1 Good for all citizens, especially those prone to violence, such as Muslims.

2 (Moslems got choirs?)

Moslems don't like people fighting back, so they will be all for gun control, for everyone else.

3 Phillep, you are absolutely correct. Gun control is the number one hot topic in Pakistan, Waziristan, Palestine, Somalia and Iraq.

4 Most Muslim Countries are the NRA's Wet dream!!
Those contries it's the LAW that the male of the house has to have a weapon to defend their family and property!! The US and UK forces found that out very quickly!
 
The us Consitution does give the person the right to bear arms but in the form of a regulated millita?
 
I'm rusty on your, now obsolite, beginings!!

5 The "male of the house" is expected to be armed, if he has the right political connections. Specifically, if he is Moslem.

Now, if he is Zoroastrian or Christian, there might be a little problem.

6 Since you can buy an AK47 in the third world for about the price of a good new tire, it would be cheap and relatively easy to move them into the US. Islamists here won't run out of guns, if you make them illegal.

Disarming the honest citizens will just leave communities defensless, when the clock stikes the hour. Besides, in some parts of the US, you would still need the military to disarm the people. Better to work with the people, than oppress them.

We the people, are the same as the ones whose right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Look up 'infringed', then say you'll let me infringe your rights. Betchya you won't.

Have a good one.

USA all the way!

7 Phillllep,
 
in Muslim and Arab nations it's the law that ALL male heads of the house must be able to protect thier home and famile! nothing to do with connections!!
 
Connections only get you away scot free if you shoot someone, when drunk, with a shotgun while hunting ducks in America!

8 Urgh!!! ignore bad spelling!!
if you can't then it's your problem!
 
I'm Dyslexic

9 The us Consitution does give the person the right to bear arms but in the form of a regulated millita?

Sol-

Parrot the HCI talking points all you want, but you might want to actually read the Constitution next time before you pontificate on it.

10 All seeing Pirate ranger doood:
please read my post in FULL!!!
the bit "I'm rusty on your, now obsolite, beginings!!"
should point you to a realistation that i might not be American!!!!
So please can you post the amendment where the right to bare arms is stated! In full please, so you can educate me!

11 Sol, I don't know what you'd consider a "wet dream" but I think I am accurate in saying that the bulk of the membership of the NRA would rather not have to fight for our rights every single day of every year.

We'd rather get together to hold shooting competitions, hunt, study firearms history and ponder the wonder that was John Moses Browning.

Try learning what the NRA was about before they had to turn into a political force in order to enforce the Constitution.

You can find the text of the 2nd Amendment on the (nominally) neutral site of Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

A very useful source, if you truly seek education on the topic, is
http://www.davekopel.org/2dAmendment.htm#Second%20Amendment

12 Sol,

You contradicted another poster when he stated that the weapons aren't allowed to non-Muslims. Is Turkey a Muslim/Arab nation or not?

This is from a report on the persecution of missionaries in Turkey, a secular, not sharia nation. "The two missionaries were accused of calling Islam a backward religion
and claiming that Turks would never become civilised unless they
converted. They were also accused of trying to sell women and of
possessing guns."

I'll emphasize that point. POSSESSING GUNS.

I found that story at http://the-910-group.blogspot.com/

It could be that you don't consider Turkey a Muslim nation since it does have a degree of secular government. It does, however, present one nation where Christians are denied the right to firearms by Muslims, contradicting your claims above.

13 GI Joe:
All i have to go on regarding this is the experiance of 2 UK Service men who were in Iraq and Kuwait, As well as News media here in the UK.
 
I'm sorry if i belive my own service men and news media over yourself.
 
I don't see contradicting someone else a problem, that's the pont on a place like this! present points and discuss! if they contradict then talk it out! Don't say one is right and one is wrong without hearing arguments.
 
Also Turky is a Muslim nation but they are trying as hard as they can to get into and say a member of the Europien Economic Union and their laws reflect this.
 
pesonaly in my own view
if you want to own a gun then go ahead! But only after some training.
 
Minimum: Military Basic traning
Prefered: 2 years Military service
 
Some europien contries have this: I think sweden has an draft army and each member of fighting age has to have a gun and so many rounds of ammo  (36) in their house at any one time!
 

14 Thanks GI Joe i got the quote i was looking for:
 
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
 
 
The Phrase "a well armed and well regulated militia being" being the main point!!
 
Regualted means some sort of order and military style training. If the NRA does not object to the barer of arms having some training, See my post above! then good on them!!

15 Sol,

You didn't quote the Amendment but a commentary upon it.

The Amendment doesn't state that the right of the militia won't be infringed. It specifies "the right of the people".

It is the second Amendment to our Constitution. The First Amendment doesn't specify a freedom of the press for a government, nor does it grant authority to the government to say who is and who is not "the press".

Why would people who are creating these first ten Amendments at the same time create an individual right to free speech and then create a right to arms only to regulated groups?

It is clear that the framers intended the rights specified to be rights which belong to individuals, not to regulated groups.

The problem, however, comes with some complexity which wouldn't be apparent to someone unfamilar with U.S. history.

The deservedly maligned Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court prior to our Civil War was based in part upon a fear of granting former slaves a right to keep and bear arms. The history of laws against firearms ownership in the U.S. has a very long and dirty history of being racist in nature. If not racist explicitly it was racist in practice. The whites in power sought to keep arms out of the hands of Irish (who for reasons I can't fathom weren't considered "white" at the time), former slaves, Chinese and Native Americans.

