1 You're wrong on this one. I live in DC where there is a hangun ban and I'm pretty sure there's no crime in this city.

2 I dunno, it's a touchy subject. In making the possession of handguns a crime, it would (presumably) make many law-abiding citizens turn in their guns. The result would be less guns available to be stolen that could then be used in crimes (which, as you mention, are often handguns obtained illegally). So, basically, less handguns in people's houses could mean less that could be stolen and less that could be used in crimes. In essence, it could reduce the number of black market guns out there. Sure, there are other ways to obtain guns, but this would remove some of them from the equation. And, frankly, how often do we hear about some citizen pulling out his handgun to stop a crime? It's pretty rare. Usually what happens is either the citizen's handgun is stolen in a burglary or some poor 4-year-old ends up shooting himself/herself. I know I'll sound unpopular (there's a switch), but I don't think this would be THAT bad a thing to happen. It has the potential to save lives. Besides, no one is saying don't own guns. They're just saying don't own handguns.

3 "And, frankly, how often do we hear about some citizen pulling out his handgun to stop a crime?" At times having the peace of mind you could protect yourself with a handgun and feeling more safe because of it is all it should take. And no, I don't own a gun and never have. I just don't believe in constricting liberties.

4 I'm with venom. stupid handguns. they're much harder to aim than rifles and shotguns ;-) today the Chicago Trib reports that homicides were down 25% in 2004 in Chicago. it would be interesting to compare the two cities and their handgun and gun laws.

5 Venom, gonna hafta rip you a new one here. The black market does not operate under the same constraints as the Free Market. I mean, drugs are illegal and no law abiding citizen has them in their house right? Has that stopped drugs? And just as many kids get hooked on drugs even though they're illegal. So your logic is 100% faulty.

6 Oh, and you don't hear about handguns stopping crimes because, well, the crime was stopped and there's nothing to report. That and even when there is a report, the media won't cover it. Finally, you're reading a comment by a person who has used a handgun in self defense. No shots fired, and I got away with my life.

7 Meh, the protection of liberties went out the window with the introduction of the Patriot Act (though it's funny that you don't read people here complaining about that). Anyhow, I'm just going based on what you wrote. If the majority of handguns used in a crime are obtained illegally (i.e. STOLEN handguns on the black market), would it not make sense (and, please, I'm no expert on this) that reducing the number of handguns from people's homes would reduce the number that would ultimately be stolen and used for those crimes? Hey, I'm all for people's rights and all. But the Second Ammendment sounds more geared towards the operating of militias, not for the sake of people who just happen to want to own a gun. I guess it, like many other things, is open to interpretation.

8 You have to remember it makes leftist loonies feel good to ban something. They should try to ban the use of crack, cocaine, PCP and other assorted narcotics that people get from dealers. OOPS wait they already have laws against it yet people still break that law on a daily basis. But we have to remind ourselves what is behind this, the insane ideal that punishing the law abiding citizens while gleefully rewarding the criminals will allow the leftist control freaks their ultimate dream. A government where the subjects consider them to be their mommies and daddies and from them comes protection(tm 1st clinton term inauguration.) They'll get it since the town is full of people who get drunk on their own words. And boy they won't like it either when gang bangers are the only people with guns.

9 Also, the people who say that you can't hunt with a handgun, they are missing the point. If you are hunting predators you need a sidearm (AKA HANDGUN) to protect yourself with at close quarters if you are set upon by the predator you are trying to collect as a trophy ends up hunting YOU! Or if you are set upon by a bull moose and/or anyother large animal.

10 Venom, please. You honestly believe that making guns illegal will stop violence & crime? Again, cocaine is illegal, but that hasn't stopped its use. Child pornography is illegal, but it still exists. Hell, Cuban cigars are illegal and I even have smoked them. The best deterrent against crime is more handguns in the law abiding citizens' hands, not less. And please cite the passages of the Patriot Act that have lowered your rights. I'm betting you've never even read the thing.

