Now I know what it feels like to be a Microsoft Employee
-
Where do you get your statistics from? Take for instance these statistics from Massachusettes between 1994 and 1996 http://www.state.ma.us/dph/bhsre/wrisp/wriss01.htm#fig1w.gif Of all violent injuries, stabbing injuries accounted for 3x as many as gunshot injuries. Gunshot related deaths account for 2x as many deaths as Stabbing deaths, but that's because gunshot wounds tend to be more fatal than stabbing wounds. This report: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/00036477.htm says that violent stabbing injuries outnumber violent gun related injuries by 2:1 (15 per 100,000 for gunshot, and 30 per 100,000 for stabbing). While yes, technically guns account for more deaths than screwdrivers or icepicks, it's not for lack of trying, or a lack of courage when holding a sharp instrument vs a gun.
Thank you for proving *my* point - that if people desire to harm me, they will have more likelyhood of success in a country that enshrines their right to have a gun with which to do it. I guess if you have lots more stabbing deaths than us as well, it probably goes deeper, and points, as you have suggested, to cultural differences. All I can say is that if this is the case, I'm glad I live in a country where people are less disposed to harming one another, regardless of the weapon of choice. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
Hmmm - let me figure out how many ways a person can be killed without a firearm. A while ago there was a website that posted a webcam of a pistol (fully loaded) lying on a table. There was a clock that was timing how long it take that gun to jump up from the table and shoot somebody. The fact is that a firearm is a hunk of metal. It takes intent and human action to use that hunk of metal to cause bodily harm to another person. If you were being attacked with a machete, icepick, pipe, piece of wood, screwdriver, etc. (pick your weapon of choice) and I used a firearm to defend you and defeat your attacker, what would your reaction be? Phil Boyd MCP "I took the road less traveled..."
There are many aspects of UK and US culture that are in agreement , but of those where we differ is gun ownership . I do not think that Americans can concieve of a culture that is virtually gun free, and therefore they do not seem to appreciate what that means . It is true that guns need people in order to kill , but when they do , they do so very efficiently. Just look at the seemingly endless scenes from schools accross the USA , when is it going to stop ? I have no problem with blasting the heck out of furry animals , especially if you then eat them , but why should a member of a civilised society feel the need to walk around armed ? Be it with a knife , club or gun ? The NRA seems to wrap it all up in the constitution , always glossing over that the right to bear arms was for the express purpose of raising a militia . You do not need the right to carry guns day to day in order to be in a position to partake in a militia . Rather than use arguments about self-protection , why not move towards a society where self-protection is not an issue at the front of everyones mind ?:confused:
-
There are many aspects of UK and US culture that are in agreement , but of those where we differ is gun ownership . I do not think that Americans can concieve of a culture that is virtually gun free, and therefore they do not seem to appreciate what that means . It is true that guns need people in order to kill , but when they do , they do so very efficiently. Just look at the seemingly endless scenes from schools accross the USA , when is it going to stop ? I have no problem with blasting the heck out of furry animals , especially if you then eat them , but why should a member of a civilised society feel the need to walk around armed ? Be it with a knife , club or gun ? The NRA seems to wrap it all up in the constitution , always glossing over that the right to bear arms was for the express purpose of raising a militia . You do not need the right to carry guns day to day in order to be in a position to partake in a militia . Rather than use arguments about self-protection , why not move towards a society where self-protection is not an issue at the front of everyones mind ?:confused:
One of the prime responsibilities of being a US citizen (one which most Americans have forgotten) is the responsibility of owning a gun. Americans should own guns for several reasons (and i own a nice burglar-killer), but the prime reason isn't just to take up arms as part of a militia, but also the final step of reform. Chariman Mao said that power comes from the barrel of a gun. When you are gunless you are powerless, powerless against the encroachment of the police state. Here in the states we now use webcams to issue speeding tickets. The omnipresence of technology will seek, if not checked, to regiment society against the creative, disruptive, dissenting forces of change. Every day, the civil liberties that the US was founded upon are chiseled away by Religious DoGooder dumb*ucks that want to force others to live their way. The gun will be the final check to their meddling.
