The right to keep and bear arms?

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

My answer after a long period of thought is that i dont have an answer. I dont know.

Maybe everyone should move to Switzerland .

[M_S_Holder 0]

Man I used to have so many guns that you could trip over them in my home. It is no big deal to me. There are more guns in Texas than there are people, from what I've heard. It will be a very, very long time before guns are ever outlawed in the U.S.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Aug. 12 2002,16:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My answer after a long period of thought is that i dont have an answer. I dont know.

Maybe everyone should move to Switzerland   .<span id='postcolor'>

Every man in Switzerland has an assault rifle and some even grenades! This is because of their national guard army.

They are an exempliary gun society.

[LBGS_Stewart 0]

here is my opion. the Laws are just fine as they are maybe could use a few tweaking. in manny cases were i seen shooting like "comibine" and other shootings the laws now. and the ones they have been making sence then would have done nothing to protect them from obtaning a gun. around where i live in Michigan the Upper Penninsula there are very few accident shootings mostly around Hunting seasion its not because they dont know how to use the gun its because there eather too hyped up or not paying attachion. but from the laws i seen passed and the ones currently being made isnt helping to provent those. i dont think we really need more laws, just that they need to be more looked at and used. but honistly i dont think making more and more laws to provent guns from getting into the criminal hands will work they can always buy them on the streets down in a ally or some where else. there is a saying "a lock is only to keep a honist man honist. if a person wants to get something bad enouf he will get it if a gun is laying behind a steal door that is 10 feet thick, if he really wants it bad enouf he will get it.

[M_S_Holder 0]

Excuse me, Mr. Paratrooper,

First of all, Switzerland doesn't have any "homeys."

I've been to Switzerland before, and it is a very homogenious and friendly population.

I live about six miles south of Atlanta, and it is a multi-culty garbage dump. I don't want G-Money Dumbass carrying around assault rifles and HAND-GRENADES!

Just go in any local pawn shop around here and check out all the "Dope men" checking out the handguns.

Switzerland is an excellent country, but the U.S. will never be as nice, and a discussion about gun control should not include both countries.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

I Like New Zelands deal where ya can have has many guns as you want, as long as you have 1 licenes. Although the Police need guns....... I believe some people should be able to buy Automatic weposn for range shooting only though, and they could only be sold by certian dealers.

[billytran 0]

I think every adult who is not a drug user or criminal should be able to buy and carry a gun. Here's my proposal:

-At 18 you can buy handguns, rifles and shotguns provided you are not a drug user or criminal. The bore size is limited to fifty caliber, and the barrel length on rifles and shotguns is 16"

-The background check is an instant system. There are no waiting periods because if someones life is threatened they need a gun as fast as possible. There is no registration either, no criminal would ever register his gun.

-You can buy full-auto, explosives and +.50 caliber weapons at age 21 with an extensive background check and these are registered with the state. The US has only had one person killed with a legally owned machine gun under this system. Illegal machineguns are few and far between.

-No magazine capacity, it takes two seconds to reload so it wouldn't make a difference. Also no bans on military-style semi-automatic guns. They can be used by the people of a country to fend off foreign or domestic threats. In the LA riots of '92, many Korean shopowners stood on top of their stores with semi-automatic AK's to keep looters away. Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because of thier armed populace.

-Everyone over 18 who can buy a gun can carry it concealed or openly with the exception of court houses, airplanes, etc. Concealed Weapons Permits really scare criminals. Why do you think states with the right to carry have such low crime stats?

-Gun safety courses in all public schools.

-You can shoot if you believe yourself to be in immediate and serious danger. You can't expect an 85 year old woman to defend herself with anything other than a gun. Mace and stun guns are ineffective most of the time.

Even if you could take away all of the guns there would still be the same amount of violent crime. If someone really wants to off another person they'll do it with whatever they can find be it a knife or poison or whatever. If someone can't find a gun to rob with they'll use a screwdriver. In Britain they banned handguns and now the police have started carrying them.

[Paratrooper 0]

I am intrigued to see option one catching up with three.

[Warin 0]

You are the epitome of 'the Culture of the Gun' that is the problem with the US.