11 Sharp, You're comparing apples to oranges. Drugs are prevalent because they're easy to manufacture. Anyone with a basement can grow pot. Anyone with a garage can make meth. Hell, even cocaine is just a plant. Child porn, with the creation of the Internet, is much more prevalent. A gun, on the other hand, could not be built by 99% of the population out there, even if they had the materials to do so. Black market guns are prevalent because most of them were stolen from such law-abiding citizens. It's possible more handguns deter more crime, but do you really need a bigger supply available to criminals? Many will lock their guns up properly. Many will not. Is it worth it? You may think so, I may not. It's a difference of opinion. If citizens don't feel safe, maybe the answer is more police officers instead of letting vigilantes police themselves. And I don't really think it's a violation of the 2nd Ammendment. From an absolute literal sense, it might appear as such. But, considering when it was written, I doubt that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. And, you're betting wrong with regards to the Patriot Act. Sections 214-216, for example, specifically authorize the federal government to gather intelligence via wire-taps, Internet traffic, and other communication mediums from citizens and non-citizens alike, all without there ever being any evidence of guilt. Sounds like a trampling of one's rights. Section 206 specifically allows federal law enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance without any evidence of wrong-doing. All of this is done without warrants and without court orders. While I'm sure there are people out there who assume that such tactics would only be used against terrorists, it also gives carte blanche to said agencies to conduct such intelligence gatherings on anyone, including yourself. You may not feel worried about this, since I'm sure you've never done anything wrong. But where does it stop? Why should your actions be monitored if you're not doing anything wrong? And this is why it's a restriction of people's rights that are enshrined in the Constitution. Thanks for playing.

12 Try reading it again Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(2), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device within the jurisdiction of the court, if the court finds that the State law enforcement or investigative officer has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. Which part of has certified to the court do you think circumvents the warrant? As my father told me when he worked for the FDLE, all it allows is the officer to move the tap based on the person, and not the circuit. In the old days, all a criminal would do is change phone lines and they'd have to go through the entire warrant process. Now, onto the gun issue. You're correct in that most people cannot make guns. Most people cannot make meth, acid, nor extacy. That stuff is made in labs. You may think clandestine 'gun labs' sound silly, but when guns are scarce, you'd be surprised at how fast they'd pop up. It's the exact opposite reason I'm all for drug legalization - no more clandestine labs and better control. So, whine all you want. If you criminalize gun ownership, all you will end up doing is creating more criminals, not less. I will always own handguns regardless of what law says what.

13 Actually I have even a better idea. Why don't we ban video cameras and the internet? No one can build that stuff at home and then we'd stop a lot of child pornography! It's the same level of bullshit reasoning as banning handguns.