-
I got that aspect of your pint, I was just amazed that anyone would revel in the thought that they are surrounded by people who are armed. I guess that just proves your point again - some people like to be safe, some find a false sense of safety in the machismo that comes from 'packing heat'. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
The problem with school shootings goes so much deeper than just free access to guns. We, USA, have always had access to guns, so why now is it a problem? I do not have a solution, but taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the answer. Think about it, if the US decided tomorrow guns are banned, nobody can buy them, sell them, possess them, or think about them, criminals will still have them. If I was starting a country today, that might be one of the things I would try to stop. But in a country that was founded defending itself from its government, the right to bear arms is not going away. Granted, a 12 year old with a screwdriver isn't going to kill too many people, like the same kid with a gun. But this is the cost of freedom. I personally do not carry a gun, but do not have a problem with it. I live in Texas where a few years ago the legislature passed a bill where it would be legal to carry a concealed handgun if you have a license. Crimes with a gun have actually gone down. :eek: Wayne
-
"More technology is developed here than any other country in the world." Not only more technology is developed in your country, more pollution is also produced too. But Mr. President has rejected world pleas to do something about it. Are you sure he has stopped taking drugs? Coz in last 2 months he has taken decisions that only irked the world! Ammar
But Mr. President has rejected world pleas to do something about it. What did the prior president do about it? President Bush is a member of the Republican party, while the environmentalists are almost always in the opposite party, the Democrats. No matter what he does he is not going to make this group happy. Throwing money around to other countries, like the prior president did, is not a solution. Are you sure he has stopped taking drugs? Coz in last 2 months he has taken decisions that only irked the world! Maybe, just maybe, it is irking the world because there is finally a president that means what he says, and does exactly what he says he will do. And it scares the hell out of the countries that are receiving the funds. Wayne
-
One of the prime responsibilities of being a US citizen (one which most Americans have forgotten) is the responsibility of owning a gun. Americans should own guns for several reasons (and i own a nice burglar-killer), but the prime reason isn't just to take up arms as part of a militia, but also the final step of reform. Chariman Mao said that power comes from the barrel of a gun. When you are gunless you are powerless, powerless against the encroachment of the police state. Here in the states we now use webcams to issue speeding tickets. The omnipresence of technology will seek, if not checked, to regiment society against the creative, disruptive, dissenting forces of change. Every day, the civil liberties that the US was founded upon are chiseled away by Religious DoGooder dumb*ucks that want to force others to live their way. The gun will be the final check to their meddling.
I am a US Citizen, and I agree with the your stance on right to bear arms, but WOW... Religious DoGooder ... I take offense at your statement, not because of your views, but the obnoxious and senseless name calling. Why do it? We all have the same concerns about our freedoms being snatched away. So it seems, we should simply be aware, get involved with organizations that support our views, vote, and (ehrm) be nice. Obnoxious behavior never yields the result we want anyway. Have you every won a point in debat with screams and name calling? IMHO we may differ on many things, but we can still be adults and discuss things in way that yields results of understanding instead of isolation. Scott! Put the big rocks in the glass jar first!
-
Hmmm - let me figure out how many ways a person can be killed without a firearm. A while ago there was a website that posted a webcam of a pistol (fully loaded) lying on a table. There was a clock that was timing how long it take that gun to jump up from the table and shoot somebody. The fact is that a firearm is a hunk of metal. It takes intent and human action to use that hunk of metal to cause bodily harm to another person. If you were being attacked with a machete, icepick, pipe, piece of wood, screwdriver, etc. (pick your weapon of choice) and I used a firearm to defend you and defeat your attacker, what would your reaction be? Phil Boyd MCP "I took the road less traveled..."
You are missing the point. To kill someone with a screwdriver, blunt waepon, etc, you need to be next to them. To kill someone with a gun, you can be quite some distance away. "The bravery of being out of range", as Roger Waters puts it. Its also trivially easy to pull a trigger, it isn't the same as driving a dagger into someone. I agree with Christian. I nearly laughed when I read what Eric had written. I have a lot of colleagues in Concord, Mass. They tell me its illegal for them to carry firearms, and that if they did so, they'd be arrested for it. Stephen Kellett
-
I am a US Citizen, and I agree with the your stance on right to bear arms, but WOW... Religious DoGooder ... I take offense at your statement, not because of your views, but the obnoxious and senseless name calling. Why do it? We all have the same concerns about our freedoms being snatched away. So it seems, we should simply be aware, get involved with organizations that support our views, vote, and (ehrm) be nice. Obnoxious behavior never yields the result we want anyway. Have you every won a point in debat with screams and name calling? IMHO we may differ on many things, but we can still be adults and discuss things in way that yields results of understanding instead of isolation. Scott! Put the big rocks in the glass jar first!
