'Bravery' or 'cowardice' are not the issue when confronted by someone trying to do harm to a person. Effective protection is the issue. - Sometimes "Discretion is the better part of valor" - Shakespear - "King Henry IV" || Sometimes "He who turns and runs away, lives to fight another day." - unsourced - || Sometimes, you need to fight. Carry protection and carry the best protection you can get your hands on. Generally that's your wits. Sometimes, it's a gun.

The musings of a little man hellbent on the recognition which immortality might provide. He was neither truthful nor humble - THAT really IS a concept.

Robert, the percentages of any crime in which firearms are used doesn't tell us the rate of those crimes per 1000 (of population) per year. I mean, if only two homicides by firearm were to have been committed in the US in a year and if they were the only two homicides committed in that year, then the percentage of homicides by firearm for that year would be 100%. Sounds bad but if spread over a population of a million it paints a different picture. What we need here is a little intellectual honesty. If the 'gun control lobby' were to be intellectually honest about the issue, they'd have to admit that they're too timid to take on the issue head-on. They'd have to admit that they want to eliminate the second amendment and that wouldn't sound like a winner, were it to come to a vote. Let's have them have the integrity to say the words which would actually reflect their real aim and not hide behind fuzzy-isms like "... a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

Robert, are the 1996 police statistics published anywhere where I can get access to them?

Oh, Anon, Raleigh, Really. What would we do without the benefit of people, with whom we disagree sufficiently, to motivate us to order our thoughts into cogent arguments supporting (or possibly modifying) our own 'positions'?

"... gun control advocates who want to square their policy preferences with the Constitution should squarely face the need to deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrassing amendment." George Will March 21, 1991

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." - Heinrich Himmler

Well, we really ARE going towards ignoring the Bill of Rights. - "The right just doesn't exist. Clearly, the states no longer need protection from the federal government disarming their "well-regulated" militia. The Second Amendment no longer speaks to us. The Second Amendment has no modern day application. The Second Amendment is dead." - Judge Ron Greenburg, 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals

Er, - "America should ban communism as a political party"? What the Hey-all does 'communism as a political party' have to do with anything?

Prof. Dean Morris - Government employee, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) - it figures.

Don Dalgleish, London: It's not called 'common' for nothing, is it? 'DEAD common'! In Britain, where the gun ban is virtually absolute, we have the following USDOJ statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crpr.htm || That said, hyperbolic accusations are rarely of much use to anyone. I haven't been able to find the full text (context) of this quote - any leads would be nice to have. On it's face it's a really frightening stance.

The FOUNDATIONS for supporting either side of the 'gun control' debate have an extraordinary similarity (in geometry 'similar' means same shape regardless of 'size' so I regard it as apropos in this use) to the FOUNDATIONS underlying debates between religious factions; they're imbued with the fervor of religion and not with the fervor of logic. As I see it, and granting the rather 'localized' interests of either side in this debate, the debate has factionalized participants into two camps consisting of one camp which advocates a surreptitious modification of our Constitution (gun 'control' faction) via laws that go contrary to the law of the land, and one camp which advocates keeping the Constitution intact (gun 'rights' faction). There's an easy solution to this dilemma: Amend the Constitution - and while we're at it let's eviscerate the fourth amendment so it reflects current actuality on the ground. Let's also eviscerate the first amendment to reflect the various 'popular' movements to censor, restrict, or ban certain types of expression like burning pieces of cloth printed with red, white, and blue ink. Helo-o, it's a piece of cloth, Sparky - a symbol - like a word is a symbol! Heck, let's just chuck the entire thing and come up with a theocratic Constitution. I mean, that's working really well in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, isn't it? || "... The relatively limited ban was, however, far less than the gun-prohibition lobbies had wanted, and far less than they still demand. By refusing to re-enact the sunsetting 1994 ban, Congress has accurately recognized that the real issue at stake is not just the manufacture of some particular firearms, but the fundamental goal of the gun-prohibition lobbies: the creation of ADMINISTRATIVE authority to ban and confiscate firearms used for self-defense." http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200409130630.asp

Brian D. Pickett, Tampa, Florida: So, uh ... what? Now YOU are in a position to throw stones - on an issue that doesn't pertain? - Brilliant! I'll make you a deal. I'll spring for the cost of getting you a grey cell - so you'll have a matching pair. BTW, it's always, not allways. - and no, I'm not Jewish, I'm amazed.