14 Okay, saying that everything is done without a court order was an exaggeration because warrants are used in some areas of the sections I cited. For example, section 214 allows the FBI to monitor and collect information as long as it gets a warrant from the secretive FISA court, informing them that it's meant for monitoring terrorist activity. Of course, no evidence of terrorist activity needs to be presented. But hey, you're right, a warrant is used. I guess it's all good since the "courts" are behind it, so it's all legit. I mean, I sure wouldn't feel my rights were trampled if such a warrant were issued to me, regardless of my innocence. There's that precious warrant which excuses everything. Oh, let's not forget section 215 either, which quite handily violates your 4th Amendment. This section allows the FBI to peruse personal information (bank accounts, medical records, library records, etc) without once needing probably cause that you're committing a crime, or even that these records are needed for an investigation. In fact, the exercising of 1st Amendment rights would be reason alone to investigate a person. Apparently free speech has its costs. Oh, and if you happen to be picked up based on section 215, don't bother trying to question its legality in court. It's pretty much impossible. So, yeah, I guess a person's rights are pretty much intact with this section, too, huh? Of course, there are other sections of the Patriot Act that don't require warrants. Section 217 (which isn't one of the ones I mentioned)doesn't require a court order for enforcement. In the past, the gathering of electronic communication required a court order, but not anymore. All an ISP has to do is tell the FBI that you're "trespassing" and the FBI can monitor your activity without telling you. No warrant? No problem! Among the biggest problems of the Patriot Act are the fact that there are no safeguards in place to prevent abuse of the Act. Sure, we're all on board with preventing terrorism, so we'll sign on the dotted line and swallow any kind of Act that's meant to do this. Hey, why don't we give it a snazzy name (like the Patriot Act) so we feel compelled to follow it. I mean, only a person who isn't a patriot to his country wouldn't want to, right? Do you honestly feel comfortable knowing the government has the means and ability (and now, the laws) to gather data on yourself despite the fact you've done nothing wrong? How do you justify this? Sure, the laws are designed for terrorism. But without those safeguards to prevent abuse, how do you ensure that that's ALL this Act is used for? The original point in all of this was with respect to the restrictions of one's rights. I mentioned the Patriot Act as an example, and I think I've cited a few examples which justify my concern. I'm not alone in this, in that many privacy-rights advocates out there also see this Act as being a huge detriment for the average citizen's rights. As for the guns/drugs issue, acid, meth, pot, ecstasy are relatively MUCH easier to manufacture than a gun. Legal or not. How-to books on how to make such drugs are pretty commonplace, not to mention the Internet itself is a source of sources. Making a gun requires considerably more know-how than knowing when to mix two chemicals together and letting it dry. Making drugs requires basic chemistry and/or horticulture skills. If you're going to make a "clandestine gun lab," you better have engineering skills, metal-working skills, chemistry skills, physics knowledge, and hell of a lot of time. They would not be popping up all over the place as you allude to. Even if people started publishing how to make guns, the average person would not be able to do it because they don't possess those skills I listed.

15 So you're perfectly ok with banning the internet and video cameras as they are hard to build at home and would cut down on child pornography right? Same logic. And as far as the warrant issue, give me a break. A police officer can arrest you on the spot because he THINKS you've commited a crime. There are a billion BS excuses he can come up with to protect his ass. This kind of stuff has been around for years and with the level of oversight we have on our government (i.e. zero) these abuses will continue to happen. You're all for taking away people's rights to own a gun out of the fear for other's safety and crime. Why are you so against taking away privacy which is NOT protected in the constitution when it can be used for good too? Or, are you saying giving the government the power to remove firearms wouldn't be abused?