:-O you are right, scott. i suppose that my comment was a bit overly vehement. but, if you have grown up in the buckle of the bible belt, then you probably know where i am coming from. the religious dogooders i speak of are not the truly pious followers of the golden rule, but the jerry falwell, moral majority, ralph reed, jim bakkers of the country who leech their living off of poor saps so they can pay for their un-american, anti-christian agendas. (if you are one of these, however, then i retract my apology :mad: )
-
The problem with school shootings goes so much deeper than just free access to guns. We, USA, have always had access to guns, so why now is it a problem? I do not have a solution, but taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the answer. Think about it, if the US decided tomorrow guns are banned, nobody can buy them, sell them, possess them, or think about them, criminals will still have them. If I was starting a country today, that might be one of the things I would try to stop. But in a country that was founded defending itself from its government, the right to bear arms is not going away. Granted, a 12 year old with a screwdriver isn't going to kill too many people, like the same kid with a gun. But this is the cost of freedom. I personally do not carry a gun, but do not have a problem with it. I live in Texas where a few years ago the legislature passed a bill where it would be legal to carry a concealed handgun if you have a license. Crimes with a gun have actually gone down. :eek: Wayne
Sorry Wayne , I really cannot get my head around people carrying guns for protection in a civilised society . It seems a contradiction in terms . Society in the UK has its own problems , we don't have a panacea . You got any answers ? Its your problem after all . From this side you seem to be on the way to ostracising public smoking because of the health risks , yet appear to be complacent in the face of , what appears to be , a terrible blight on your society.
-
:-O you are right, scott. i suppose that my comment was a bit overly vehement. but, if you have grown up in the buckle of the bible belt, then you probably know where i am coming from. the religious dogooders i speak of are not the truly pious followers of the golden rule, but the jerry falwell, moral majority, ralph reed, jim bakkers of the country who leech their living off of poor saps so they can pay for their un-american, anti-christian agendas. (if you are one of these, however, then i retract my apology :mad: )
I am not one of them... it think(I do not support, or defend their, at times, extremely innappropriate tactics), I'm little iffy on the "moral majority" part... because I don't know what you mean there, I would like to call myself a moral person. Also, why do you use the terms un-american, anti-christian agendas? Scott! Put the big rocks in the glass jar first!
-
One of the prime responsibilities of being a US citizen (one which most Americans have forgotten) is the responsibility of owning a gun. Americans should own guns for several reasons (and i own a nice burglar-killer), but the prime reason isn't just to take up arms as part of a militia, but also the final step of reform. Chariman Mao said that power comes from the barrel of a gun. When you are gunless you are powerless, powerless against the encroachment of the police state. Here in the states we now use webcams to issue speeding tickets. The omnipresence of technology will seek, if not checked, to regiment society against the creative, disruptive, dissenting forces of change. Every day, the civil liberties that the US was founded upon are chiseled away by Religious DoGooder dumb*ucks that want to force others to live their way. The gun will be the final check to their meddling.
There must be more reasonable arguments in favour of owning a gun than not liking speeding tickets .;) Go on , give me a convincing argument . You simply are not going to use force to overthrow the Government , if all you have is personal weapons. I hate to point this out but you are up against the only military superpower in the world. So if you are to win , you will have to get the military on your side , in which case , why bother with a few piffling little sidearms when the big boys have a few thousand tanks to use ?The argument about a militia comes from a different age , an age when force was a more reasonable way to settle differences . You needed the militia in the early days because it was far from certain if there would be an attempt to retake the colonies , then you had a justifiable threat to gaurd against , but this threatening the government is not really a starter when you think it through. You have an excellent written constitution , something we do not have , but it was designed to be flexible , as is ours . To hang onto the arms bit seems illogical from that point of view. But I accept , I am not American , I therefore cannot understand all the nuances of American culture , so please , tell me why you should want to carry a gun if you are , lets say , going out for a drink?
