The "we need our guns in case we want to revolt" is mental...get a better electoral process if that's your fear.

Further though, there are more guns per capita in Canada than in the US while having less than half the gun-related death rate per capita (which is still incredibly high).

The casual access to firearms is not a preventative measure, it is excessive and unneccessary.  Access to guns in the states is far too easy.  Poverty contributes to it as well.  I think there's also a cultural influence there that I just don't think is fully understood...a hostility level in the states that just seems to have people closer to the breaking point than elsewhere in the world.

Eh...I don't fully get it...but I do know that it is one of the prime reasons I don't entertain and turn down jobs in the states.

The problem is that most of the people who want to carry around guns are like that - my friends would consider carrying one around in public dangerous and insane. And the states that are lower in gun control are seriously fucked up - they tend to be the ones that think life is scared as long as you're a fetus or brain dead, extremely religious, vote republican every year, etc.

Department of Justice Firearm stats

• According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.
  
  
• Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.
  
  
• The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

• ccording to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

  • a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
  • a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
  • family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
    
    
• During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
• On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
• Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.

Do you realize what country you live in? Our founding fathers rallied the people to overthrow the largest empire in the world. Sure they had help, but now the odds are stacked more in our favor. Like I told MattShizzle earlier about the govt. using it's devistating weapons:

and then there's this:

again, remember what country you live in. People like us are still the minority here. NASCAR, I believe, is the most popular spectator sport in America. that may have changed recently, but if it has I bet it's still right up there. Most people here are inclined to trust the government. But I definitely believe we can be pushed too far.

No, I'll check the ATF and FBI website for data.

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Every cause is justified to the people fighting for it. But I' not talking about a small violent minority, I'm saying if the government does something to piss of A LOT of people. enough to start riots nation wide. enough that our even our own military will probably divide. It's happened all over the world.

THANK YOU. someone gets it. And it's not that I want a revolution or that I'm advocating violence. I would much rather live in a world where guns were not a necessity, but ours is not that world. And if you think I'm nutty check out this wackjob:

--"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

--"Every generation needs a new revolution."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html

Yep, that's Thomas Jefferson. I know there's a better one too, something about the tree of liberty being refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants, but I couldn't find it.

Now this I disagree with. they're already shooting at the majority, who do they need to justify themselves to?

They fire on the cops. That's when the National Guard tanks and attack helicopters fire their HE rounds, Hellfire missile and rockets at the pickup trucks, compounds, etc. Not to mention raking them with .50 MG fire. If too many of them resist napalm and cluster munitions are dropped. CNN and other news sources report on the "Extreme right wing militias" and "Ultra-conservative domestic terrorists" etc. Power and water is shut off to entire towns - maybe counties, areas even states. All shipments of food, medical supplies or anything are blocked from entering the area. News shows repeatedly the funerals of the heroic police officers murdered by the domestic terrorists. Charges of treason and insurrection are made in the senate. Look how well the 1st civil war worked out against nearly equally armed opponents. Imagine one side armed with assault rifles, machine guns, a few rockets and mortars against the full force of the US military. Remember how much obeying the chain of command is drilled into the military - not to mention the threat of court martial for treason. It seems the majority of Americans are in favor of gun control at least to some point.

I don't think most people realize how easy it is for government's to become corrupt. FDR was elected to three terms as president and the legislative branch drafted the 22nd amendment to say that two terms is the maximum that a president can be in office(as the president). This idea to this day is still argued by some that this law should be repealed.

"Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed his strong opposition to term limits, saying, "The United States ought to be able to choose for its President anybody it wants, regardless of the number of terms he has served."^[5] Ronald Reagan publicly supported repealing the amendment. Bill Clinton stated his opposition to repealing the amendment, but supported modifying it to prohibit former presidents from serving more than two consecutive terms, but permitting them to seek election after an intervening term."

Hugo Chavez called for a referundum to end presidential term limits that was ultimately defeated by a mere 51%. If you know anything about Julius Caesar he slowly aspired to power and ultimately became an emperor king de facto by subduing political opponents effectively and trying to maintain political powers through consistent bending of the rules. He had numerous different titles of consul, praetor, and dictator.(wiki)He was appointed dictator a third time, and then nominated for nine consecutive one-year terms as dictator, effectually making him dictator for ten years. Vladimir Putin of Russia is staying on as basically a shadow ruler in Russia after having hand-selecting Dmitri Medvedev as his personal puppet.