16 "So you're perfectly ok with banning the internet and video cameras as they are hard to build at home and would cut down on child pornography right? Same logic." I don't see how you make this conclusion, considering I didn't say a word on it. How can I be "perfectly ok" with something if I didn't even comment on it? First, I wasn't drawing a correlation between the degree of difficulty in constructing something, it's prevalence, and whether either of those factors, combined with any illegal activity said item would be used for, would constitute a "banable" product. Second, you're comparing apples to oranges, and attempting to come out on top using a loaded topic like child porn. Please. Any product we use in day-to-day lives could be used for illegal activity. The fertilizer I put on my lawn could be used for making a bomb. Do I think fertilizer should be banned? No. My car could be used for a hit-and-run act. Do I think cars, which are pretty difficult to make, should be banned? No. I could take my shirt and strangle someone with it. Do I think shirts should be banned? No. Do I think the Internet should be banned because some people use their computers for child porn? No. Bringing a repugnant topic like child porn into a debate, in an attempt to win an argument, is pretty low. I didn't address your comment because of that. Is that your ace card or something when debating? "A police officer can arrest you on the spot because he THINKS you've commited a crime. There are a billion BS excuses he can come up with to protect his ass." In theory that might be true, but I know from talking to a number of police officers that that's pretty unlikely if they don't have evidence to back it up. I mean, what kind of officer out there is going to be dumb enough to arrest a person with no evidence, only to be faced with a wrongful arrest suit? Or, possibly, lose their job. The Patriot Act basically does away with the need for evidence. And, the points I was making was more towards how an increasing number of our day-to-day activities now fall under these new powers. You don't seem bothered by this. Millions of others are. "You're all for taking away people's rights to own a gun out of the fear for other's safety and crime." Ah, and we come back to the old 2nd Amendment. As I stated earlier, it's open to interpretation. Gun lovers like yourself take the "right to bear arms" as something literal. I see at as something outdated and out of context from when it was originally written. Frankly, I see it as an outdated right. But that's my opinion. You're entitled to yours. "Why are you so against taking away privacy which is NOT protected in the constitution when it can be used for good too?" I'm all for the prevention against terrorism. As I stated before, I think more safeguards are needed with respect to the Patriot Act because there are far too many opportunities for abuse. Can it be used for good? Absolutely. Why not ensure that that's ALL it's used for. We're not all perfect people, and that includes those who enforce the Patriot Act. Why keep dangerours loopholes open? I mean, I don't know about you, but I'm not a Communist. I don't want to be fearful of some kind of police state mentality with respect to how our society operates on a day-to-day basis. Sure, it sounds Orwellian. But such indiscriminate search, seizure, and detention rules existed not too long behind the Iron Curtain. I don't need to see them over here. Further, how is this privacy not protected, when sections of the Patriot Act violate 1st and 4th Amendment rights? These rights are enshrined in the Constitution, so it sounds to me like they're protected. "Or, are you saying giving the government the power to remove firearms wouldn't be abused?" Hard to say. If they left loopholes as big as in the Patriot Act, then it could possibly be abused. If that were the case, then yes, it should be more closely looked at. Since they haven't really acted on this yet, I couldn't really say either way. The Patriot Act, however, is in full effect and its implications are pretty evident.

17 No, the 2nd admendment is not "open to interpretation" any more than the 1st is. Since you're so far off base with that, there's no point in further discussion. Fear the Patriot Act dude, they're listening to your house right now. And the company I work for watches every single purchase you make, and the telephone company logs every call, your ISP every packet, and the bank every transaction. And when the mean old government comes to your house, you can fend them off with a broom, ok?

18 "No, the 2nd admendment is not "open to interpretation" any more than the 1st is. Since you're so far off base with that, there's no point in further discussion." I guess that's why there's so much debate in the country as to what the Founding Fathers meant by it. Trust me, it's you who's pretty far off base about it, especially if you think it's that cut and dry. But since, as a gun lover, you'll never be able to realize it, I guess there is really nothing else to discuss about it. You love your guns, and you'll never be open-minded to anything else. "Fear the Patriot Act dude, they're listening to your house right now. And the company I work for watches every single purchase you make, and the telephone company logs every call, your ISP every packet, and the bank every transaction." I fear anything that has the potential to restrict my rights. As I said, I'm all for the Patriot Act - just close those loopholes. Those things you're joking about are actually possible with the Act, though it would be law enforcement agencies, not the individual companies themselves. Joke all you want, but I'd prefer my rights intact (the 2nd Amendment I think it pretty outdated). But then again, you're only concerned with that 2nd Amendment. You kick and scream at what you see as an affront to your 2nd Amendment (or your interpretation thereof), but don't seem to mind at any of the other constrictions applied on other Amendments. Which makes me think you're only concerned with actions that "hurt" you, not your fellow citizens or your society. Which sounds pretty selfish to me.

19 I'm not much of a constitution Amendment scholar but I do know where the handguns in my part of the country come from. They are not stolen from households. They are smuggled in from Italy, and the former soviet bloc countries. Underworld dealers do not sell guns stolen from individuals. They can be easily traced resulting in another charge. Dealers selling to gangs etc: often have hundreds to choose from. Automatic guns are not found in private dwellings. So forget that entire argument. If the price of illegal handguns gets any higher people will begin manufacturing them in their garages. A machinist can easily mass produce many pistols. Think about Pakistan for example. They turn out guns with the simplist equipment. Banning handguns will increase their value with predicted results. Handguns are a safety net for many. I know I sleep near mine and have bigger surprises if I ever need them.