The way to eliminate violent crime is not through the proliferation of firearms. It's through the elimination of the underlying poverty that makes crime more attractive than the alternatives.

Hitler didnt invade Switzerland because they were neutral, and a good place for Nazi's to stash their gold. If you believe it is because of their militia, you need to study history a little more.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 12 2002,23:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think every adult who is not a drug user or criminal should be able to buy and carry a gun.  <span id='postcolor'>

I would like the reverse law: Every adult who isn't a gun owner or carries a gun should be able to buy drugs

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 13 2002,00:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hitler didnt invade Switzerland because they were neutral, and a good place for Nazi's to stash their gold.  If you believe it is because of their militia, you need to study history a little more.<span id='postcolor'>

Hitler had several reasons to invade Switzerland. Neutrality had nothing to do with it. The Nazis had two ways to go around the Maginot line, Switzerland and Belgium. Both were neutral but he went with the path of least resistance. Later, Hitler need a quick route to send men to Italy which Switzerland would have served well for but again it wasn't worth it. Stashing gold had nothing to do with it either, he could have just invaded and still kept his gold there (along with all the other gold he could have stolen from Switzerland).

Several times the nazis came up with plans for an invasion of Switzerland. When his generals told him that it would cost about 200,000 German lives to invade Switzerland Hitler knew it wasn't worth it.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 13 2002,01:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 13 2002,00:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hitler didnt invade Switzerland because they were neutral, and a good place for Nazi's to stash their gold.  If you believe it is because of their militia, you need to study history a little more.<span id='postcolor'>

Hitler had several reasons to invade Switzerland.  Neutrality had nothing to do with it.  The Nazis had two ways to go around the Maginot line, Switzerland and Belgium.  Both were neutral but he went with the path of least resistance.  Later, Hitler need a quick route to send men to Italy which Switzerland would have served well for but again it wasn't worth it.  Stashing gold had nothing to do with it either, he could have just invaded and still kept his gold there (along with all the other gold he could have stolen from Switzerland).

Several times the nazis came up with plans for an invasion of Switzerland.  When his generals told him that it would cost about 200,000 German lives to invade Switzerland Hitler knew it wasn't worth it.<span id='postcolor'>

Lol. The crackpot theory of WW2. Please tell us more

[sgtvor 0]

Well, I lived and operated in the city of L.A. for nearly 10 years, and I can assure the naive that it's NOT a gang ridden battlefield as some make it out to be.  Hell, Hollywood itself is scummier in some areas.

As far as the US is concerned, I'm going to have to fully agree with Tex's list on how we should handle things....

As far as other countries out there....well, there IS no perfect weapon handling law for every country in the world.  The US has seen gun proliferation for most of it's history, and while it's a hotly debated issue, nothing is going to remove the guns already on the streets, so disarming the public entirely is tantamount to anarchy....regardless if the police remain armed.  

Now for you other countries that claim to have extremely low gun related violence, well, maybe banning them altogether is a viable option...for us, at this point in our history, it is not.

I suppose some of the American mentality is derived from the capitalist system.  Americans are rasied to rely on themselves....not neccessarily their government.  While some countries would feel safe having only one gun related murder for the year, Americans tend to see themselves as that one victim, and quite simply, we don't want to be that victim....and the only way we KNOW we can avoid being the victim is to carry protection.

I'm a firm beleiver in the rather cliche saying "Guns don't kill people, people do.", and I think Tex's proposals go to a resonable length in trying to determine who is not responsible enough to own a firearm, while still making it possible for those who are responsible enough to own one.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MonkeyGoat @ Aug. 12 2002,10:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hit_Sqd_Maximus @ Aug. 12 2002,08:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If they commit a felony or do anything serious, that right should be taken away.<span id='postcolor'>

That comes too late for the person that they shot...<span id='postcolor'>

More than likely, that person allready has a criminal record AND the person probably doesnt have a licence or the gun registered.

I read somewere that jamaca has the lowest gun/capita in the world, yet they have the highest crime rate and that I think it was iraq or somewere in the mid east had the highest gun/capita and the lowest crime rate(granted they have diff laws than western civilizations) but still, if you knew that everyone in the county was armed, would you give it a second thought about breaking in to someones house or theiving? But if all guns were banned, then criminals would be more likely to break in to someone's house or mug someone.