That is the history of gun control in the U.S. and it continues to be a racist practice. The city of Washington D.C. has an outright ban on all firearms for its residents who are overwhelmingly descendents of African slaves. New York City is close behind in banning firearms and again it has an extensive population of "non-whites". Philadelphia is close on the heels of New York and once again it is used to keep persons of color from having firearms.

Recently in New York City police fired at least 50 rounds at a few men who were alleged to have said they had a gun. They didn't display one. They didn't threaten anyone with this mythical gun. They were shot dead by the police because the racist anti-gun politics gave the police a mandate to shoot based upon suspicion.

I've said before that I don't hold the cops who did this responsible. I hold responsible the politicians who have 24 hour a day armed bodyguards for conspiring to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

16 Solat: Making two years service in the military a reguirement for owning a gun. Yea, sure. All those sailors are real trained pros in weapons. Dork.  Does your own country have a blog you can shout such malary?
 
GI Joe: Everyone in my neighborhood has weapons. I mean everyone. I have never had a person tell me he has a gun because of racism. They have guns for protection and hunting. If it was racism they would all have machine guns which happen to be readily available.  The citizens of Washington DC are not without pistols. Just take a wrong turn in the wrong neighborhood and you will see how many (brothers) have them.

17 Greyrooster, I think you need to re-read what I wrote.

I didn't say that people own guns because of racism. I said people are DENIED guns because of racism.

There is no doubt that in many places where guns are banned that people still have them. Criminals still have guns when guns are banned.

Banning the ownership of firearms by citizens only makes a criminal's workplace safer, for the criminal.

18 You're right. I'm wrong. BUT. Are you incorrectly tying protection with racism? Taking the guns from the hands of certain elements is not always bad.

19 Sol:


Your claim that most muslim countries require family heads to bear arms is ridiculous. By quoting  "2 UK Service men who were in Iraq and Kuwait," you show the chops needed to be an AP reporter.


Areas in America with high gun ownership rates have the lowest crime rates, and that's an indisputable fact. It's the same in every Western country. In places where guns are largely illegal--like Britain--crime is rampant.


Most gun control fanatics are operating from utter ignorance, and the rest are just liars.


Notable gun control advocates: Adolph Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, The family of Saud, the Taliban, the Ayatollahs of Iran, Bashar Assad, Kim Jung Ill, Jimmy Carter, Hillary Clinton, etc.


Not a list I want to be on.

20 GI Joe:


There is no racist application of firearm laws in America. Those days are long gone. Whitey is not holding the Black man down in Washington DC or anywhere else.


The District government in DC is pretty dark, so it's just plain silly to assume it cant legalize handguns for its Black majority. The reason handguns are banned in DC is because the District officials don't trust the people who live there to use them responsibly.

21 Greyrooster,

I stated that the history of banning firearms is directly linked in U.S. history to racism. That doesn't put a KKK hood on Sarah Brady's head. Just a little bit behind it. That't the baggage gun-banners have to carry.

The problem with "certain elements" is that sooner or later "certain elements" becomes everyone.

The framers of our Consitution didn't give a laundry list of people who didn't get its protections. They intended the list to cover all citizens. Rich or poor. One might argue that some of them wouldn't have meant freed former slaves, but they weren't explicitly excluded, either.

Should we deny guns to criminals? The law currently makes it a crime for a felon to own a gun. One year possession of a single marijuana cigarette is a misdemeanor in jursidiction A. The next year it's a felony. Sam got caught in the first year, Bill got caught in the second. Why is Sam more appropriate to own a gun than Bill?

While it makes some measure of sense to deny sales of firearms to violent felons these are people who are going to get weapons even when weapons are totally banned. Britain has a total ban on handguns. It was AFTER they did their total ban that they finally got around to arming the common police officer because the criminals were still armed, if not better armed than before. Total ban, criminals still have guns. How, then, does it make sense to ban guns for law-abiding citizens? You only make the criminal's work place safer.

22 Jeff Bargholz:

The effects of gun ban history continue, even if the law is not formally racist any longer.

Gun banners still have to carry around the baggage of their cause even when they seek to deny rights to everyone. Denying everyone their Constitutional rights doesn't make a law right.

My read on why D.C. doesn't legalize gun ownership is the same as why Ray Nagin went around stripping weapons from the citizens he left unprotected. Those in power don't trust the citizens with power.

The question that should be asked of every politician is "If you don't trust me with a gun, why should I trust you with a political office?"

23 Anyone who has read the U.S. Constitution knows that now lets use that ruling to repeal all the gun control laws passed under BILL CLINTON and other liberal idiots

24 GI Joe:

Don't assume I favor gun control--especially after I made a comment about areas with high gun ownership rates being more law abiding than areas with low ownership rates.


The effects of gun ban history continue, but there is no racial component to them.


The DC officials don't trust their population with handguns. Not because they're corrupt (they are--exceedingly so,) but because they know the population has an extremely high proportion of criminal scumbags who would use guns to terrorize the few decent people who live in DC--assuming there are any.


The only widespread and institutionalized form of racism tolerated in America is anti-White racism.

25 You guys will get know arguement from me. Now excuse me while I go clean my guns.

26 sqmgxuhn igwl gxdiu hebwozla vyacomntz rbdqvfwl wkqvfto