Alex Jones' web site and listen to his radio show.

http://infowars.com/

You can listen to his radio show 24 hours a day for free on his web site.

Wally, take off the tin foil hat.

By the way, a semi-automatic handgun IS a gun that fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, then automatically loads the next bullet.

Perhaps you are thinking of an automatic weapon, which will fire as many bullets as it can load until the trigger is released?

I've not read all the comments and I won't be coming back to read any because I'm sure people will just start stupid personal attacks. First I'm sick of seeing the misquote from the constitution on the "right to bear arms", it does not say people have the right to arm themselves but they have the right to an armed militia. Get the context correct.

Second, the idiotic comment that "guns don't kill people" without guns it's harder to kill. The VTech killer couldn't have done all that damage with a baseball bat or knife, people could have overtaken him but guns are the weapon of cowards who want to be disassociated from their acts and impulsive. Guns allow people to act without thought and to act tirelessly. You don't get worn out pulling a trigger but with physical attacks your strength wanes again allowing a chance for others to escape or overtake their assailant.

There are other issues here that need to be looked at, like a failing system, why people like this get so angry to take others lives, but guns are the biggest problem and I am running out of sympathy for a country that isn't taking steps to protect their own people. Perhaps politicians need to start looking at the terror at home before abroad. And the US gun issue DOES effect other countries. I'm not saying guns are the only issue but they certainly play a good part because without them people would have a better chance of survival. I think an individuals right to safety far outweighs others "rights" to carry a weapon that can kill as quickly as a sneeze.

It's just great to read this debate. With the internet and communications afforded by it for individuals to make contact directly, I can only see a better world coming. The key of course will be to keep the internet free and open.

Rinna, it's no problem. Why get so upset you are in Canada and I am in the US. We should just keep it that way. By the way, your interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment is just plain wrong. I suggest you read the court decision regarding guns in Washington DC. Won't affect you hoever, since you are in Canada.

Rinna, if you're going to quote it, please at least quote it correctly.

"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."

Notice that it does not say, "the right of the militia shall not be infringed?" It says, "the right of the PEOPLE." Pretty cut and dried.

#26, Faramars;

I'm not entirely sure I know what you're saying here;

"The experience of other countries in banning guns can teach US good lessons .for example in Iran nobody is allowed to even carry a fire gun. carrying guns is punishable up to 10 years in imprisonment, but we Iranians have not rejected this policy and this criminal strategy has resulted in security for us and always welcomed."

But it seems that you're trying to say that the US should take a lesson from Iran, because Iranians love their way of life without guns.

I am truly happy for you, but Americans for the most part, are very happy with our guns. You have two completely different cultures with Iran and the United States, and I can guarantee that few Americans would be happy living in Iran with its ability to ban whatever it feels like banning, whether the people are happy with it or not.

There is just no comparison that is even remotely valid here.

Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar drove his SUV into college students at University of North Carolina to avenge the death of Muslims. This was his attack on evil America for the persecution of muslims. (He was Iranian.) He intended to kill as many as possible.
In court for the cameras he shouted He hated america and he hated all Jews.

this student tried to get a handgun, but couldn' t because of the restrictions and he was not a citizen.

Not able to buy a gun, he drove a car to kill instead.

#94 - Rinna, your interpretation of the Second Amendment is totally off-base. It is ludicrous to believe that the founding fathers used the term "the right of the people" in the First and Fourth Amendments to indicate an individual right, but had an entirely different meaning in the Second Amendment.

Indeed, reading The Federalist Papers and the writings of Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and James Madison clearly indicates that "the militia" was made up of every citizen, and that the right to own a firearm was very much intended to be an individual right.

Ooops- I forgot to say it was March last year that he drove the SUV into the crowd.

Gun control is based on the assumption that 'the people' are fools or thugs, which doesn't comport well with the idea that 'the people' are the Sovereign. The latter is a point of some importance to Americans.

Of course, since you Brits are 'subjects', not 'citizens', your sovereign government can make any assumption about you it wants.

The following weapons do not require a permit or license and will kill as many people as the killer wishes to kill:
knives
poison
sex(to spread hiv)
drugs
chemicals
fertilizer
airplane
train
car

#49 james. I believe i read that the VT shooter had purchased hollow point shells for his weapons. I know that these are not normal handgun ammo. but they are certainly available at all gun shops. Even a .22 cal. hollow point round does a tremendous amount of damage. regards

sorry, my last post should be #35 james

The 2'nd ammendment is vague and is interpreted differently by different people.

But I noticed that nobody has any theories as to why law enforcement did not respond in this case to stop the killing. Alex Jones had a theory and some people bad-mouthed him. but nobody else has any theory. Shouldn't the police chief be fired? And shouldn't the media be focusing in on why there was no response?

Is it normal that when a horrible crime occur that the police just pull back and let it happen?

okanaguy, I haven't seen that report, but I would wonder about it for one reason:

The principal advantage of hollowpoints is that more of their energy is absorbed by the first thing they hit. This means that, while they will do more damage to a body, they will also not work as well for penetrating walls, doors, cars, etc.; they simply break up on impact, rather than penetrating.

Since several of the victims at VT were killed by shots fired through doors or desks or whatever else they could use for barricades, I was wondering what kind of ammunition was used, as well. It would seem that hollowpoints would not have been as effective.

As a side note, I keep hollowpoints in the gun that stays near my bed in my house. If someone ever does break in, they will have the greatest stopping power, and I will not have to worry about accidentally shooting a neighbor two houses down. Definitely the best all-around choice for a carry weapon.

Aside from federal mandate, each state governs their own gun laws, I know in Pennsylvania, if you are found to be a danger to yourself or others, and have ever been placed in a mental facility you sign over your right to ever have a gun - though you could go to court and fight it - it will forever appear in a check when you attempt to purchase a weapon, even for hunting and will disqualify you from purchasing it. Regardless, the problem of Cho is far deeper than running about like chicken little screaming gun control.

As per some of the comments, I'm sort of gob smacked that anyone could make such silly generalisations regarding culture and society in the states, especially if they have never experienced it first hand. I never have, never will own a gun, not interested. My husband (born and raised in Glasgow) loves hunting, target shooting, but I don't want them in my home. I don't need one to feel safe. My 55 year old mother owns 2 guns, not for safety - she kills ground hogs that disturb her prized plants. She's a health care professional, highly educated, far cry from a gun toting redneck, mentally disturbed youth, or criminal.

Funny enough, the gun lobby is not nearly as strong or outspoken as the liberal media in the states. So why are guns not outlawed? I don't think it's due to the gun lobby. I think in this one issue, it's the will and desire of the american people (whether liberal or conservative in their political views) to keep themselves armed for whatever personal reasons.

Wally, this article (and discussion) are about gun laws.

Find a site interested in the police conspiracy theories and post a link; I'll be happy to debate those with you there.

# 94 "I've not read all the comments and I won't be coming back to read any because I'm sure people will just start stupid personal attacks. First I'm sick of seeing the misquote from the constitution on the "right to bear arms", it does not say people have the right to arm themselves but they have the right to an armed militia. Get the context correct. "

The context is right. The Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington DC, recently ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a collective right. The court then threw out DC's draconian ban on the ownership of firearms.