20 I'm new here. Forgive me if I don't know the rules. Is calling Vemon a freakin' whack-job permitted here? No, Venom, the second amendment is not primarily about the operation of militias. The subject of the sentence is "the right of the people". There are people who believe it to be a basic right of the individual person to defend their own lives. There are also those who understand the responsibility individual members of a collective have in the keeping of the peace and ensuring the survival of same collective. The reference to "[a] well-regulated militia" is a validation of the need for the individual to take part in the collective defence. The reference to "the people" refers to the people, the individual member of society. The reference to "the right" refers to an unalienable right endowed to each by their respective creator. The statistics of stolen handguns versus how many are made with a lathe in someone's basement is moot. That entire argument is irrelevent. Not a city, a state, nor the three branches of the federal government combined have the capacity to remove that basic right to self-defense, by any means necessary, that each individual possesses merely by the fact that they exist. The second amendment was put in place to ensure that right, a granted, individual right, would not be infringed. There is no qualification of WHO may or may not infringe the right. It is not a restriction on Congress. It is not a restriction on the executive branch, or on some guy named Hank in the backwoods of Louisiana. It's an absolute - "shall not be infringed." To *BE* a member of the Union, California and her cities, even charter cities like San Francisco, are all bound by the Constitution, amendments and all, including the absolute "shall not be infringed." Whether you or San Francisco or all of the federal government thing it's not appropriate for someone to use a handgun to defend themselves, their spouses and their children from gang rapists, murderers, kidnappers, terrorists, and even a tyrannical government, doesn't change the FACT that they have the right to do so. You and your whack-job gun-grabbing dillweeds simply aren't allowed by the Constitution to pass laws that force people to submit to these kinds of horrific acts. And yet people like you keep pushing for it. I'll never understand WHY you [people] want to empower violent criminals and tyrannical governments. It always results in innocent death and misery. Maybe that's just what you're into.

21 Hahaha, what a bunch of ill-informed nonsense. Thanks for making my day, Laszlo, with your grade 6 interpretation of Constitutional affairs. The 2nd Amendment states the following: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Please tell me how the 2nd Amendment is about the people, when it specifically talks about the need for militias. Now, I know that you like to focus only on one aspect of this "right," but the fact of the matter is that you can't see the forest for the trees. This Amendment was written with respect of the individual states' right to keep militias to defend themselves. You know, that's why it SAYS "militia" in the Amendment. Can you say "militia?" I knew you could. The "people" that "keep and bear arms" are those that are a PART of said militia. Now, given that this was written at a forming moment in the birth of the USA, I could see the need for individual states' to have militias. But this is modern times, and the need for militias, given the military prowess of the mighty USA, is pretty much a distant memory. It's idiots like yourself who assume that this 2nd Amendment somehow applies to yourself as an individual, as opposed to militia members. Seriously, you can see my fear out of complete morons like yourself owning and operating firearms, can't you? "The statistics of stolen handguns versus how many are made with a lathe in someone's basement is moot." Not really, but given your ability to miss the point, I'm not surprised you don't understand. That being said, I'm not going to sit here and spin my wheels in the attempt to educate you. Yes, people have a right to self-defense. However, why does this have to be done with a handgun? You make this assumption that I'm out to grab everyone's guns (another "fact" you got wrong), while I only stated that I think handguns have the potential to make society more dangerous. Defend your property with a rifle. Defend it with a crossbow. Defend it with a plastic snowman. I don't give a shit. But the last thing I need is some idiot like yourself owning a handgun, not locking it properly, having it stolen, and then have it being used on other people. Handguns are easily concealable and easy to transport around. Rifles, not so easy. Get it? "To *BE* a member of the Union, California and her cities, even charter cities like San Francisco, are all bound by the Constitution, amendments and all, including the absolute "shall not be infringed."" Even by your (misguided) interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I don't see how banning handguns are infringing on someone's right to bear arms. You can still own a rifle. That's a firearm. You can still own a sword. That's a weapon. Should people be allowed to own tanks? That's a weapon that would qualify under your interpretation. Yet people don't seem to care that the restriction of owning an operating, armed tank is in place around the country. Maybe some people need tanks to defend themselves. Are their rights being "infringed?" C'mon, your argument is as tired as the Amendment its trying to explain. Restricting the use of handguns to police officers and other law enforcement agencies does not take away your right to defend yourself. Of course, you miss the point, but this is no big surprise. "You and your whack-job gun-grabbing dillweeds simply aren't allowed by the Constitution to pass laws that force people to submit to these kinds of horrific acts." Hahahaha, this comment made me laugh my ass off! "Horrific acts!" Hahaha, fuck, are you for real? "And yet people like you keep pushing for it. I'll never understand WHY you [people] want to empower violent criminals and tyrannical governments." As puzzling as your previous comment was, this was the beauty of your completely bizarre post. Please tell me where I've ever said I want to empower violent criminals and tyrannical governments. I'm in favor of increasing the number of police officers on the streets. So, how does this make me want to "empower criminals?" Oh, I get it. You think that by taking away your handgun, I'm empowering criminals. Hmm...well, considering I think people ought to be able to hold onto their rifles (non-automatic, of course), I don't see how this makes me empowering of criminals. Of course, we could turn American society into Iraqi society where everyone and their dog owns a gun. Or Lebanon. Or some other third-world country. I mean, they're always so safe with so many guns out there. Gimme a break. And tyrannical governments? Please. Stop talking out of your ass. You're new here. So learn a thing or two before looking like a complete fool.

