The Second Amendment provides for keeping a militia, not for private individuals to have guns. It is you who need some education, along with the rest of your gun nut buddies.

And yes, I do mean that anyone who insists on carrying weapons in public suffers from some sort of mental defect, though not necessarily rising to the level of being clinically insane. If you want to fight for a safer society, you should fight to: 1) eliminate poverty, as it is the root cause of street crime and 2) fight for a gun free society. Demanding a gun to protect yourself from real or imagined dangers is reactionary crap. People who live in fear do evil things. Stop watching so much TV and you won't be so convinced that a criminal is lurking around every corner. (If you don't know what I mean, read the study showing that people who watch more TV are more convinced that street crime is a major problem.)

That's an interesting analogy given that a Nobel Prize winning economist has estimated the war in Iraqi will eventually cost a total of 3 TRILLION dollars by the time the last American soldier packs his/her bags

Using that same logic then, if we had paid every man, woman & child in Iraq a proportional amount of that ,say around $100 grand apiece, they'd have been just as well off, not to mention how much good will toward the good ole US of A $100,000 would buy.

But I guess Halliburton, Blackwater, Bechtel et al probably would have just seen that as "Misplaced pity and compassion " Show me the money indeed....

First of all, there is no right to drive. Just as the founders did not put in a right to ride a horse or drive a wagon team.

"I know a lot of people who shouldn't have guns, particularly handguns, which exist only to kill other human beings, are lousy for self-defense and win up killing thousands of innocent people every year. It's too easy to get one."

That's nice, I know alot of people who shouldn't be driving... and we see how that's working out. Score one for ole gov't. The second half of your statement is contradictory.. either handguns are ineffective.. or they are either effective and kill thousands each year... not both. SO, guess what... let's prosecute people for negligent homocide under that laws we have now rather than ban guns because your too spineless to enforce the law or too scared to leave you home because of something stupid someone "might do".

Educated gun owners know handguns are defensive weapons.. meant to preserve life until something bigger can be used or the criminal departs... with the later happening most often. In fact, of the huge majority of the gun uses involve simply threatening to use the weapon or brandishment of the weapon to end confrontation... entirely at odds with your insinuation. In fact, if we elimenate all the crimes with guns by gangs (whose members are already FORBIDDEN from owning firearms!) or firearms acquired illegally through smuggling or black market sources, gun crime with legally sold firearms constitutes a small fraction of the deaths... meaning lawful firearms owners are by in large... law abiding citizens... image that.

Alittle less than 94,000 people died from homocide with a firearm between 1999-2006, according to the CDC... Meanwhile firearms were employed in an est 2.0-2.5 million DEFENSIVE uses EACH year.. With somewhere around 280 MILLION firearms, that means it took somewhere around 3000 firearms 6 years to kill one person or 18000 firearms one year to kill one person... This compared to the 125 firearms it takes to save a life every year or 21 guns six years to save a life. The math just doesn't add up. Statistically speaking, it make more sense in the US to ban firearms because of over population than potential crime. And gun bans have yet to work in Britian and Austrialia, two countries which occupy ISLANDS and constitute the sole government of the land mass and they still have RISING crime rates... where as ours have fallen over the past two decades, largely attributed to increased freedom in the carrying of weapons and the lowest drops have been in states where concealed carry is legal and "shall issue"

Meanwhile, cities like Chicago and New York have not seen nearly the fall and, given investigations into the lack of reporting of crimes (search villagevoice.com "NYPD Tapes") on the part of police forces, its entirely possible they have not seen much of a drop at ALL.

The founders stated CLEARLY that the right to bear arms PRE-EXISTED government and could not be taken away. What part about that are you not understanding? What part about a human's right to preserve their own LIFE in the most effective means possible are you not getting?

"3) I am for the right to bear arms and for the right of anyone to have any kind of arms they choose. However, the NRA's lunacy, as well of that of their adepts is pretty easy to take apart, especially the idea that product liability suits should be illegal, one of their pet ideas. That is ridiculous, but then, the fanaticism over guns is based in primal instinct and not really in rationality."

The law bans the use of product liability laws as a venue to sue gun manufacturers for the USE of their weapons illegally. This is a good thing, otherwise, some entities with deep pockets might sue all the computer manufacturers because they sell a device which allows hacking, knowing that it could very well end up being used for that purpose. There is nothing in the ban that forbids the prosecution of a manufacturer for a defective product or one which is unusually unsafe... For instance, a tubular magazine rifle used at the turn of the century or so used ammunition with such sensitive primers than the simple act of LOADING could cause an explosion when chain of cartridges all chain detonated inside the magazine. Such a weapon would still expose its manufacturer to all the legal force of the product laws.

"4)Tim is right about them being shitty for defense. Anyone that's going to shoot you has you beat already, what good is a gun in your house if you aren't home when you're being robbed (as is the case 93% of the time), what item is much in demand with drug dealers (guns) which means a house with a gun in it is more likely to be robbed, not less."

The handgun is the best weapon for defense, giving the user a very small, managable device that is easy to manuever with and only requires on hand to use and discharges a low-velocity round. Its very presence deters attack approximately 90-93% of the time (the remaining 7% of criminal-citizen interactions mostly involve the discharge of a single shot, whether it is a warning/miss or hit, and a very very small fraction being an actual "shoot out" And when these shoot outs occur, you ever notice how rarely it happens in states where guns are more... let's say, common?

This is why more than 40 states have concealed carry laws... Besides, its why we teach AWARENESS.. someone who looks like they aren't hanging out for the scenery or wondering round eyeballing people, they are looking for trouble... You should never be caught off-guard and "suddenly" shot. Its why I don't go out and drink anymore, I don't go into the "bad" places where everyone knows crime happens. I keep my head on a swivel.

The handgun is in demand by the drug dealer for the same reason it is by law-abiding citizens. If drug dealers started demanding sharpened tooth picks, are we going to ban those too? If the handgun is so ineffective as a man stopper, why are the dealers using them? As I stated in response to Tim, a handgun is an effective defensive weapon. Its why the drug dealers use them... not to go killing people but mostly to protect themselves... and since it is responsible for most of the "thousands" each year, it must be working pretty well, all things considered. However, handguns actually only kill their target about 20% of the time... mostly due to poor shooting on the part of the thug or the flight after being hit once. But it stops the threat and that's all law-abiding citizens want... to stop the threat.. I don't want to kill people, even if they threaten me. I don't live in fear of them and only desire to stop their attack. Let the law enforcement prosecute them for attempted robbery when they catch them.

Guns in a house make them more likely to be robbed only if they know the guns are there... Don't tell anyone the guns are there, and your home would be less likely to be robbed, eh? Where I live, people don't rob houses with guns... too much chance someone will be home to put a hole in them. No study I have seen bears out your claim of owning a gun in the home makes robbery more likely... I can see its truth in states where there is no legal means to take it with you, ergo, you departing your domicile where you live alone opens the invitation... but then again, were I a thief, I'd be more interested in your flatscreen you just purchased and I watched you carry in the door than some cheap pistol you may or may not have (depending on whether or not you have been shooting your mouth off about the new gun you got... like an idiot); TVs are much easier to fence and leave fewer trails than a gun.

OK... and let the law also say you can't vote, you have no right to freedom of religion, free speech, congregation, freedom from search/seizure and the whole rest of the bill of rights...

And when I report every lib I know like you to the FBI for potential terrorism ties and you find yourself stripped of all your rights without cause or due process... you have only yourself to blaim.