92. Wally. FYI. Both these weapons were semi automatic. A 9mm and a .22 cal. If you know anything about guns, a 9mm uses a fairly large round, not unlike a .45 cal.regards

#61 Carolyn, Hi Carolyn, I don't know what the laws are in Virginia regarding shooting incidents, but as I said above thats the law here in Michigan. You did say there was talk of sueing the school, a wee bit different I think from what I was saying. To be honest I'm not sure, the different state laws are a bit head spinning at times. :-)

All those gun slinging, NRA members who love to hark back to what an old document said over two hundred years ago, reminds me of Christian Fundamentalists who search the bible for obscure reasoning to support their cause.
The infamous 2nd Ammendment was wrong, however blasphemous that may seem to gun lovers.
Tear it up and throw it away.
It has been the direct cause of many deaths (just like the bible).

Another gun killing in the UK http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070422/tuk-uk-britain-sho...

okanaguy, I would say that a 9mm round is as different from a .45 as a .22 is from a 9mm.

9mm is generally considered the smallest, lightest pistol even worth carrying for defense; it can take several shots from a 9mm to slow someone down.

I don't think you'll find many people who will agree that a 9mm is either a fairly large round, or in any way similar to a .45.

However, for this madman's purposes, 9mm pistols had two similarities with .22 pistols that probably appealed to him; they are both cheap (especially compared to most .45s), and they both hold larger quantities of ammunition, due to the small cartridge size of .22 and 9mm bullets.

You know, The Scotsman is a rather poorly written and very biased news source, but I come here because I have Scottish ancestry and because I love the comment section of the stories. I think it's good to know what the rest of the world is thinking.
There are a few points I would like to make with regard to some of the comments I read here;
1) I like in a rural area of the southern U.S. and the crime rate here is very low, but I think anyone who doesn't lock their doors at night is an idiot asking for some random nut to kill them in their sleep. A good sturdy piece of cord is just as good a murder weapon as a gun in a situation like that, so the "feeling safe enough to leave the doors unlocked" rhetoric is just that; rhetoric.
2) Scotland, the land that is known in the U.S. for the Claymore and hearty Highlanders, has modernized and the prevailing political views in no way resemble those of the historical Highlanders.
The U.S. modernized as well, but our prevailing political views still resemble those of our forefathers, and apparently that bothers the Scots who were losing their independence about the same time we were gaining ours.
3) To Ian; Only teenagers have posters on their walls in the United States. Most adults consider them tacky wall hangings, but I can assure that Mr. Heston is not even tastefully framed on our walls.
4) Anyone who is afraid to walk the street in the U.S. because they are afraid someone is going to shoot them needs to stop reading so much "Scotsman", because we have progressed beyond the Wild West here.
5) Our Founding Fathers meant for individual citizens to have the right to bear arms, suggesting that the militia was individual citizens. I like this quote;
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attem

One of the Pillars in the US Constitution is the right to bear arms. It's part of the American DNA. Add the the Constitution, the DNA and the Gun Lobby together and one will find that enacting gun control defines exceptionally difficult.

Frankly, I do not want any more gun control for Americans. Most law abiding Americans who possess guns take extraordinary steps to secure their arms. Therefore, these Americans should maintain their rights.

However, Cho was not an American Citizen. As an American, I have real issues with any foreign national's capability to purchase arms within the United States. That defines unacceptable.

The Constitution was designed to protect Americans. Our laws should reflect the same. Disallowing foreign nationals the ability to legally purchase arms will not stop all gun violence in the US. However, it would have averted this disaster. And, should we preclude one of these events from happening in a way that honors the Constitution, that makes sense to me.

# 74 And i suppose Dunblane wasn't in rural Scptland?

As a young American soldier in Trieste, Italy from 1947 to1952, I served along side troops of BETFOR, the U.K. Regiments and Corps which served in Venezia Giulia and the Free Territory of Trieste (from 1945 to 1954, see http://www.milhist.net/betfor/ ).

I recall hefting many a brew with men of the 2nd Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment) (1st). I can’t imagine any of those burly warriors as civilians wanting to surrender their arms to the government with the belief that the civilian police or government will protect them and their families.

My God. . . Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1997, Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003,
Violent Crime Reduction Act, 2006 Firearms Rules 1998. . Even controlling Air Guns no less. And I read in The Guardian, “One of the UK's most senior police officers has called for new laws that would compel the public to give information to the police about gun crime - whether they want to or not.” Excuse me, but this sounds like one of the causes for the American Revolution.

Where does it stop? Folks in the UK should have enough restrictions to stop crime altogether! I for one am proud to be an American gun owner allowed to defend my home and family without fear of being sued or jailed. That being said, is only because I live in one of several States with a “Castle Doctrine”. The "Castle Doctrine" BTW simply says that if a criminal breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle or your place of business, you may presume he is there to do bodily harm and you may use any force against him. It also removes the “duty to retreat” if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. Furthermore, this law provides protection from criminal prosecution and civil litigation for those who defend themselves from criminal attack.

There are other States and cities in the US, with strict anti-gun laws; but if you look at the statistics their violent cri

Illegals crossing the border from Mexico are the cause of many deaths and much crime in the US, too. Can we get rid of those, as well?

You are welcome to your opinion (maybe; I know Mexicans do not enjoy as many freedoms as their neighbors to the north), but luckily our citizens and our courts do not agree with you.

We kinda like that "old document" that guarantees us things like freedom of the press, freedom of speech, assembly, etc. It must be working out pretty well - why else would so many people from Mexico illegally invade our country? (And why aren't all of the gun nuts down there on the border shooting the invaders?)

Sorry, my post #120 should have stated that I was replying to post #113 from Robin Bather in Mexico.

one final note for today. Many folks posting here believe that the U.S is a dangerous place to visit, live etc. For many years, i have travelled extensively to most states in the U.S and now that i am retired, spend a few months in Arizona in the winter months. I have never felt threatened at any time or afraid that some gun toting nut was going to shoot me. I may not agree 100 % with the political agenda of the U.S government but lately, the majority of the American people are also voicing their concerns. I find the people are no different than we are. They are proud of who they are just as we are. There are no more nut cases per capita than anywhere else in the world. Several years ago, my father in law was wintering in Homestead Florida. He was riding back from the store on a 3 wheeled bike. A couple of punks knocked him off his bike and were beating him and attempting to rob him when a pickup truck with a guy and his wife in it happened along. The guy jumped outof his truck, drew a handgun and told the culprits to let the old guy go. Well, needless to say, you couldn't see their ass for dust, they took off so fast. So, i guess my father in law was happy with the U.S. second amendment that day, regards

Like you, I abhor the misuse of firearms and the senseless deaths caused by crazies who use them. I however am a sane and mature man who will fight with my last breath to keep my own guns. My family, in Europe, was carted away and murdered by the Nazis during WWII. Would it have made a difference if all those defenseless people had weapons in their homes? I think yes. In the beginning there would have been reluctance but once the word got around they would have fought back. My mindset is that no one will take me, my family of my neighbors without a fight. Am I paranoid? No, just realistic. Also, we lose over 50,000 people in auto accidents every year. No one is proposing doing away with cars.

okanaguy, thanks for sharing some of your experiences in the US. I moved to Arizona after first seeing it while visiting my snowbird grandparents.