David L. Rosenthal, Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide us with some inkling of which Bill Clinton quotes lead you to the conclusion that "Bill Clinton agreed with Lenin on this issue" because, well, you know, I'm a little slow on the uptake.

Dick, Fort Worth; here are the facts (as I posted in another response): In Britain, where the gun ban is virtually absolute, we have the following USDOJ statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crpr.htm || Actually, the British would be better off if they had America's problems instead of the ones created by the British government; Britain's overall violent crime rate is higher than the American rate. || Gun crime in Britain is soaring to record levels. - "Pre-WWI Britain did not register guns, and London Bobbies who found themselves in need usually could borrow one from the citizen-on-the-street. After the war, some politicians feared veterans might become violent and started a registry and restrictions on carry rights. After WWII, the restrictions were expanded as was the registration requirement. It always sounded at least somewhat reasonable, and always accompanied with the disclaimer that the registry would never be used for confiscation. Then a school incident similar to our Columbine prompted mass anti-gun hysteria - and registered guns were confiscated." - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000013.html - As for the "many, many more murders in this country than in those that control guns?" which you refer to, - If you're referring to absolute totals, you have to consider the ~293,655,404 US population versus ~54,852,425 in Great Britain. If you're referring to murders by gunshot per 1000 (or a per capita conversion of that number), you need to refer to the tables provided by the USDOJ. - So, ... if ACTUAL data were to be my guide, I'd opt for the system our forefathers concocted, harebrained and ridiculous though it may be. Call me foolish, call me zany, but there you have it.

Logan and E. Archer have it right. What a bunch of idiot bumpkin ignoramasseuses (with apologies to Bugs) those 'framers' were! And just look at the mess they created for us! || E. Archer's reference to Switzerland in another post makes the most convincing argument for the ownership of weapons by the populace at large. Granted, Switzerland has a culture which eschews violence more than the culture of the US does, but that's an issue of culture and not of the value or danger of owning weapons. || In Britain, where the gun ban is virtually absolute, we have the following USDOJ statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crpr.htm || Actually, the British would be better off if they had America's problems instead of the ones created by the British government; Britain's overall violent crime rate is higher than the American rate. || Gun crime in Britain is soaring to record levels. Pre-WWI Britain did not register guns, and London Bobbies who found themselves in need usually could borrow one from the citizen-on-the-street. After the war, some politicians feared veterans might become violent and started a registry and restrictions on carry rights. After WWII, the restrictions were expanded as was the registration requirement. It always sounded at least somewhat reasonable, and always accompanied with the disclaimer that the registry would never be used for confiscation. Then a school incident similar to our Columbine prompted mass anti-gun hysteria - and registered guns were confiscated. - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000013.html || Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger", ca. 4 BC - 65 AD: "Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est." ("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands.") || As E. Archer correctly asserts, it's NOT the weapons we have that will restore this country to one in which the much lauded and much ignored Constitution is, in fact, the 'law of the land' - it's an engaged and educated populace. Fat chance that'll happen! (unfortunately) In any event, these are TWO different issues which are not joined at the hip.

Again, five stars for illustrative value. No stars for 'motto' value. Confusing? Read it again. Where have I heard the equivalent of this tack recently? Lenin was a student of what went wrong (right) in the American experience. It took a long time to even begin to undo his 'good' works. It'll take a lot longer to find out if his 'good' works can ever completely be undone.