22 I thought militias were composed of people who bring their own weapons. During the revolutionary war, we shall use the South Carolina militia for example, when called up they brought their own horse and rifle. The state/colony then supplied feed and ammunition. Of course, this was at the time they wrote the constitution so it must have meant something different from what was happening there and then.

23 I think you're interpretation is correct, greyrooster, and the point I was trying to make. People in militias obviously need guns to make up those militias. People not in militias, according to the 2nd Amendment, aren't covered.

24 Venom, you're one of those people who speaks a language that uses all the same words as English, but where all the words mean something different. It's basic English. I am stunned that you cannot understand it. What country do you people come from where this other language is spoken? We really need to carpet nuke it now.

25 Laszlo, you're one of those people who, when presented with evidence pointing to the contrary to what you're saying, chooses to ignore it. I presented valid proof to support my argument on why restricting handgun ownership to law enforcement personnel isn't an "infringement" on your "right to bear arms," as well as outlining *specifically* what the 2nd Amendment refers to. Apparently, you can only deal with it by ignoring it (which is a hallmark trait of a person in a losing debate). But what do I expect from a total clueless neophyte like yourself.

26 If I live an hour away from the nearest police station, and two bikers kick in my door, what am I supposed to do? Serve them tea while we wait for the police? People like venom need to be left in a dark alley in D.C. and then asked if they would like to be left with a can of pepperspray or a .45. Also, if the founding fathers only wanted certain groups to be able to own weapons then they would have also created gun laws, which they didn't. Venom if you don't like guns just say so, don't post these childish and poorly researched arguments that we have seen a million times. At least visit some of the major pro-gun sites so you can see how little you know about guns, and then perhaps you will be able to create some well founded arguments.

