[iOqedeyH]

It's been proven that, to have a well ordered militia, they must be armed with concealed handguns.

Still, the Supreme Court is so right wing, I expect them to keep up with their judicial activism until every convicted felon is allowed to be armed with an Uzi.

[forumsfavoriteall]

I'm all in favour of Americans having guns: More guns = more dead Americans!

That can't be bad any way you look at it, especially when it's usually the stupid ones (or at least the more stupid ones) that kill themselves/each other.

I agree with Mike - let's use Texas as a pilot state!

[heennaRaf]

Rightist!

[Sliliashdes]

[fajerdoksdsaaker]

I know our obsession with guns is very strange and alarming to Europeans, and I can't blame them

I think its a product of our history. The revolution was carried out mostly by ordinary citizens gathered up in a militia with rifles and whatnot.

[yespkorg]

Yeah, but that ended up turning out not so well .

[Lhiistyssdds]

France has got great healthcare!

[Frdsdx26]

Maybe it's to do with the US' 3rd World healthcare system?

[AdSuiteAdobe]

So do I.

[Pedsshuth]

Handguns are crap. Shotguns give you the flexibility to use a variety of different types of ammunition, while rifles give you the range and power to take down today's modern Kevlar armored redcoats.

[aceriscoolon]

Just out of curiosity - what would be nessecary to take out the 2nd Amendment ?

...
Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Essentially, a two-thirds vote of the House, a two-thirds vote of the Senate and then ratification by three quarters of the state legislatures.

Or a tooth-pulling decision by the U.S. Supreme Court saying something like, the 2nd Amendment protects only the rights of States to form militias and to arm them.

Neither is going to happen in the foreseeable future.

[zzarratusstra]

Concealed weapons permits are fantastic. I know, some here will call it warped and fanatical. That's ok. I see the effect, and you don't.

We all see the effect of the US's astronomical gun crime rate compared to Canada. Correct.

[lXwVlTgO]

But if there were no guns, would it make a difference?

I guarantee a lack of guns would reduce gun crime.

[riverakathy]

That's a lot more "up close and personal" than many killers would get.

It's so much easier to kill someone with a gun than to beat or stab them to death.

[nannysuetle]

The 14th Amendment has been held to extend the fundamental rights of the Bill of Rights to the states. The question is: Is possessing a handgun a fundamental right.

This arguement goes against the modern trend of incorporation. I find it hard to believe now that the Court has crossed the line of saying that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right that they will not make the final step and incorporate it against states as well.

[Aleksis]

This arguement goes against the modern trend of incorporation. I find it hard to believe now that the Court has crossed the line of saying that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right that they will not make the final step and incorporate it against states as well.

I think you're absolutely right.

[Rategbee]

A well armed population, keeps government in check!

[Varbaiskkic]

If someone could wave a magic wand and make all handguns disappear forever I would vote for it to happen in an instant. Until that day though, I'll oppose any law that seeks to hinder my right to defend myself from scumbags. Liberal attempts to eliminate firearm use merely reduce the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Here's a shocker, criminals dont give a **** about gun control laws.

[krasniyluch]

Would you support efforts, then, to reduce the number of available guns?

No. As I wrote previously such efforts only reduce the number of guns in the hands of law abiding people.

[Dndjzirw]

Gun violence isn't a problem. Gun violence is what brought us out of the dark ages. When you could equip a man with an musket and have him kill an armored knight, you took power away from knuckle-dragging professional warriors and gave it to industrious modern citizens.

The problem is criminals with guns. And the deeper problem is that criminals don't really care if it's a crime to own a gun. The solution is for good people to own shotguns. Like Zkribbler noted, the shotgun is more likely to be effective than the handgun. The spread out shot makes it easier to hit a target, and less likely to over-penetrate and harm innocent people.

Shotguns are awesome. Feel free to put that on my tombstone.