Tommi, Machiavelli's FULL quote is: "For among other causes of misfortune which your not being armed brings upon you, it makes you despised, and this is one of those reproaches against which, as shall presently be explained, a Prince ought most carefully to guard." - it's funny how an incomplete quote can appear to mean the reverse of what was intended in its full context. Machiavelli was not referring to an armed populace. He was referring to the armies of a Prince. - It was preceeded by: "we often see that when Princes devote themselves rather to pleasure than to arms, they lose their dominions."

The full quote is: "For among other causes of misfortune which your not being armed brings upon you, it makes you despised, and this is one of those reproaches against which, as shall presently be explained, a Prince ought most carefully to guard."

For SHAME! who would chuck a nun?

Simon: "And when was the last time you used your gun to "take responsibility for my share of the defence" - Well, the last time I used a gun in the service of that aim was when I apprehended a burglar exiting my house. BTW, it was a police officer who recommended I get a (my first) gun almost 30 years ago after the first time I had a break-in in another city. I personally don't make a big deal out of the issue of my having guns. I am in favor of not disarming law abiding citizens against their will. I'm also not a big fan of the idea of having guns for 'fun' necessarily but, after having had the misfortune to have been put in a position to have to make use of one, it no longer strikes me as 'not a good idea' to have one (or more, depending on a person's circumstances). The responsibility attending the ownership of weapons is, naturally, commensurate with their potential to do harm as it is with any object - even something like a car. At the end of the day, whether we like it or not, we're still in the position of NOT being able to pick and choose WHICH parts of our Constitution we are bound to abide by. I do also agree with the idea that there are certain 'public' spaces in which guns should be prohibited. I would love to live in a society in which weapons could be dispensed with entirely. We're a long way from that though and I wonder if I'd really like what it would take to confect such a Brave New World - a National Socialist Party perhaps?

Anon-Reston: "... overthrow the current oppressive government by violent means rather than peaceful ones?" - overthrow, overturn, subvert, topple, upset. The central meaning shared by these verbs is “to cause the downfall, destruction, abolition, or undoing of” - 1. To throw over; overturn. 2. To bring about the downfall or destruction of, especially by force or concerted action - AHD || The very word 'overthrow' implies the possibility that some sort of violence is likely to attend such action. It appears you may be 'reading' things into this issue that are not actually advocated by "guns rights" advocates across the board or even by a majority of second amendment proponents. Luckily, it APPEARS that 'overthrow' is not the one remaining option at our disposal at this time. We don't even appear to be close to that condition. Hopefully, this nation will avoid a condition where that will become the case once again - as it was with our original King George III. The direction in which our 'legal infrastructure' and the philosophies underpinning the application of those laws are heading, does, nevertheless, appear to have uncanny similarities to it's counterparts in Nazi Germany during Hitler's reign (we don't call it a 'reign' for no good reason either). - BTW, it's just a tiny bit naive to imagine that ALL "guns rights" advocates are in the GOP, or are sympathizers of, the GOP's policies across the board, or are even slightly sympathetic to most of their ideology. I don't see a 'tight', 'one to one' relationship between the two. || Ben Franklin: "They that would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Can anyone verify whether the source is: from a letter written by Jefferson in Paris to his nephew and ward Peter Carr, *found in* Foley, ed., Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, p. 318. - ?

Five stars for illustrative value. No stars for 'motto' value except in certain circles beholden to King George(-iepooh). WE ... are the 'subject races' - no matter what 'color' or 'ethnicity' or 'religious persuasion' 'WE' happen to be.

"... against the tyranny which now appears remote in America" - that was in the 1970s. The tyranny is here and it will take more than mere arms to reverse it. It will take a level of personal engagement that's clearly beyond the American population's capacities at THIS time. We are hamstrung by ignorance, apathy and an insatiable appetite for distraction and amusement to make up for an aversion to constructive action. - Imagine, me, a 'flaming liberal' - not entirely maybe - LOL