Good thing the same thing didn't happen to your father-in-law while traveling in the UK! <grin>

I'm signing off of here for the day now, too.

Thanks all for the education on views from the rest of the world!

#122 has illustrated precisely why Americans insist and will continue to insist on the right to bear arms.

I hope your father has recovered well from his unfortunate experience.

#19 Guga, nicely said, but I agree with #21 that ALF's are okay to own, but students here on Visas are not.

#88 I've mentioned before, crime prevention and control should be the priority. Do we need some form of control? Yes, in the form of backround checks(criminal, mental) and a reasonable waiting period/hold for handguns. As well as measures to prevent theft/misuse by children such as trigger locks and gunsafes, gun safety education for gun owners and their children. Guns do save lives...go Granny!!

#91 lol, red-neck humor!!!

We moved to Europe to get away from the 24/7 on-the-go American life style.

We were tired of worrying about sending our children to school and wondering if they make it home or if some nut would show up at their school that day.

The rest of the world should be more like the Swiss and teach their children anger management. When was the last time you heard of some nut running amuck killing people in Switzerland?

The biggest worry you have there is making sure you don't hang your laundry out on the wrong day. No one wants to be fined for drying clothes on a tuesday.
(ok, you can get robbed, or get your biked stolen which is the greatest crime problem in Switzerland but serious crime is not a problem) The point is, if they can live together in a small area with a lot of people and very little crime why the heck can't American's with their wide open spaces get along?

PS: Yes, you can be fined for doing laundry on the wrong day in Switzerland!

#120 Mike M has confused the Second Amendment with the United States Bill of Rights.
My criticism was clearly against the 2nd Amendment not the Bill of Rights.
The rest of your posting is simply trying to deflect criticism by changing the subject.
Bad arguement logic Mike.

#127, It sounds like you should have moved to Switzerland instaed of Scotland.

I am glad you are happy and that you found a place that suits your ideals.

America suits mine perfectly, and I don't worry any more about sending my child to school than I do about them being anywhere else. Regardless of the sensational press, the VT situation is pretty rare.

The States are NOT a dangerous place to live. There are dangerous areas/neighborhoods in cities, yes, but it's like that all over the world. I'm not afraid to walk around the city I live in and the only crime I take steps to prevent when I do is having my purse snatched. There are parts of the country so safe people rarely lock their doors and everyone looks out for everyone else.

Time to start enforcing the laws that are already on the books and stop with the wishy-washy interpretation of laws. The boy was obviously not totally right in the head. He had a history of disturbing behaviour. Don't let him buy a gun.

Of course the politicians are silent. Election season has already begun here in the States. No one wants to rock the boat and risk endangering their chance to return to Congress. Pathetic, the majority of them. They care more for themselves than they do for actually doing the job they were elected to do.

#120 Mike, some of us liked the 4th Amendment too, but it seems that one is dispensible whenever W wants it to be. Illegal surveillance? "I"ve got nothing to hide" is the stupidest response ever (not that you said that!).

The US Supreme Court has ruled several times that gun ownership is linked to "a well-regulated militia". It is the 2nd Amendment which gives the States the right to have militias. You can't take part of the 2nd Amendment and ignore the other half. If individuals are allowed to own guns, it is so they could be called on to form a militia. In modern times, each State has the National Guard, the State's "militia". These Guards are under the control of the Governor of the State, not the President. That is why there was a delay in the days prior to Katrina hitting New Orleans. Bush wanted the Governor of Louisiana to give control of the Louisiana National Guard to him and she was reluctant to do so. I don't want to get into a debate about who was right or wrong in that example. I use it only to illustrate the relationship between National Guard, State and Federal Government.

In the opinion of many people, the National Guards should not be in Iraq at all.

The reality is that there are so many guns of all descriptions in the US now, that there is no chance that banning them tomorrow would do any good at all. What we do need to do is to ensure that some types of guns, eg assault weapons, are not available to teh general public and that anybody buying a handgun, or indeed a hunting rifle or shotgun, should have to obtain a license. That is the only way you can hope to keep guns out of the hands of trouble people like Cho. The licensing procedure should include a vision test, a psychological exam and mandatory training in the use of the weapon you want to buy. The license should also include strict guidelines concerning the storage of weapons in the home. Sensible gun owners already do all these things.

#128 Robin,

The Bill of Rights comprises the first ten Amendments, including the 2nd.

Associated Press is reporting Cho purchased the bullets on e-bay.

The question is not so much about gun control, right to bear arms, anger management or the several dozen other things people have talked about. The main problem is "gun free zones". No guns on school grounds. Now there probably were guns on the school grounds but locked up in vehicles. Did them a lot of good when that young man broke the rules and brought a gun to school. How many would have died if the "good guys" had been allowed to protect themselves and others. But they were at school so all they could do was to lie there listen to others be killed and be killed themselves.
Have everyone, yes everyone, over the age of 16 take a comprehensive gun course. After passing with a high grade require them to carry a firearm at all times, in all places (commercial aircraft excluded, that is the Air Marshall's job). If for personal reasons you do not wish to carry a firearm, fine, your choice. i may be wrong but i do beleive that these multiple murders at school and work would become a thing of the past.
your turn

*cough* yeah gotta love these peaceful, non-violent swiss :P http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzkYnFGZI9g

Let's not delude ourselves or shove our heads so far up our arses we can't see sun light for crap - violence is everywhere, no one country has a monopoly on morons. My biggest fear was neds when living near Paisley, same thing different term in Notts.

#122 Okanaganguy: You probably are safer in the United States than you are in the United Kingdom.

A United Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1957512005

#121
Thanks, Mike...I would also like to point out that that very document is what makes it possible for people like Robin to express their views in the USA. I have heard many people excercise their first amendment rights to say the Constitution was outdated...granted Robin is in Mexico, but the same happens here.

Another reason we are so jealous of our 2nd Amendment rights, is that we fear that if that is taken, the rest will follow soon after. Either the Constitution guarantees certain rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, or it is all up for change.

Truth be told, as long as we can all be armed, no person can use a coup to replace the president and try to take over. Any country that might think to invade has not only our military to be concerned about, but millions of armed citizens.

Now, think terrorists...some terrorist is going to come to South GA and do something like blow up building or something? When most everyone is armed? Not hardly!

Terrorists, criminals, foriegn invaders, and all other miscreates should beware. We are an armed country and we will defend ourselves! We may disagree among ourselves over things, but we will all stand up for this country!

133, Carolyn 1: "Associated Press is reporting Cho purchased the bullets on e-bay."

This is AP's rewrite of an ABC report that was, well, muddled. He didn't, because you can't.