-
I think the problem is that Americans have this image that they feel superior than every other country. This "god" like complex gives them a feeling that they can run around and do whatever they like without worries. When someone threatens or goes against what they say or believe they try to flex their muscle to get what they want. It's only natural that USA is dis-liked and their actions are examined more closely. It's the only way to keep the top dog in check :)
>> I think the problem is that Americans have this image that they feel superior than every other country. << I think the problem is that many people in other countries think that all "Americans have this image that they feel superior than every other country". I for one don't feel implicitly 'superior'- as I'm sure most thoughtful Americans don't. America has quite alot to learn from other countries - on matters from foreign policy all the way down to public school systems. However, America has also done quite a bit of good for the world as a whole, especially in the last century or so, and has taught the rest of the world some things. So it's not arrogant for Americans to have alot of pride in their country and its accomplishments. That doesn't mean that Americans think other people shouldn't have pride in their country, or its accomplishments; or more generally that we are somehow 'superior' to other countries. >> When someone threatens or goes against what they say or believe they try to flex their muscle to get what they want. << ... Sounds like foreign policy to me. America doesn't exactly have a monopoly on foreign policies like this. I _SERIOUSLY_ doubt the US is the only country in the world today playing James Bond (hmm... where was he from? :) ) - this is of course in reference to the recent China situation. >> It's only natural that USA is dis-liked and their actions are examined more closely. << Yeah - the top-dog (or whoever is considered top-dog) is always closest to the microscope lens. Sort of a global peer-review process I guess. The bigger you are, the more other people worry about your influence over them, and the more they'll watch out defensively and critically. >> It's the only way to keep the top dog in check :) << I realize your post was made light-heartedly (i.e. no harm was intended), but I just get so sick of all you commie pink-o fer'ners talkin' bad 'bout America! ;) Cheers, Russ -- Russell Morris Georgia Institute of Technology "Lisa, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening..." - Homer
-
:-O you are right, scott. i suppose that my comment was a bit overly vehement. but, if you have grown up in the buckle of the bible belt, then you probably know where i am coming from. the religious dogooders i speak of are not the truly pious followers of the golden rule, but the jerry falwell, moral majority, ralph reed, jim bakkers of the country who leech their living off of poor saps so they can pay for their un-american, anti-christian agendas. (if you are one of these, however, then i retract my apology :mad: )
>> the religious dogooders i speak of are not the truly pious followers of the golden rule, but the jerry falwell, moral majority, ralph reed, jim bakkers of the country who leech their living off of poor saps so they can pay for their un-american, anti-christian agendas. << i.e. the 'Church-ians'. I grew up in Southern Baptist country (just north of Atlanta). (BTW: For those not familiar, the 'Bible Belt' is roughly the south-eastern US, where there is a heavy concentration of Christian fundamentalist sects). I agree with your distinction between the 'pious followers of the golden rule' and the rest that use religion for gain or just as another excuse to be angry at a bunch of people they've never met. To me at least, a Christian is someone who truly beleives in the 'golden rules' of their faith, and is concerned primarily with their own adherance to them in their daily lives and dealings with others. Church-ians are the people that go to church every Sunday to gossip and compare clothes. Cheers, Russ -- Russell Morris Georgia Institute of Technology "Lisa, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening..." - Homer
-
After reading all of the replies to the US/China standoff discussion, I finally know what it is feels like to be a Microsoft employee. :)
-
There must be more reasonable arguments in favour of owning a gun than not liking speeding tickets .;) Go on , give me a convincing argument . You simply are not going to use force to overthrow the Government , if all you have is personal weapons. I hate to point this out but you are up against the only military superpower in the world. So if you are to win , you will have to get the military on your side , in which case , why bother with a few piffling little sidearms when the big boys have a few thousand tanks to use ?The argument about a militia comes from a different age , an age when force was a more reasonable way to settle differences . You needed the militia in the early days because it was far from certain if there would be an attempt to retake the colonies , then you had a justifiable threat to gaurd against , but this threatening the government is not really a starter when you think it through. You have an excellent written constitution , something we do not have , but it was designed to be flexible , as is ours . To hang onto the arms bit seems illogical from that point of view. But I accept , I am not American , I therefore cannot understand all the nuances of American culture , so please , tell me why you should want to carry a gun if you are , lets say , going out for a drink?