Many times democracies or republics aren't destroyed by one act, but rather a slow accumulation of powers in the hands of fewer and fewer people, with one person having supreme authority ultimately. Things such as increased authority, ending term limits, consolidating governmental power in single branches go hand and hand with this accumulation. Many times under the guise of needing "a free hand" in war times or times of unparalleled conflict and struggle, people willingly give up their rights on certain matters(like giving the President the power to declare war in Irag by himself alone). These accumulations of power tend to start dispossesing people of their rights and properties in technically legal terms(by new dictates or sometimes wholly illegal terms). In Star Wars, Senator Palpatine becomes Chancellor Palpatine becomes Emperor Palpatine, and that is a fairly routine allegory based loosely on historical incidents.

To think that the modernity we live in is somehow devoid of people that are able to aspire to seats of power, but could not subdue large democratic nations and turn them into nonrepresentative, repressive, and unconstitutional oligarchies or dictatorships is deluding oneself. The idea that this country or any country might not need weapons to protest and revolt against a government, being irreflective of the established laws created by the people of that country, is naive and outright dangerous. I am not saying that a US government using a cohesively propagandized military could not crush dissenters armed with rifles, handguns, shotguns, and a few assault rifles, but rather that history provides proof that those places who have remained unarmed in such instances are plied more readily by the changing zeitgeist, and with far more complacence.

I don't think anyone here has said, or thinks that the government will suddenly just take away everyone's rights overnight. Things like that don't usually happen. It is usually a gradual process, and what you have described is nothing but a straw man.

As I have stated before, I don't feel the need to carry a handgun on me at all times because I fear for my safety, or am compensating for something. Regulating(within reason), licensing, and training are ideas for handguns that I am open to. Many of these things are already in place as we speak.

Actually the anti-smoking movement doesn't go nearly far enough. You can smoke at home. No need to harm everyone around you - including the employees who likely can't get another job if they're working as a waiter/waitress. How would you like if after drinking I stood on a chair and pissed all over your hair and clothes? That's almost what you're diong getting the stench from your disgusting addicitionin mine - and piss won't give you cancer. Business isn't anywhere close to regulated enough in ny way.

I am not a smoker, so I do not personally engage in that habit.  I am able to look beyond my own personal rights to the rights of others.

Are waiters and waitresses too stupid to perform other tasks ?  Are all wait staff non-smokers who complain about the "stench" or do they also smoke ?

Yeah, and free speech should be prohibited because you could offend someone. BTW, all the actual research shows exposure to second hand smoke increases your risk of cancer by such a small amount it's considered statistically irrelevant. You have gotten your facts from groups that just want it banned because they find it annoying and think it is their place to legislate our behavior, much like the Women's Christian Temperance Union did when they pushed for a nationwide ban on alcohol. And look how that turned out.

Ok you do have one point....we've gotten carried away with the idea that we need guns only as a means of fighting a revolution. What about the people who get their concealed weapon permits and just run around with the things?

Well I know in most states you DO need some training to acquire a permit. If you don't, I would agree those laws need reform.  I think the problem is we picture people who carry guns around as people who plan on using them. This isn't true. Most people who legally carry them most definitely DO NOT EVER want to have to use them, but know that a situation may arise when they have to.

As a citizen of the often maligned State of Florida which has several laws that many fear regarding guns I'd like to give you a few statistics that seem to reflect on the sanity of those with legal permits. We of course have some 500,000 citizens out of over 17 million plus carrying concealed weapons as of this year. That's one out of ever 34.  According to an article in the Orlando Sentinel in the last 20 years over 1.3 million permits have been issued. During the 20 year period there have been 165 illegal  shootings involving a permit holder. That is about 8 per year.  In 2007 there were 17271 aggravated assaults with guns and 825 homicides where a gun was used. That means for you all that are mathematical only 8 of 17271 were legal permit holders or .04632 %. Seems if people know the rules and are trained they are somewhat unlikely to use the weapon illegally.

Yes we have a stand your ground law which many have also maligned us for as well. The fear over that was Florida citizens were armed and we'd pick fights with visitors killing everyone who looked at us wrong. Now we have another new law going into effect July 1st allowing guns at work in your car. So of course now we are going to go on killing sprees at work because someone took one of our pencils from our desk.

It's amazing that discussion of guns bring out irrationality even in those that are rational in science and atheism. Perhaps we all watch too many crime dramas on TV and think those fantasies are real. As my favorite author Heinlein wrote,"Get the facts."