#13 You talk the talk yes! My opinion of your
opinion is, I sense you really do not vote
in Presidential Elections but just vocalize
your strong feelings. Most Americans who
sound off loud and clear, as in your case
and others of your similiar opinion, when
confronted by people like me, do find that
they do not vote and in some cases are
not even registered voters, or have never
established any legal address in choice of
the 50 States of America...
The 2nd Amendment guarantees all Yanks
to carry and bear arms, providing that person
does not have any convicted Felony Charges.
Also, in my State of NH, a full auto selection
on any given weopen is legal. One must
obtain a Federal Weapons Licience per full
automatic weapon at the cost of $200.00 per
purchased weapon and be fingerprinted and
photographed for this particular isssue. Also,
in the State of NH, a muffler/silencer is alloud
per individual weapon with seriel numbers
The muffler may not be used with another
shall we say handgun of similar cal. Also,
this is a Fed. Lic. per muffler at $200.00 per
each weapon to be professionally prepared
for the muffler mounting to its affixed barrel.
I've been to indoor ranges which allow the
firing of full automatic weapons; let us say
if you've got the dollars to shoot 30 rounds
of 9mm in two seconds go for it. Cost varies
on this calibar of ammo, from $3. to $4.00
per two seconds of addrenilyn rush. In these
two second of full burst until empty produces
this fantastic straight stream of almost blinding
light at an

#139
The ManfromMaine

That's a relief.
I don't pay any attention to ABC anymore because they are so selective and biased

Second World War B52 Bomber ! Cor blimey mate, the B52 is a Jet engined Bomber. Didn't have those in WW2.

The Virginia tragedy is actually a suicide.

Taking the subject away from guns,
Suicide is the second cause of death among college students. (Accidents are number one) Suicide is 11th overall for death. Men are four times as likely as women to commit suicide.
Suicide is on the decline nation wide but suicide deaths are 10.8 per 100,000.
There are 5 million surivors of suicide.
The bad news- a gun is the leading means to suicide.

No 137. While waiting to repel the invaders , you practice by shooting around 30,000 of your own citizens
every year.
Peace and Joy man.

We Americans don't generally go around carrying weapons. The majority of us support the right to do so if we feel the need. That right is guaranteed to us, and even the Government can not take it away.

It is no accident that the majority of violent crimes happen in areas where there are more restrictions on that right. A firearm is a great equalizer for the elderly and vulnerable.

Since criminals would not obey gun laws, it makes no sense to create a situation where they would be the only ones to have them.

the real issue is that someone with a history of mental illness coulkd walk in to a shop and buy a gun. Then there are the gun fairs. One guy went to one of these and bought 87 guns without any certificate

#144, while you are waiting for invaders with open arms, you still have homicide by firearms listed as a leading cause of death. Peace and joy to you to.

http://www.otago.ac.nz/ipru/Stats/CauseMort.html

Bruce,... New Zealand, a relatively unpopulated country, has nearly 400 people killed with motor vehicles every year. Is there a movement there to take away peoples' privilege to drive?

Carolyn 1 @ 143...

Thanks for pointing out that men are 4 times more likely to commit suicide than women....

Could that be because women drive them to it..??..!!

#138, while trying to get a violence problem under control in countries less civilized than the U.S., they are limiting guns in Iraq and Afghanistan to one per household. There is no need to arm the Iraqis, but by the same token, we are not so hypocritical as to deny them individual self-defence.

Gun possession should be a human right for all law abiding citizens worldwide, but unfortunately our constitution applies only to the U.S..

The rest of your questions are stupid. Just sayin'.

Dang! A good coup is exactly what the U.S.of A. sorely needs right now. The World; nay, the Universe, would applaud!

This is for those blowhards that have no idea what they are talking about......In the USA, true Machine guns and Assault rifles (FULL AUTO) have been illegal for civilians to own since 1934! Only someone with a Class 3 Federal Firearm License can own a full auto weapon. Getting a class 3 License is VERY, VERY hard to get. These folks are mostly collectors. So to set all you straight, we in the USA can't just go to the corner store and buy full auto weapons!

sandy < you can post comments to this Iranian website ,but posts are fully moderated . not strange . this is exactly done by sites like BBC AND NEWYORK TIMES
http://www.en.baztab.com/

99. Carolyn 1
How many people were killed or injured by this Iranian ? could you please post some links about this incident . thanks in advance .

As all who read the SCOTSMAN can see as evidenced by comments from the USA-we denizens of the USA are quite daft & must be presumed to be dangerous when we are in the USA. Scots must keep this in mind at all times if they come to the USA. Many of the denizens of the USA are armed & dangerous. All too many denizens of the USA are unaware that their are a total of 27 ammendments to the Constitution of the USA & a vital text body which must be considered before assuming that the 2d ammendment gives them an unrestricted right to own, carry & use fire arms as they please. Each state & many counties & municipalities restric the own, carrying & use of fire arms. All too many denizens of the USA feign ignorance of these facts. To survive any visit to the USA ASSUME THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL DISPLAYING A FIRE ARM WILL USE THE DAMNED THING & THE PROJECTILE USED CAN HIT YOU. TO REMAIN UNWOUNDED & ALIVE; KEEP AT LEAST 3 MILES AWAY FROM ANY ARMED PERSON. DON'T PATRONIZE ANY ESTABLISNMENT WHICH SELLS GUNS OR AMMUNITION. Patronize only establishments where the owners, employees & customers are known to be unarmed. ALL DENIZENS OF THE USA MUST BE PRESUMED TO BE DAFT. You have been warned. Are any bargains to be had while a pound sterling is worth 2 U S dollars or more worth your life of limbs? No, they are not.
Holiday in Iraq for greater safety than the USA. You may not expect any sort of safety while in the USA.

#150
Jonboy
Probably the mistress

The truth- is that men use guns or hang themselves- so when they do commit suicide it is 'effective,' whereas women don't own guns and something about a rope is not quite right- women use pills and survive, which explain the 5 million survivors of suicide a year

Faramars
He was a psychology student at University of North Carolina. He intended to kill as many students as possible, but no one died. Nine were injured. He was from a wealthy family and seemed on track to do well in his life. I don't know if he has been to trial yet. Buit he wrote many letters explaining why he wanted to kill.

Faramras- try these links
Jihad Watch: Letters from a mujahidMohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the Tarheel jihadist, has written six letters to the Daily Tar Heel, student newspaper of the University of North Carolina ...
www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011397.php - 92k -

abc11tv.com: UNC Students to Protest Campus AttackMohammed Reza Taheri-azar, 22, is charged with nine counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to cause bodily injury. Police say he drove an SUV ...
abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?
section=local&id=3958312 - 50k - Apr 21, 2007 -

Faramars, How free is this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070422/wl_nm/iran_women_poli...

#156 is daft. Read at your own peril.

I'm still wanting someone to come up with an explanation as to why the police did not respond when the students called 911 to report these crimes.

A police officer who served on the Virginia Tech police department said that the normal procedure when a shooting had happened on campus was to put checkpoints at about 14 places leading into & out of the campus. When the shootings began early in morning (police called at 7:15 AM) that did not happen. Why the departure from procedure?

And then when the shootings started again at around 9 AM I'm sure the police heard about it right away with the students having cell phones. and they did not enter the building where the shooter was known to be until almost 10 AM. Why this huge delay?