>> There must be more reasonable arguments in favour of owning a gun than not liking speeding tickets .;) << The most convincing argument to me is a pragmatic one. Americans REALLY don't want to give up their guns. And I mean REALLY REALLY don't want to give up their guns. Implementing a sweeping anti-gun law that makes it illegal to own guns has quite a cost. Tracking down gun owners (well, only the ones that actually own them legally) Tracking down people who didn't tell the government when they bought the gun Collecting the guns Destroying them Prosecuting violators (hey, why not put an even bigger % of minorities behind bars?) Making guns taboo - but this would create a bigger black-market for them! And after all this, after all the billions of dollars that would need to be spent to rid a country of 300,000,000 people of guns, after putting all violators behind bars, after ensuring that the ONLY people who will have guns are those that don't have a problem with breaking the law: WE'D SUCCEED IN MAKING GUNS AS ILLEGAL AS MARIJUANA IS TODAY Unfortunately, today guns and gun ownership are as interwoven in mainstream American society as they were 200 years ago. Attitudes won't change overnight. They won't change in a generation or two. While the original reason for gun ownership rights (ie second amendment) was to ensure that Americans could always protect themselves from the British (circa 1787), guns played an immeasurable role in American expansion westward and in other areas. They've become part of what defines America. >> I therefore cannot understand all the nuances of American culture , so please , tell me why you should want to carry a gun if you are , lets say , going out for a drink? << I have friends that would - well, not to a bar (guns + beer = BAD) - but in general they always carry a firearm. I don't. But I'm not going to wear a T-Shirt that says "I AM UNARMED - PLEASE DO NOT ROB ME" either :) Cheers, Russ -- Russell Morris Georgia Institute of Technology "Lisa, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening..." - Homer
-
The problem with school shootings goes so much deeper than just free access to guns. We, USA, have always had access to guns, so why now is it a problem? I do not have a solution, but taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the answer. Think about it, if the US decided tomorrow guns are banned, nobody can buy them, sell them, possess them, or think about them, criminals will still have them. If I was starting a country today, that might be one of the things I would try to stop. But in a country that was founded defending itself from its government, the right to bear arms is not going away. Granted, a 12 year old with a screwdriver isn't going to kill too many people, like the same kid with a gun. But this is the cost of freedom. I personally do not carry a gun, but do not have a problem with it. I live in Texas where a few years ago the legislature passed a bill where it would be legal to carry a concealed handgun if you have a license. Crimes with a gun have actually gone down. :eek: Wayne
I have already commented that it seems your society has a culture of violence that goes way deeper than the fact that you're allowed to carry guns around with you. I can only agree with the other poster that the idea of civilised people defending their *right* to carry a GUN is totally abhorent to me. Here in Australia, our response to the Port Arthur massacre ( and a couple of other incidents ) was to tighten what guns were legal to own. Basically we disallowed guns that plainly had the sole purpose of allowing someone to kill a lot of people quickly. A lot of rednecks got up in arms, and even recently they suggested that the government killed some people at Port Arthur and then blamed Martin Bryant as a patsy. Why ? To disarm the public. I am DAMN glad that people this stupid no longer have automatic weapons, or if they do, they can be arrested for it. The possibility of misunderstanding in my eyes negates any percieved benefit of vigilante justice, of a bunch of middle aged men in mid life crisis imagining they are Dirty Harry. But, as has been said, there is a cultural difference at work here, and Americans are raised to think that owning a gun is part of their freedom ( it's actually not even a right in your contitution, not in the way it is claimed ), so what hope would someone with a different world view have of putting it across ? As much as you'd have of convincing me that an armed population is a good idea. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
Thank you for proving *my* point - that if people desire to harm me, they will have more likelyhood of success in a country that enshrines their right to have a gun with which to do it. I guess if you have lots more stabbing deaths than us as well, it probably goes deeper, and points, as you have suggested, to cultural differences. All I can say is that if this is the case, I'm glad I live in a country where people are less disposed to harming one another, regardless of the weapon of choice. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
You misunderstand the reason many americans are so protective of their right to bear arms. The US is only a little over 200 years old, and we won our independance from England through the use of average citizens with guns. One of our founding fathers (I think it was Thomas Jefferson) said something to the effect of "The best reason to insure the right to bear arms is to keep the government honest". Any government that fears that their citizens can rise up and overthrow them tends to do what's best for its people rather than what's best for its politicians. Now, I agree that despite the fact that we can bear arms, the government has begun to no longer fear its constituents, and are therefore doing things which are not in their best interests. I'm not advocating revolution, but this is precisely why it was so important to us in the first place. When a populace becomes placid and allows their government to take away their right to defend themselves, the government can do whatever it wishes, as we've seen so many times in other countries. Look at what England has done to Ireland, or South Africa.