[USSoldier11B 0]

"from my cold dead fingers" you facist bastards........

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 12 2002,23:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the LA riots of '92, many Korean shopowners stood on top of their stores with semi-automatic AK's to keep looters away.<span id='postcolor'>

GWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! shows how dumb you are.

think about WHY they had to do that! at that time, LAPD officers were pissed off because no one from top gave orders to restore orders. and if you ask why, then police chief was the almighty Republican loving Darrel Gates.

he is a failure. If you know ANYTHING about LA riot, you'll see that it was quickly turned into Korean vs. African Americans when actually it was african americans angry at the system.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 13 2002,01:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would like the reverse law: Every adult who isn't a gun owner or carries a gun should be able to buy drugs<span id='postcolor'>

acckk...hard decision to make...gun or my precious stash of marijuana joints......

[ralphwiggum 6]

and one more thing.

Switzerland's total military force, AFAIK, was much smaller than Nazi's. but one more reason why Nazis never carried assualt was because Switzerland did threatened to blow roads leading to Italy should they be invaded. then Nazis would have fought for nothing.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ Aug. 13 2002,03:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"from my cold dead fingers" you facist bastards........

 <span id='postcolor'>

No, if we were fascist bastards, we'd give you a gun. Of course, we'd also give you a nice, scenic trip to Russia

[monkeygoat 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hit_Sqd_Maximus @ Aug. 13 2002,03:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But if all guns were banned, then criminals would be more likely to break in to someone's house or mug someone.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree that guns may act as a deterrent in the short run. But this will be countered by criminals carrying more guns when breaking into houses or mugging, encouraging a more violent approach on both sides. This could very easily spiral completely out of control.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 12 2002,22:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">GWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! shows how dumb you are.

think about WHY they had to do that! at that time, LAPD officers were pissed off because no one from top gave orders to restore orders. and if you ask why, then police chief was the almighty Republican loving Darrel Gates.<span id='postcolor'>

the police weren't trying to restore order? I'm pretty sure they were simply overwhelmed. bwahaha... think up another one there ralphie.  

I guess your life depends upon the whim and fancy of the police...

[Ruud van Nistelrooy 0]

I don't think guns should be allowed to be bought by civilians. Yanks may laugh and say they can protect their belongings from getting nicked, but hey, what's gonna stop a robber buying a gun? In the end its either let them nick your stereo or have a massive firefight and put your family and yourself in major risk. When every person in America can have a gun, then wtf is all this protection thing? Criminals will be able to get guns just as easy, and smart people should just give up their wallets rather than shoot. Especially since in america people get sued for farting in lifts now, i'm pretty sure someone who shoots a robber will have to put up with some lawsuits.

I mean, you can say that countries that have gun laws still have high crime rates, at least, less people are killed in crime. If Dwayne or whoever gets robbed in the subway and woops out a .44 he immediatly puts loads of people in danger of getting capped. You can give a civilian a gun and say he can protect himself, but if he suffers a hit and run attack, he might shoot off into a crowd of people because he's furious and wants to wax the guy,m plus his aim will probably suck ass.

And of course theres the entire school shootings thing.

I think everyone knows now that more people are killed in shootings on the streets of LA per year than in most african cities, the places where you expect people to be carrying WW2 MG42's around on shopping trips and driving Panzers to work.

The world would probably benefit more if people couldn't retaliate against robbers, thats what police are for. The retaliation and attitide is what gets people killed (as evidenced statistically in America)

[Soviet_Toilet{KKK} 0]

The world needs more guns. It's called population control. There are too many people on this planet. Anyways first they will ban firearms ownership then "violent" video games. I feel sorry for U euro trash soon you are not even going to be allowed to own anything since you are going back to the old soviet system.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 15 2002,10:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think guns should be allowed to be bought by civilians. Yanks may laugh and say they can protect their belongings from getting nicked, but hey, what's gonna stop a robber buying a gun? In the end its either let them nick your stereo or have a massive firefight and put your family and yourself in major risk. When every person in America can have a gun, then wtf is all this protection thing? Criminals will be able to get guns just as easy, and smart people should just give up their wallets rather than shoot.<span id='postcolor'>