And why is our mass media not focusing on this failure? Shouldn't the president of Virginia Tech Univ immediately start asking questions and firing people who did not do their jobs? When you call 911 for help you should expect help. In this case the police were restrained. Was it cowardice? Was it incompetence? Or were they told to stand down by the federal government as some of the police on the scene have said?

I do hope You chaps remember Culodden where it was not the spirit against rifles but claymore's, the spirit of those that took a Scot holiday for reasons of health to the new world kept the memory alive plus a new type weapon called the long rifle and swore never to give up their arms, it has been those people that the country has called upon in time of need. a weapon makes one a citizen without one a subject. Lucius Annaeus Seneca,circa 45 AD, said. A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.
Otis R.Herron

160. Supe
I hate these acts but I can not change the rules of Islamic religion . please note that religion in its real meaning brings many restrictions .
159. Carolyn 1
thanks

Oh, incidentally... since the government of the UK considers its subjects too irresponsible to be allowed access to firearms (and pointy sticks, next year), I believe the US should deny entry to Britons as a public safety measure. Over here, they might get hold of guns and run amok, slaying thousands.

Wally....

I'd say you are asking some very pertinent questions - but I'm wondering why you are asking them on here...

Don't tempt us PFP...!

Carolyn 1 -
Although Taheri-azar is originally from Iran, he is a naturalized U.S. citizen who moved to the U.S. at the age of two. Therefore he was American not Iranian . right ?
See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar

I have legal resident status in the USA, and I have a semi-automatic 0.45 calibre handgun, bought legally before I had been given a social security number.

There is no need to buy an illegal handgun in the US unless you want to use it for a crime and have it untraceable after your murders. Sports shops and pawn shops carry new and second hand weapons of all kinds, and gunshows sell bazookas, PIATs, etc.

Gun law in the US is very relaxed, and ammunition is readily available at Wal-Mart (ASDA), and most out of town filling stations, especially in hunting country.

Anyone coming into my home uninvited is going to get shot. That's the law. Hats off the Granny Sure-Shot.

The free availability of guins is not the real problem: poor mental health programmes, and the illegal drug industry are.

Veritas

Faramars,
In America, we are American, but we also keep our heritage.
I don't know what happened to him in college, but something changed him, and he wanted to kill, and be like Mohammed Attah.
College is stressful and it also opens your eyes to the world around you.
In America we do know that there are many Iranians who want peace in the world and want peace with America, and that many young Iranian people, especially, do not like the Iranian president. Iran's economy is not providing jobs for the young and you're worried about the future the same as we are. American's know this, although the headlines you read may not say it.

#170 You are correct. In the past number of years the Scotsman newspaper has fallen in circulation. It is a great pity as the Scotsman used to be--I would say the best newspaper in Scotland. I could NOT support this view now.

And here I was looking for more on Venus. Check out the Miss America site which has a picture of her and some history too. An impressive woman! http://www.missamerica.org/our-miss-americas/1940/review.asp

Just wondering- when you pack courts with judges who lean to the right don't you plan on them reading deeply into the 2nd amendment? I wonder how many one man/woman militias are now active in the US. What great buying power the NRA has with politicians!

Sandy 89,

Bush is your president, not my national leader.

George W Bush is a worldwide laughingstock, and is held in contempt even by leaders who appear to agree with him in public. He is not running your country. He is a cardboard cutout. Cheney and his coterie determine your cabinet policies.

The world will breathe a sigh of relief when GWB no longer has his finger on the button.

I have moved on, and I hope you are able to move on if he is successfully impeached.

Meanwhile, supporters of your 2nd amendment are valiantly defending one highly publicised freedom while other rights such as habeas corpus, due process, and free and fair elections are turned into privileges.

Good luck

#154--Faramars--thanks much!!

On our many visits and vacations in the US ,I have never had a reason to be personally afraid of people with guns (Fla).We have found US citizens welcoming ,very sociable,accepting and great people to be with.I can think of no better company to be with when on vacation or on tours.Obviously as in all places in the world there are dangerous places in the US where you don't go to avoid problems.They are generally very open minded on all subjects including gun possesion and American interpretation of history ie.the 2nd ammendment and readily listen to views that differ from their own .However these are topics that should be avoided unless asked at the risk of offending people who firmly believe in these topics.
I do not believe that any discussion will change the hardliners or discourage the gun lobby.The US government is powerless to oppose this powerful lobby in spite of the majority of the population's (62%) desire to limit gun possesion and strengthen laws that allow easy access to weapons . No statistics will convince pro gun, right of centre,albeit well meaning owners to change their views.
The discussions are therefore inconsequential and amount to a "yes you are -no I'm not "arguement.
The least convincing approach are personal attacks and denigration of countries which usually occurs toward the end of this forum. No point of view should be trivialized to this extent.

#116--Supe---i live in a very small town in Pa, & we do NOT lock our doors or car at night or when away. places like this all over the US--just hard to find for most:)

#154--Faramars---BTW--how did you do w/your "thesis"??

#174--another link for Venus @#47---your correct, she is an impressive woman.........

Guga #19

You & I are 100% in agreement with your comments below.

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with people being allowed to have guns to protect themselves and their homes and families. It is not legal gun ownership that causes the problems. As for being allowed to shoot and kill anyone that breaks into your home, I'm all for it."

Faramars,

A little bit off the gun subject:

The US president and his neo-nazi, neocons are gearing up destroy Tehran with its beautiful parks, gardens, public buildings and freeways. Their mentality is just as defective as that of the sick, Blacksburg criminal shooter who destroyed all those productive, scholarly, energetic and wonderful people.

I have worked in Germany with Iranian engineers and scientists, a fine and supportive group. I wish you luck and hope some of the repressive policies in your country, particularly towards women, can be moderated.

Kudos to Mr. Massie for a well rounded and well written article. The most important thing he wrote was "...........gun crime has been falling: gun deaths are down more than 30% since the early 1990s and are at their lowest rate in nearly 40 years", excuse me, that says it all. Guns in the right hands stop guns in the wrong hands. And the funniest thing is that our second armament was given to us by British law makers. When our constitution was written we were still legally a British colony under British laws and control, thanks....................:O)))))

#9 Government can't protect all the people all the time without being in their pockets all the time.
We need to get away from owning guns issue and concentrate on what causes people to do such things. Mental illness is still a very under appreciated illness. It obviously can do more damage in a single blow than all the cancers combined. Not to say other we should abandon research on cancers, diabetes etc. We need to get more out there for those people who suffer with mental illnesses. Help them!!! Then perhaps these types of event won't occur.
American or not, mental illness is rampant in the world and needs to be addressed and supported by all ranks of medicine.

Kilted Hulk...

Fortunately we soon saw the error of our ways.....

B-52 had it's first flight on April 15, 1952. So much for fact checking

Our President is only a laughing stock among liberals. Conservatives of all western nations can appreciate a man who states what he believes rather than checking all the opinion polls before uttering a statement.

I have a profound respect for people of differing opinions than mine. They cause me to examine my position and in som cases, change my mind, in others they reinforce why I hold some positions. In either case, in my country we respect that diversity of opinion and benefit from it.