-
You are missing the point. To kill someone with a screwdriver, blunt waepon, etc, you need to be next to them. To kill someone with a gun, you can be quite some distance away. "The bravery of being out of range", as Roger Waters puts it. Its also trivially easy to pull a trigger, it isn't the same as driving a dagger into someone. I agree with Christian. I nearly laughed when I read what Eric had written. I have a lot of colleagues in Concord, Mass. They tell me its illegal for them to carry firearms, and that if they did so, they'd be arrested for it. Stephen Kellett
It's not illegal to carry firearms unless you are a convicted felon. What is illegal is to carry a concealed firearm. You are also not allowed to carry any kind of firearm into a place that serves alcohol. Tell me, if it were illegal to carry a firearm, how could you transport one? You "laughed" at statistics from the CDC and the state of MA? Why? Because they don't agree with your beliefs? The fact of the matter is, there are 3x as many violent stabbings as there are violent gunshot wounds (fatal or otherwise), and your 'theory' that guns make people more brave than knives is simply false. If that were the case, gunshot wounds would far outnumber stabbings, and stabbings would be so rare as to be nearly non-existant. Don't fall prey to propoganda from your government which is trying to keep you a cowed sheep, willing to put up with any violation of your personal freedoms.
-
I have already commented that it seems your society has a culture of violence that goes way deeper than the fact that you're allowed to carry guns around with you. I can only agree with the other poster that the idea of civilised people defending their *right* to carry a GUN is totally abhorent to me. Here in Australia, our response to the Port Arthur massacre ( and a couple of other incidents ) was to tighten what guns were legal to own. Basically we disallowed guns that plainly had the sole purpose of allowing someone to kill a lot of people quickly. A lot of rednecks got up in arms, and even recently they suggested that the government killed some people at Port Arthur and then blamed Martin Bryant as a patsy. Why ? To disarm the public. I am DAMN glad that people this stupid no longer have automatic weapons, or if they do, they can be arrested for it. The possibility of misunderstanding in my eyes negates any percieved benefit of vigilante justice, of a bunch of middle aged men in mid life crisis imagining they are Dirty Harry. But, as has been said, there is a cultural difference at work here, and Americans are raised to think that owning a gun is part of their freedom ( it's actually not even a right in your contitution, not in the way it is claimed ), so what hope would someone with a different world view have of putting it across ? As much as you'd have of convincing me that an armed population is a good idea. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
In a utopian world then I would totally agree with you. The problem is many fold, there is not one solution. Do you at least understand that a criminal is a person who breaks laws? So how is the legislature going to write a law to stop criminals. :confused: Wayne
-
There must be more reasonable arguments in favour of owning a gun than not liking speeding tickets .;) Go on , give me a convincing argument . You simply are not going to use force to overthrow the Government , if all you have is personal weapons. I hate to point this out but you are up against the only military superpower in the world. So if you are to win , you will have to get the military on your side , in which case , why bother with a few piffling little sidearms when the big boys have a few thousand tanks to use ?The argument about a militia comes from a different age , an age when force was a more reasonable way to settle differences . You needed the militia in the early days because it was far from certain if there would be an attempt to retake the colonies , then you had a justifiable threat to gaurd against , but this threatening the government is not really a starter when you think it through. You have an excellent written constitution , something we do not have , but it was designed to be flexible , as is ours . To hang onto the arms bit seems illogical from that point of view. But I accept , I am not American , I therefore cannot understand all the nuances of American culture , so please , tell me why you should want to carry a gun if you are , lets say , going out for a drink?
You may find the idea of overthrowing a government to be impractical, but tell that to people fighting for their rights. First off, a military is going to be loathe to fire on their own people. Second, it's been proven that low-tech can defeat hi-tech. No, we can't outrun a nuclear bomb, but it's highly unlikely that the government would use nuclear arms against itself. You take away the right to own guns, and you take away all hope. And hope is what wins revolutions, not the guns themselves. The people could overturn the government with sticks and stones if they believed in it strongly enough, but when faced with an opponent with guns and you don't have any, you lose your will to fight.
