Guns

okay aussie, I'll give it a shot.our national gaurds are militias--state militias. Then we have the reserves (which is at the federal level).Personally, I think that amendment harks back to the "minute-men". In a way, at any rate. The "minute-men" during the American Revolution were men who drilled (or trained, whatever), and ready to fight the opposing army within minutes. Something to that effect, at any rate.The intent of the 2nd amendment, I think, is to protect the existence of such militias. You have guns for use in war, not for personal defense.I think the reason that the individual part is so emphasized today is because of our history of expanding throughout the continent. You needed a gun to protect yourself from the oft-times hostile locals. And then there's the "wild wild west" mythos. Think John Wayne.I hope this explains somethings. Probably doesn't, though.

just picking a random post of your's to reply to.I really wish I could find two specific articles.One is from Britain--it compares the total number of homicides in the UK to that of NYC. As I recall, NYC homicides does more than just outnumber the UK's--it's almost off the chart, you could say. NYC also has a population that is smaller than the grand total of the UK.The other is from South Korea--they have had, as I recall from the article, a single shooting spree like what happened at VT. One shooting spree in over 50 years of existence. (and the death toll was less from the SK shooting).In both these countries, citizens are not allowed to own guns. In both these countries, you don't see what happens here, generally.as you keep on saying, sure, the criminals will get the guns. The experience of these two countries alone, though, seem to counter the argument that "more guns = less killing" (vast simplification of what you're saying).If I could find these damn articles, I'll post them. Unfortunately, they're probably lost somewhere in all the VT coverage.

strawman.and our stance is quite clear--unless you haven't been paying attention. read some of nator's posts. that should clue you in.

you only have to read upthread a little (or is that downthread?). OR go back to the very first page.Or, you could just actually pay attention and remember what's been said. Not my fault you didn't pay attention.and calm down. after all, it's just a post.

keep in mind jon, that in chat you were arguing that you should be able to collect those armor-piercing bullets and whatnot because you can collect silver dollars.and then accused me of a fallacy when I used your argument in saying that because you can collect bullets, you can collect nukes (well, actually I asked you that, but . . .).

The United Kingdom has disarmed its people. Where's the genocide? And the fact that a lot of these people died from starvation (thanks to collectivization of agriculture) means they should have had guns? Or do you mean all the dissidents killed and sent to camps? Hell, Trotsky fled the USSR and they still got him. Having weapons would not have prevented these genocides.And as modulus says--even the bad guys don't know/have a really hard time getting guns (in the UK).And if you'll pay attention to the thread, both schraf and brenna have put forward some solutions.What is it with people not reading?