I don't choose to insult people who have divergent opinions, even though I may strongly disagree wit their position. Insulting people doesn't strengthen your argument. It merely demonstrates to on-lookers that you are immature.

Again, our liberal press (and yours too) choose to insult our president and imply that he is less than capable, mainly because they can't control him and can't convince people by the strength of their argument, so they try to belittle and smear. What a shame.

I have a great love for all things Scottish and am grateful for my Scottish/English heritage and the rich culture (predominantly) that your nations gave to America. Afterall, most of our founding fathers had thei roots in Great Britain.

Why blame America for a Korean misfit? Had the VT not been a gun-free zone, somebody could have taken him out promptly.
The old gal who stood her ground is a heroine. America treats them properly, unlike UK law which persecutes people defending their homes and property.

#190 check# 178
You exemplify the example.

Chinese Proverb:

"When someone shares something of value with you and you benefit from it, you have a moral obligation to share it with others"

Well does TONY have anything of value for Scotland?

#104 + 111

"#49 james. I believe i read that the VT shooter had purchased hollow point shells for his weapons. I know that these are not normal handgun ammo. but they are certainly available at all gun shops. Even a .22 cal. hollow point round does a tremendous amount of damage. regards"

I never said hollow points dont do damage or that they are not available... They just dont do as much damage as an AR15 or any other high powered riffle. Oh and .22 is a smallround and does minimal damage even as a hollow point. If you read my post I talk abot firing my 9mm with hollow points compared to an AR15... also the hollow 9mm did not fragment very much if at all but mushromed much more than a standard full metal jacket round.

I just want to add that altough I believe some people should not own guns I feel banning guns is a gross abuse of our rights and I despise the large movment in our culture to try and ban anything that may cause harm...fat, smoking, guns, what is next? another prohabition? We saw how well it works when things are outlawed.

"92. Wally. FYI. Both these weapons were semi automatic. A 9mm and a .22 cal. If you know anything about guns, a 9mm uses a fairly large round, not unlike a .45 cal.regards"

9mm and .45 have alot of differences. A .45 is large round and grain than a 9mm so the damage between the two is quite different. I cant remember who said it, but a 9mm could take a couple rounds to put someone down... especialy if they are high on pcp or crack.

Another trhing I want to say to everyone here.. I hear alot of talk on hear about banning weapons and which ones should be banned and why. The problem is that most people on here have a very limited and sometimes twisted knowledge about firearms... If you want to get involved on the issue here you need to educate yourt self one the very topic you are debating. One thing about us who own guns and support keeping bans off of them is that we know a great deal about what we are talking about, it is our hobbies and past time.

Old Soldier in #119

Thank you for your service and you are dead on.

Let us cut to the chase. The only reason that this discussion can take place is because hundreds of thousands of freedom loving Americans, including my father, left their homes and families to defeat fascism in WWII. Many more in the next generation, including myself, did the same to contain communism. Now another generation of Americans is putting their lives on the line to prevent the spread of radical Islamism. Hate us, laugh at our old fashioned ways, but when things “drop in the pot” as my son is wont to say, it is Americans and our guns that will be first in line anywhere in the world to defend freedom. My five-time great grandfather left Scotland nearly 300 years ago and I thank God that he did

#191 Gorm said: "You exemplify the example."

Guess what, Gorm? So do I. So does my family. So do my friends, co-workers, and acquaintances from various internet forums I read. To me, it seems that I (and the people) I know are by far the majority.

Are all of us normal, tax-paying, non-crime-committing Americans "the gun lobby," or is it possible that we're simply the sane and normal majority?

#189 - Liberals don't find the president to be a laughing matter and as for him stating what he believes it can more accurately be said that he states what he wants to us to believe. This is how we got into a bloody war in Iraq. Belief in lies.

As for having more gun control, I believe that would be as effective as the great War on Drugs.

James 79 No one is questioning your expertise or ability to possess or handle guns. I'm sure you do have the necessary skills and knowledge.The problem is how to prevent psycotics from obtaining and using guns.(or cars ,knives and clubs)
This is a difficult problem for any country to solve however introducing more illegal knives to the general population will not solve the problem.It is less of a problem with weapon ownership than coordinating medical, penal and judicial data to identify these people and prevent them from causing incidences such as occured in Virginia.
#179 Montana Scotsman I agree with the substantial role that the US has played in world affairs however do not forget the other NATO countries contributions as well.ie Afghanistan has been a dangerous place for Australians,Dutch,Italian
and other countries troops.
I have a son in Kabul at present and wish him well.
(Canada has the highest casualty rate of all the contributing nations in Afganistan, the highest allied casualty rate in both WW1 and WW2 perhaps because of entering the war 2 years before the US did not to mention Korea.)
There is no monopoly on bravery or military achievement .Check out the numbers of Canadians who served with Canadian and US troops in Vietnam
And also the 50,000 who fought in the US Civil War.

Rulesbutnorulers you have shown your ignorance of what the militia is here in our country. Here in Kentucky where I reside the Kentucky Revised Statutes actually differentiates between the National Guard, the "organized militia" and the "unorganized militia". It clearly states the National Guard is not the militia and that the unorganized militia cannot wear the patches of the organized militia. The unorganized militia are citizen groups who form their own local militia without any direct supervision of the state.

When our ancestors fought England to throw off the yoke of tyranny it was the local citizen militias who begun the fight. Later on the Continental army was formed which members of these militias would sign onto for six month hitches. But even then many of the militias still fought on their own.

Title 10 of the US code states that every male and female between the ages of 18 and 45 are considered members of the militia.

You also only need to go back to quotes from several of our founders to know who they considered the militia to be.

Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Tench Coxe

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Tench Coxe

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the peo

It is unfortunate that every country doesn't have the right to keep and bear arms.

We defend ourselves and our homes.

But now, you have to go after knives, clubs and other instruments you consider deadly. When will it end? When you have to go after pins and needles, and knitting needles? Sad.

We have laws to deal with those who use firearms for illegal purposes, and, for the most part, they are enforced.

You, on the other hand, run scared when a firearm is mentioned. The truth is, only the criminal posesses firearms, and they out number the law enforcers. Sad.

I would be the last to discount the bravery of Canada’s soldiers. The First Special Service Force, the joint Canadian/American forerunner of the special forces, was organized and conducted the lion’s share of their training at Fort William Henry Harrison in Helena, Montana where I was born and raised. Their exploits were dramatized in the movie “The Devil’s Brigade” from about 1968. Many of the Canadian troops returned to Helena after the WWII, married and settled down. I have been privileged to know several of them, a few still living. A finer, more courageous group of men would be hard to find. The stretch of U.S. Interstate 15 from Helena to the Canadian border is officially known as the First Special Service Force Highway. Likewise, as you say, many fine troops from around the world have in the past and continue to fight for liberty. That said, without the industrial might and massive military strength fielded by the U.S. in times of trouble, it would be moot. Regardless of our technological achievements, human nature remains unchanged. This world is ruled by the aggressive use of force and can only be tamed by the judicious use of same, whether dealing with an individual thug, radical thugs or thugery by a nation state.

It is no coincidence that violent crime has been falling in the USA recently.

