“It is unclear how disarming law-abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law. It is at just such times that the constitutional right to self-defense is most precious and must be protected from government overreach.”

"It is unclear how disarming law-abiding citizens would better protect them..." But it's very clear how it protects a dictatorial Government. Mass killers like Hitler, Stalin and Mao would certainly agree with gun control and disarmament.

J said it very well.

Well. Said J.

Have you completely lost your minds? Government overreach? Don't you realize that those that are flouting the law are forming the law? In Canada there are more guns per capita than in the US and A, but we have 1/10th the murder rate. Do the math.

L Hanson. Do The Math ! Historically, the more guns and ammunition (quantity, quality) in the hands of each society member (individually and in concert), the less the crime. Your Canada example is but one historically correct observation. The largest organized criminal syndicate in the USA (Union of Socialist Amerika) is the government (local to national - an occupying statist theocracy). J above was being nice when he used the quote's 'unclear' because, it is so clear - the rest of his example is so right on.

I agree that disarming the law abiding citizen is the worst thing government could do. This would only let the criminals thrive on us knowing we are not able to defend ourselves. Never give up your gun, never. Just hope you never have to use it.

Hanson has stumbled upon a truth: in countries where there are the most weapons per capita, there is a lot less crime, violence, and gun-related deaths. The proliferation of weapons among the citizenry serves as a check against armed assault.

The lawful premise at which the de jure States united was based was the individual was/is sovereign existed/existing with inalienable rights (acting in/at liberty and justice) as a faculty of birth/existence or as endowed by man's creator (depending on individual belief - outside corporeal man's lawful ability to infringe or disparage). The individual sovereign representatives' actions were limited to securing and protecting those individual rights (a representative republic). It is NOT law that would infringe or disparage an individual's "right" to keep and bear arms (in a military setting - bear regulation), it is a demonic tyranny. The corporate criminal / occupying statist theocracy infesting this land is a lawless tyrant, not a representative republic (overreach and all).

It is extremely Clear, that disarming "law abiding citizens" sets them at peril, making them a prey, for the lawless individual or tyrannical government overreach.

That is precisely the Point. Law-abiding citizens do not need weapons to protect themselves as much as the lawless ones do,An honest and forthright person will have developed an inner conviction and courage to intuitively/instinctively take care of him most of the times. So a general ban on private persons owning guns will 'disarm' the bad guys for sure. That is a good enough 'beginning' in arresting unjust loss of lives - I suppose.

Vedapushpa, can you provide some examples where a ban on rights (specifically on tools of self defense / guns) has promoted liberty and non-violence?