When criminals come to realize that a certain proportion of people have weapons, they almost certainly reduce their crimes.  Criminals may be stupid and greedy, but they are not suicidal.  BTW, studies conducted in the U.S determined that people who surrendered to criminals were 3 times more likely to end up severely injured or killed than those who resisted or had the means to resist.  Lets not get into "hot robberies".  This is a particularly peculiar phenomenom which developed in certain areas which adopted absolute bans on personal weapons.  Criminals with their weapons and undeterred by the new laws,  started robbing houses while their occupants were still in them.  Criminals were essentially given a guarantee that residents would be unable to resist them.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think everyone knows now that more people are killed in shootings on the streets of LA per year ...<span id='postcolor'>

bad example.  LA has a ban on guns.  Now, if you take my homestate Vermont,  we have very "easy" access to guns yet we have extremely low crime.  How do you explain this?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The world would probably benefit more if people couldn't retaliate against robbers, thats what police are for.<span id='postcolor'>

Police aren't guards.  Their purpose is to investigate crimes for the courts.  They are not liable for protecting you in the least.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The retaliation and attitide is what gets people killed (as evidenced statistically in America)<span id='postcolor'>

in the U.S, the areas with the harshest controls have the worst statistics whereas the regions with easier access to weapons have much less crime.

[ralphwiggum 6]

2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Aug. 15 2002,152)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Aug. 12 2002,22:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">GWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! shows how dumb you are.

think about WHY they had to do that! at that time, LAPD officers were pissed off because no one from top gave orders to restore orders. and if you ask why, then police chief was the almighty Republican loving Darrel Gates.<span id='postcolor'>

the police weren't trying to restore order? I'm pretty sure they were simply overwhelmed.  bwahaha... think up another one there ralphie.  

I guess your life depends upon the whim and fancy of the police...<span id='postcolor'>

it is true. all officers were gathering at someplace(i forgot where) and were wondering why there were no orders to go in.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When criminals come to realize that a certain proportion of people have weapons, they almost certainly reduce their crimes. Criminals may be stupid and greedy, but they are not suicidal. BTW, studies conducted in the U.S determined that people who surrendered to criminals were 3 times more likely to end up severely injured or killed than those who resisted or had the means to resist. Lets not get into "hot robberies". This is a particularly peculiar phenomenom which developed in certain areas which adopted absolute bans on personal weapons. Criminals with their weapons and undeterred by the new laws, started robbing houses while their occupants were still in them. Criminals were essentially given a guarantee that residents would be unable to resist them. <span id='postcolor'>

well, let's see. if i get robbed by 3 guys with handguns, and i have one handgun, I will win, right? nah...:D

there are always ways to overcome elevation of power. just because you have a gun doesn't mean you are safe, if you get sandwiched, then you might be able to shoot one, but you are in no safe place either.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think everyone knows now that more people are killed in shootings on the streets of LA per year ...<span id='postcolor'>

another prejudice. yes, ppl get killed on LA streets but not as often as you might think.

bad example. LA has a ban on guns. Now, if you take my homestate Vermont, we have very "easy" access to guns yet we have extremely low crime. How do you explain this?

simple. old ppl don't need to shoot. vermont, compared to S.California, is a quiet sleepy place. and there are more factors why come to point where they pull trigger.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in the U.S, the areas with the harshest controls have the worst statistics whereas the regions with easier access to weapons have much less crime.

<span id='postcolor'>

could it be that those "HARCH" controls were implemented because of BAD STATISTICS? afterall, if there weren't any bad situation, why would harsh controls be implemented?

[JohnBEsq 0]

Heres the bottom line on why responsible American citizens should be allowed to keep and bear arms.

Our founding fathers understood that you cannot allow the Government become stronger that those it governs. A well armed populace keeps those in power in check.  Not to mention that if all eligible to carry weapons did so, crime would drop and the quality of living would rise.  I own many weapons and I have aquired them all legally, I have no problem with registering them if it would help track down those who would do crime with them.

Just my $0.02