27 Someone either forgot his history or never understood it---the purpose of the Second Amendment was to give them the power to overthrow the government should it become oppressive like it was back in Merry Old England

28 Venom (sounds tough), Let me educate you on something...straight from the real world...you see...I have this friend (wink, wink) who is a police officer, who knows a few things that you don't. For one, simply, there are enough handguns in the trunks of street dealer's cars NOW to keep criminals armed for decades after a possible ban on handguns . See I have a freind (wink, wink) who studies Japanese swords and know friends who can recreate a very sharp Japanese sword in their garage (shaping and forging metal with great ease) on homemade machinery. Having this friend who is a police officer (wink, wink) I also know that the inside of most operational semi-automatic weapons are very simple and can be replicated very easily with simple homemade machines, not to mention little homemade machines that can cast gun molds...actually very easy to construct, like those swords, when one sets his mind to it. When making something illegal, smart people (and there are many smart street level crooks...TRUST ME) realize and manifest ways of building these illegal things with ease....even guns. So point 2, In fact, one can construct a gun with wood, a rubberband, a spring and a ball point pen. Oh yeh, not to mention those great homemade shotgun round pipe guns that can be made by street smart middle school kids, within about 45 minutes....necessity breeds ingenuity. Oh and your following quotes are absolutley uneducated and quite arrogant in their uneducated assumptions. By these as well as your equally uneducated quotes on the Patriot Act, I must assume that you have no TRUE friends or family in law enforcement, the military or the "in the know" government.: "If you're going to make a "clandestine gun lab," you better have engineering skills, metal-working skills, chemistry skills, physics knowledge, and hell of a lot of time. They would not be popping up all over the place as you allude to. Even if people started publishing how to make guns, the average person would not be able to do it because they don't possess those skills I listed." I dunno, it's a touchy subject. In making the possession of handguns a crime, it would (presumably) make many law-abiding citizens turn in their guns. The result would be less guns available to be stolen that could then be used in crimes (which, as you mention, are often handguns obtained illegally). So, basically, less handguns in people's houses could mean less that could be stolen and less that could be used in crimes. In essence, it could reduce the number of black market guns out there. ABSOLUTELY WRONG. My friend who is the police officer is also a college educated fellow who majored in politics and government. So although I appreciate the fact that you sound like a very well educated individual, I can't help but point out that one can not truly derive the absolute interpretation of the 2nd ammendment by the quotes that you have so readily posted. In fact interpretation is just that...non-absolute. If one were to look at your posted quote of the 2nd Amend. literally (meaning in way as to objectively translate what is written...aka unbiased). "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", one cannot pretend to objectively believe that that sentence alone is not directed at 2 points. 1= The necessity of a militia during certain times 2= That that militia is formed from arms bearing individuals. You have seemed to overlook 2 things 1) You have unconvincingly put a cart before the horse. Was the militia to be formed and then guns were granted to those members or was the militia formed by those bearing arms and the will to fight? I think it is clear...read your history books, or better yet, talk to your grandfather about his relatives who lived during that period. People our grandparents age seem to have listened better and sought to truly be in the know. There must be armed individuals before a militia is formed from armed individuals. 2) If you know your history, the forming of militias to defend a free State was put in place to protect the individual "citizens" from an oppressive regime, therefore granting individuals the right to bear arms in this case. Yes, I do believe that there are crazy zealots who believe that our country is an oppressive one and corral themselves in compounds and argue against paying taxes, but a majority of gun bearing citizens are law abiding normal people. And to actually predict that our government will never become oppressive is just that , a prediction. More than likely it will not and militias may not have to be formed, but God forbid in the meantime someone breaks into the home of an unarmed person abducts their child or we are possibilty invaded by another country (just possibilities...probably with similar odds). I am not sure if you have children or not, but I do believe if you did you would kill anyone that would attempt to abduct them. And even though I see your point about handguns versus long guns... think about accesibility and I can tell you from personal experience, nothing is more accessible than a handgun, in a home, as well as in a state that allows for the law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon. Lastly, quite a few of your postings, including the ones below, use the words "I" and "think", not necessarily together, but often. I ask you to continue to think, but also challenge you to educate yourself enough to find yourself less in the "I think" camp and more in the "I know" camp. Especially before trying to preach to others. Knowledge is very dangerous if misused. The "I know" camp is usually one that finds itself full of members who contribute with either knowledge from actual life experience combined with education or those who are privy to actual/factual information that the masses are not. While I believe you may be quite booksmart I also encourage you to take the time to take your nose out of books and your eyes off of the media and turn your energies towards putting yourself in a position to "know". The following quotes of yours should help you understand your present postion of one who "thinks and guesses": "Ah, and we come back to the old 2nd Amendment. As I stated earlier, it's open to interpretation. Gun lovers like yourself take the "right to bear arms" as something literal. I see at as something outdated and out of context from when it was originally written. Frankly, I see it as an outdated right. But that's my opinion. You're entitled to yours." "And I don't really think it's a violation of the 2nd Ammendment. From an absolute literal sense, it might appear as such. But, considering when it was written, I doubt that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind." There were more but some of the text has paste/cut issues. And while I do know that Laszlo started the name calling, therefore possibly confirming his foolishness, you then left no one guessing as to your own foolishness once you engaged in the name calling, therefore reducing your credibilty to rubble. Venom, I am not trying to slam you I am just trying to educate you and get you thinking about how to get the real hard facts, not just opinions and guesses that are only based on magazine/newspaper/newer government texbooks. The more people who actually learn to do this, the better off for society as a whole. Be an assett (giver) to society, not just another liabilty (taker). Sincereley, CB