The facts in Florida seem to dispel that legal guns are used in wanton acts of violence on the innocent. Perhaps your opinions of gun violence in your states are due to local issues that are expounded upon by the media in their desire to spin issues for greater viewers or readers. I recommend you get the facts as you do with other issues before you come to conlusions based on emotion, just like you do in other areas.

Link to Orlando Sentinel: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/

Actually this is one reason I believe we should  legalize drugs. If the government can supervise them, you take them out of the shady side of the law, where all the killers are. It would also actually make them harder to get, especially for kids(dealers don't care how old you are, but the guy at the liquor store does).

check it out. thoughts?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-429storestandoff,0,1376760.story

Yeah, this is totally ridiculous. America would never need to overthrow an oppressive government...oh shit, thats right this already happened over 200 years ago. It was called the American Revolution, not being an American, I don't know if you heard about it.

I call bullshit. The American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Medical Association and such are hardly on par with the religious zealots of the WCTU. This was real research and it seems those that deny the harm of secondhand smoke are on the same level of those who deny global warming, evolution, etc. Don't listen to "studies" sponsored by the tobacco industry. By the way, we do limit free speech that HARMS (not offends) people - the old example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater - libel, slander, false advertising, advocating murder, etc. If you should be able to smoke in public, I should be able to piss in your face there - piss smells almost as bad as cigarette smoke and won't give you cancer.

Is there a line to be drawn at all of gun ownership? Do you take the 2nd amendment's "arms" to mean anything? Tanks, machine guns, rocket launchers, short range rockets, nukes? Is there a differentiation between guns, or every means available to kill should be available through the 2nd amendment?

I am not saying you believe those things, just positing the question. To be honest, I haven't thought all that much about exactly what "arms" entails. I grew up shooting guns safely and responsibly. It was normal for me, and still is, but the statement, "I don't believe the government has any right to know what kind of weapons I own personally." seems to go over the line when you start getting into chemical, biological, nuclear, and even small range rocket propelled weapons. There is an argument to be had about the revolution due to an oppressive government and the firepower that would entail, but this is the stirring up of a hornets nest. I don't have a fixed opinion on what arms mean, and what exactly they extend to outside of handguns, shotguns, rifles etc perhaps you could enlighten us on your position for what weapons are covered under this amendment?

Looking forward to your response.

I am mostly refering to small arms.  I mean hey as cool as it would be to have a TOW missle I don't think it is something that is necessary to prevent a tyranical government from imposing its' will on the people.

The founding fathers would've had no clue as to what kinds of weapons we have today so the wording of the 2nd amendment would most likely refer to comparable weapons of the day. The militias used the same weapons at home and on the battlefield. If the colonists had M-4s then I believe the M-4 would be covered under the second amendment. Does this mean we should have access to ALL weapons similiar to the military or police? I don't know. Any weapon in responsible hands is not the problem. The problem always lies outside of responsible individuals.The state of California has banned the .50 BMG rifles recently citing a concern for public safety. However, there have been no known shootings cited to prompt such an asinine response.I believe that handguns (all), shotguns (all), rifles (all) and military style assualt  type weapons should be allowed here.

Any government will try to obtain as much power as it can, this is just human nature. In my opinion, an armed revolution would be pointless. Not because we could not bring down the military, but becasue there are much better ways to overthrow a despotic regime.

Cali Atheist

"I believe that handguns (all), shotguns (all), rifles (all) and military style assualt  type weapons should be allowed here."

Sounds fairly reasonable to me.

We basically just need enough firepower in private hands that the government knows it would lose in a revolutionary scenario. That prevents them from pissing us off in such a way that revolution is even necessary.

Actually I meant that the self-righteous pisser would likely be viciously attacked and incur injuries that made second hand smoke seem like a welcome alternative.

ps, in case you wonder what side of the issue I'm on allow me to  present my credentials,  I own one of these :  

It's a Smith and Wesson Model 500 from S&W's Performance Center ( custom features, limited production ).  It is a fifty caliber magnum which, when firing 400 grain bullets, produces the same muzzle energy as a 30.06 rifle cartridge ( ie, 2,600 foot pounds of energy )

 It actually makes my S&W  44 magnum seem puny by comparison.

I don't really think I will find myself in a situation in my life where I will need to fire a firearm at someone, not that it won't happen, just very unlikely

How do they know who carries? And if they started to think more people had guns they'd probably start just shooting first and then robbing the corpse. Better if they didn't let them through the border or sell to civilians and then finding a gun was almost impossible. It works in Europe, why wouldn't it here?