Although the Second Amendment has existed since the beginning of the country, individual States do have the right to regulate the wearing and use of guns. For most of my life it was not possible to get a permit to carry a concealed pistol in most states, including Texas.

About 15 years ago, due to outcry by citizens, that began to change. Now about 35 states will issue a concealed weapons permit to citizens who have a clean police record and go through training in use of the gun, the law as it affects the use of deadly force and "non-violent conflict resolution".

As a group, concealed weapons carriers are about the most law-abiding group in the nation. Even more law abiding than the police or clergy.

Now a violent thug never knows if the old lady who just cashed her pension check is armed with a revolver in her handbag.

Only a small percentage of people who could get a permit actually do, but it's like a bit of black pepper in the food, it just makes everything better.

Montana Scotsman,

My Uncle Charles was a member of the First Special Service Force and his wife Emma came from the Helena area.

After the Force was disbanded due to being decimated, he served with the OSS in Yugoslavia.

They are still alive and are living in Texas. He has attended some of the reunions up there.

183. Mark W. Stein
thank you dear Mrk . I hope so . you are right . people are different from governments .

B-52's - WWII !!!

Come on Scotsman, take the article researcher outside and shoot them.

I'll Just add one more to the list of factual errors in the article.

Aside from the errors about the B52 and about Governor Romney there is also an error about Senator Webb.

Alex Massie states that Webb illegally brought a handgun to the Capitol. That is false. Another man who was an aide to Sen. Webb had the gun with him in his briefcase. Webb was not present and did not direct his aide to do it.

Pretty slipshod workmanship for a Professional Journalist.

ALEX MASSIE, in your rush to claim the "moral" high ground you've made at least one factual error. B52 and WW2 do not go together. The smugness with which good folk on this side of the pond view guns and gun crimes in the United States is fascinating. All the while they seem to ignore the growing tide of violence from guns and knives here.

GOD's gift of life is sacred, to not defend it or allow the defence of it is sacrilege. For the love of GOD and humanity, stop the criminalisation of law abiding citizens with misguided, though well intentioned, prohibition schemes. Predatory human behaviour has many causes and has been a feature of "civilisation" since before recorded history. The belief that we can end crime and criminal behaviour by legislating passivity only serves the bullies, despots and conquerors. It is not immoral to stand up and say STOP, with deadly force if necessary. Why is it acceptable for the authorities to kill innocent, unarmed people, yet victims of criminal assault can not defend themselves during the attack without second guessing by do-gooders with no concept of how the criminal/predatory mind works?

"After a shooting spree, [why do] they always want to take guns away from the people who didn't do it." -- William Burroughs, 1992.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=620712007

119-You said a mouthfull, good. 116-Well said. 110-Thanks. 108-It's true, the anti-gun lobby is much more heard. 103-Sad but true. 93-Got a laugh; good. 88-It's on the media frequently, at least you responded correctly. 82-Unbelievably wimpy. 47-Great old gal. 41-On target. 7-Well said. 2-Yes, it did meander too much. Why is the person from Iran posting so much? Maybe he/she should set up their own website! I'd like to bring up something that's not been mentioned. Since I was a child, we had family fun days in the great outdoors. We'd eat food cooked over a fire, hike, have good conversations, tell stories, & have fun with target practice--YES, with a real rifle! I learned early to respect the firearm & treat it with care. It's your friend, for fun or protection. Basically, I would say the gun can only be as good as its owner.

#197 Mike M Hope you came back for another look.The reference was to the childish personal attacks so often seen on forums such as this.
Check out #178 last paragraph .I do understand your viewpoint .

113. Robin Bather

Since nobody has responded thus far, I felt I should weigh in on two of your comments.

"Christian Fundamentalists who search the bible for obscure reasoning to support their cause" I presume you are trying to say that those who believe the Bible are likely to be dangerous "domestic terrorists". The fact is that most search the Bible to understand the truth of the Gospel and then try to pass on that good news to others, often risking persecution when they do (in countries like Iran, and even Mexico).

You also say the Second Amendment "has been the direct cause of many deaths (just like the bible)."

In a hundred posts since yours, nobody has stated the obvious: look around, and you will find that the "holy book" responsible for the most senseless deaths of late--especially of innocent, people--is not the Bible, it is the Koran .

Actually, I had better spell it "Quran". At least 25 innocent civilians were killed because some media spelled it "Koran". The book not only encourages killing non-Muslims, just to criticize that book is called “blasphemy”, also a capital crime!

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002196.html

By the way, watch out, Scotland--I just checked the Scotsman.com archives for the last year, and found 33 results for "Koran", and only two for "Quran".

Finally, to keep this on topic, in this case having a gun to defend yourself is immaterial, as those bent on Jihad expect--even hope to be martyrs, and if you don't kill them, they likely will kill you as they kill themselves.

a horrid thing it is when people can't protect themselves. a natural right to self defense and preservation does exists. and it should be allowed in all countrys of the world. i have personally been in instances where i would'nt be here if i had'nt had an appropiate weapon. what can i say except. when you point a gun or a blade be sure that your purpose is honorable . theres nothing honorable in making victims of people in situation's such as the terrorism i speak of . and oh yes i do believe individuals can absolutely perform terrorist act's god bless

i might add that the second amendment was'nt about hunting firearms , the weapons it dealt with were the state of the art weapons of the day. it should still be held that it regards weapons that are presently availible . there are very strict laws regarding class 3 items which is as it should be. i fully support the right natural and assigned to bear arm's

A point from the radio is worth repeating...when "the right to bear arms" was included in the constitution there were different kinds of guns..ie the guns had to be re-loaded after each shot...today guns are very different; therefore we have to re-think and repeal this outdated "right"!! before more innocent people are killed!!

A point from the radio is worth repeating...when "the right to bear arms" was included in the constitution there were different kinds of guns..ie the guns had to be re-loaded after each shot...today guns are very different; therefore we have to re-think and repeal this outdated "right"!! before more innocent people are killed!!

Donna M in 217:

I'm pro-gun myself, but that is an excellent point you make. Here's a related interesting point - the reason they wanted the constitution to guarantee this right is primarilly as a check against government power. and today if you look at the weaponry that government has and that the people don't have the people are very much out-gunned. The government has grown so powerful and everyone is in fear of it.

Remember Waco TX in 1993 - those people had lots & lots of guns as they were a legal gun dealer with effectively a warehouse of guns on hand, and they were almost all killed anyway. The right to bear arms did no good for them. I mean at Waco a sharpshooter was in a concrete bunker 300 yards away picking them off even as they lay behind a wood frame wall thinking they'd be safe. When a real military style assault comes to the people from any modern military a 9 mm or a shotgun or even an assault rifle don't do a lot of good.

here's a nice cartoon about gun nutters who think guns will protect them against government.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/nbe0135l.jpg

here's an ode to children's right to bare arms.

http://www.progressivewritersbloc.com/HD/RightToBearArms.gif

and here's a stupid idiot who thinks he can explain constitution to police officer.

http://www.funnyandjokes.com/comics/gun-control/right-to-...