29 Venom, One more response to actually put the points of my first message into a well fitting conclusion: Being that there are and will always be enough handguns in the hands of criminal, with or without the bans, why would we take those out of the hands of law abiding citizens who are also responsible for the country that we live in. Remember, police officers are few and criminals are many. The reason that the police world in general started their community oriented police programs so long ago is that it was realized, due to realistic budget measures and the fact that police officers cannot be there when all crimes are committed, that as a government of the people, the people needed to be responsible in helping to keep order as well. Order within the walls of their homes through love, discipline and protection, and responsibilty in the public streets through awareness and working with police (reps of the government) on prevention methods. Any normal law abiding citizen can make themselves qualified to protect themselves and their homes (family)through the use of protective measures such as hnadguns. For if someone broke into your home with handgun, you would not want to use a sword to defend your family...you would lose. As is said "Never bring a knife to a gunfight". And for those who know that you usually cannot chamber a long gun round before a crook with a handgun gets off the first shot, not having an accessible handgun during stressful moment like this can equal death for you and your loved ones. Therefore there is no room for idealist interpretation of the Constitution amidst the actual world we live in by those who use words like "I think" and "I believe". I challenge you to find words such as these in the original Constitutional Amendments. Our forefather seemed to be those of conviction, not to mention some of the most brilliant men of which many prevailed from extreme hardship...a common theme...education and real world experience...as is so rare today amongst many of our Constitutional interpretors and absolutely necessary for true relativity. Equally there is little to no room for those with no life experience and only education and great jobs on their resumes to make those interpretations. Tell a father in DC that his son couldn't have saved his own life if he had a handgun in the house when a crook broke into his house and shot him as he surprised the crook in the act of burglarizing his home, and I would call you a bald faced liar. Also let us not forget that the Patriot Act is there to protect us from a world that Americans have not had to truly experience since WW2. The time of the world powers with world domination on their minds. And if you have not educated yourself to the fact that there is a large group of people today who believe that it is their life mission (religion) to rid the world of all but themselves than you have truly been outsmarted by the rants of the media and your own ignorance. Is the Patriot Act perfect...no...it is human created and will need honing and tuning, but if you believe that the government is going to use it to peek into the home of the average law abiding citizen to bust you if you are emailing someone about smoking pot, than your worldview is truly narrow, selfish, quite egotistical and unbelieavably absurd. The government could care less and truly does not have the time and manpower to even think of this. But to be able to save time on obtaining a warrant to investigate a possible terrorist is the difference between life and death. To think otherwise is just as paranoid as one who actually believes that the airlines slows down flights in order to piss off travelers. The world does not evolve around you, folks. Therefore, once again, work on becoming assets (givers) to this world and not liabilities (takers). And, if you don't get this than God help us all. CB