You know under both Clinton & Bush the federal law enforcement people are instructing local law enforcement that if a citizen talks about the constitution then that citizen might be a terrorist. a lot of gun rights advocates foolishly support Bush who is a gun-grabber as proven in New Orleans 2005.

and here's a different perspective on the right to bear arms.

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/jonfoote/dali/other/Beararms.jpg

It was against the law for Cho to own a gun, but there was no way to verify that he had been hospitalized. In other words, the system of regulation failed.

Assault weapons are banned in this country, or at least highly regulated. They're class 3 weapons. This means that you need a federal stamp, essentially a tax, to purchase them (assault weapons are select fire/fully automatic weapons somewhere between a sub-machine gun and a full-fledged battle rifle). What Brady and his friends call assault weapons are not, in fact, assault weapons at all. But they liked the name because it was scary and could get people's emotions up.

As for the people that keep saying you can't defend yourselves against the government, what in god's name are you talking about? There are 400 million privately owned guns in this country. The idea isn't that one guy can take on the government, but a whole slew of people can rise up and overthrow it. And yes, it can be done, especially when you have a fragmented military structure. People have written plenty of books on it.

And for those of you who don't understand anything about guns --- a trained person with a bolt action hunting rifle, that holds four bullets, is a heck of a lot more dangerous than some untrained idiot with a handgun, or a machine gun for that matter. It has always been that way. Besides that, so called "assault weapons" are rarely used in crimes, which is why banning them was stupid and accomplished nothing. Let me also point out that the US has over 300 million people, so you can't compare our crime rates to any single country in Europe. Perhaps to all of Europe, but certainly not just England or France.

Now, as for having unarmed police officers at European schools...so what? Most of our schools don't have armed security personal either. And police officers rarely use their side arms. In most places weapons represent more of a status symbol than anything. As for Europe b

thanks for that nice response John Desty, not meaning to offend you by saying that the people armed with guns are not going to be a threat to a real modern military.

But please consider some things: at Waco in 1993 there were about 90 citizens who had lots of guns and they were nearly wiped out. and after the assault began the citizens did engage in gun battles with the government forces. It did no good.

At New Orleans in September 2005 there was a group of 1,000 citizens with many flatboats who assembled to go into New Orleans to help aid the people in the flooded areas. and one federal police officer told them not to. and all those citiznes who had guns simply backed down.

Consider the DREAD weapon which the US government has. It is not technically a gun as it does not 'fire' bullets, instead it slings cylindrical steel balls with centrifugal force. But it slings either 50 calibre or 38 calibre spereical balls at the speed of sound and the distance between each ball is one third of an inch. So when a DREAD weapon is mounted on a humvee or a helicopter it can literally take down a skyscraper. There's no citizen that's going to stand up against that.

Consider the anthrax weapons. We had anthrax attacks in 2001. Government investigators concluded that the strain of anthrax came from US Army. Perhaps it was stolen, perhaps our own government sent those out, we don't know that. But my point is, they have weapons that we can't stand up to.

the only way the government can be defeated is if the government's own employees rebel. and I don't think that to be likely at all. A few months ago the pentagon said they may recruit so heavily from foreign sources that by 2010 half the US military may be non-US citizens. Just like Rome, they're going to have a foreign army at their service. Are they going to be loyal to our people?

About 10 years ago there were many reports that the military was surveying its members to see w

When I was 10 y/o my dad gave me my first 22 rifle for Christmas. I learned how to shoot, clean it, and handle a weapon properly. When I was 11 y/o my dad bought me another 22 rifle. This one much better and a pump action. All in all he gave me 7 guns before I was age 18. We lived on a huge farm, and he was an MD and Surgeon.

In fact we had guns all over the house if one was needed. I shot some game for meals, mostly ground hog as they are delicious and plentiful. On two separate occasions I used a gun to chase off a black bear, an animal not exactly indigenous to our area, but not unheard of either.

At our local High School (Clarence), I and many other students brought our long guns to school on the school bus. They were carried in a cloth cases. No one cared !!!. We would have team target practicing in the basement of the school, because it was warm in the winter. Lots of faculty carried guns under their coats or in their purses. We kept our guns and amo in our lockers in school.

We also had a house in the city in a good neighborhood, that turned very bad. I legally carry a pistol. I make it known that I carry, and I'm never bothered, in fact people are downright friendly to me.

Now I'm 60 y/o. I've never turned a gun on another human being. Never had an accident, and never been confronted with the business end of someone else's gun. But I'm ready.

This is a freedom in the USA. We take it very seriously. When the Japanese were considering invading the USA, one of their Generals was unwilling, saying that there is a gun behind every blade of grass, it would be an invasion he could not win. !!!

Consider this. The Virginia Tech campus never had a problem until they made the campus gun free a couple of years ago. Now there is no one there to protect anyone from the lunatic fringe and that's exactly what that shooter was, a lunatic.

While other countries are puzzled about our love and respect fo

People who do not think that insurgents armed with rifles and home-made bombs can't defeat the US military should read about Iraq and Viet Nam.

The Democrat party has just declared surrender in Iraq.

Kramek of Buffalo in 223:

you said that nobody was armed at VT to oppose the shooter due to gun control laws. That's not exactly true. The police were armed. See my link in #78.

It seems that the police were purposely held back in this incident. and that was the biggest problem.

think of it. Second group of shootings began around 9 AM on 4'th floor of a classroom building. and immediately there are a dozen or more students dialing 911 on their cell phones. and the 911 dispatcher is informing the police of the situation as they're en route. and on a campus they've got to arrive within 3 minutes. there's no way they couldn't have put together some men with body armor & likely assault rifles within 10 minutes to enter the building and stalk the shooter. But they didn't do it. and evidence was developed that they were told not to. and the shooter took his own life something like 45 minutes after he started shooting. and he shot about 60-70 people total.

Oh to live in the Lone Star state! The land of Bush offers such freedoms. You can carry concealed weapons and just say you were protecting yourself when you shoot somebody. This is the same state that has the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. I wonder why so many have been put to death and so many more are on death row if it's a deterrent? If you have a death wish, there's no place better than "deep in the heart of Texas."

Tricia in 226:

'If you have a death wish, there's no place better than "deep in the heart of Texas." '

That's 4 sure. Bush was absolutely diabolical as governor the way he approved all those death sentences without any review. He seemed to gloat over getting them dead. Didn't he pardon one guy who was a serial killer? And he gleefully put to death that woman who was on crystal meth when she killed someone and then repented so deeply.

And Florida the 'pro-life' state. They have a Republican state legislature, Republican governor and the law they came up with was interpreted by the US Supreme Court which has 6 of 9 Justices appointed by 'pro-life' Republicans. and the end result of their laws they made was that the woman named Terry Schiavo had to die by witholding water and food from her. Folks it is one thing to cut people off life support. And it is another thing (a diabolically evil thing) to actually require that nobody give her food or water to cause her to die. In Florida they arrested a 12 year old boy for trying to go to her room and give her a bottle of water.

That's what 'pro-life' Republicans do.

and look what 'law & order' republicans of Virginia did. They had a police force that refused to do its job when this shooter began shooting a week ago.

Republicans are the party of the black-shirted fascists.