I'm all for upholding our consititutional rights, but if making some effort to reduce access to guns then what is the answer? Perhaps we need a ban on just the bullets?

Seriously, will arming more people really solve anything? Seems just more likely to result in many more accidental and spontaneous shootings.

And not to make light of the founding fathers' intents, but aren't we well past the point where guns are a necessity? Sure, in previous generations, a rifle was still very much a tool that the family was reliant upon for meals. My father-in-law was quite proud (and rightly so) of the fact that his marksmanship kept his mother and sisters fed.

But it sure seems like guns can no longer trult be consider tools in that sense. Now they're weapons - a means of destroying things.

%%% EXPERIMENTAL %%% ATTTENTION: ALL LAWMAKERS
Revolvers, pistols, sawed off shotguns, rifles with sawed of barrels should be banned. ONLY RIFLES OF A CERTAIN MINIMUM LENGTH SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO NON-POLICE AND NON-MILITARY PERSONNEL.

I think that this has been experimented with already...most heavily in the poorest and most oppressed societies on earth.

%%% EXPERIMENTAL %%%
Walsingham

Which one are you saying was already experimented on?
(1) The one where civilians are allowed to own long guns only.

(2) Or the one where civilians are allowed to own short guns only?

Yo, Eurasian dude, the proposal by the former Ambassador guy will pretty much recreate Prohibition, only with guns. Instead of "legal guns" as we know now, you'll get homemade submachineguns the size of mini Uzis and MAC-10's, namely small, high capacity weapons. With the amount of raw materials and equipments that exist presently, I just don't know why there ain't more homemade guns out there. Go look at P.A. Luty's site, thehomegunsmith.com, and you'll find out how futile and foolish this proposal is.

%%% Experimental %%% Attention: Pres. Bush, Ambassador Dan Simpson

BladeMonkey

Jesus Christ said to "TURN THESE SWORDS INTO PLOW SHARES." In other words use the metals in these weapons to produce tractors and other agricultural tools to produce food for you and your enemies because all of us are children of God who created us.

Most of these guys and gals want to own guns. But then when it comes to shooting, they really are no sharp shooters, especially when they are trembling. To solve this problem, eurasian experimental would like to propose to the government of the United States through authorities like Pres. Bush and Ambassador Simpson an alternative solution which is easier to hit the target.

Eurasian experimental would like to propose that PEOPLE SHOULD ARM THEMSELVES WITH DISPOSABLE CAMERAS OR SOME OTHER CAMERAS OR EQUIVALENTS. THIS IS BETTER THAN A MACHINEGUN BECAUSE A CAMERA WILL HIT EACH AND EVERY SPOT IN THE TARGET AREA!!!! EURASIAN EXPERIMENTAL THINKS THIS WILL WORK NOT ONLY TO PREVENT CRIMES BUT ALSO TO SOLVE AND PREVENT WARS SUCH AS THE WAR IN IRAQ. PRES. BUSH SHOULD SHIP TO IRAQ DISPOSABLE CAMERAS OR EVEN OTHER TYPES OF CAMERAS AND ARM EVERYBODY THERE WITH THESE CAMERAS. THIS WAY, THE IRAQIS WILL HAVE THEIR WISH TO BE LEFT ALONE. WITH PEACE AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN TURN WILL BE ABLE TO COME HOME. AND GEORGE BUSH CAN FINISH HIS PRESIDENCY HONORABLY.

ENOUGH ALREADY !!!We've been there and done that !Your %%% EXPERIMENTAL %%% was discussed and discarded in the early 90's. It was during this time someone got the bright idea of having a so-called National fire-arm. A pot metal joke with a 2inch barrel firing an underpowered 22 round. All other fire-arms would be banned . When this was first presented much laughter ensued from gun owners everywhere until someone discovered these nut-cases were serious. Their reasoning was your RIGHT to own a WEAPON would not be infringed ,the government merely would tell you which weapon you may have. How freakin' nice ! HEADS UP ! The reason we have a second amendment is not to protect our "right to hunt" nor our "right to protect ourselves" The fore fathers were already aware of these needs. The reason for the second amendment is to make sure we (the public) are armed well enough to take back our country from enemies without or within..should it ever become necessary. The guys who put together our government just got through a nasty little war and they knew even the nicest of men could turn into a snake given the temptation ..so they added the safeguard of the 2nd amendment. Remember, one of the first things Hitler demanded was the confiscation of privately owned fire arms. The German people were so enamored of their bright and shiny new fuhrer,they gave him his wish. From there things went down hill..or so I have read.

Rob O. said

I'm all for upholding our consititutional rights, but if making some effort to reduce access to guns then what is the answer? Perhaps we need a ban on just the bullets?

Seriously, will arming more people really solve anything? Seems just more likely to result in many more accidental and spontaneous shootings.

Who is talking about "accidental" or "spontaneous" shootings?  Spontaneous implies action without intent.  All of the so-called massacres were clearly planned.  Multiple weapons and plenty of ammunition signals that the person(s) involved were preparing to encounter resistance.

And not to make light of the founding fathers' intents, but aren't we well past the point where guns are a necessity? Sure, in previous generations, a rifle was still very much a tool that the family was reliant upon for meals. My father-in-law was quite proud (and rightly so) of the fact that his marksmanship kept his mother and sisters fed.

But it sure seems like guns can no longer trult be consider tools in that sense. Now they're weapons - a means of destroying things.

To reiterate another poster's comment, the intent of the Founding Fathers was about the citizenry having the ability to keep those elected "in awe" rather than the other way around.  It is not about hunting or sport shooting.

As an aside, the line between tool and weapon is crossed daily - not by the ability of the tool but the action of the user. 

By my "spontaneous" comment, Chuck, I meant that if we distribute (or even promote the distribution of) more weapons rather than do something to try to limit them, we're only likely to have more shootings that are unplanned, spur-of-the-moment events.

I'm reluctant to believe that even had 50% of the students in Virginai been armed, that would've been any kind of sufficient deterrent for that nutjob. Instead, you might've had even MORE casualties due to overzealous or panicky friendly-fire from students trying in vain to use their weapons for protection.

I'm not at all saying that I have the answer, but maybe if we can't stomache the idea of limiting or controlling guns because of the consititutional sacrifices involved in doing so, then maybe we really should consider making the purchase of the ammunition much, much harder. Initially, I mentioned banning bullets as a joke, but perhaps there's some merit to that line of thinking...

"Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm."

Hey Dan. Go ahead and send your Schutztaffel to come try and take my guns.

I fucking dare you.

those who want to live life always armed with their guns,-- when dead, should be buried together with their bullets and guns. what you think?

When in 1992 Our Empress decided that the best avenue toward power was health care, for it was the most expensive trough she could get her trotters into, she mused that she'd have to control guns to lessen the cost of gun-shot treatment.

I knew exactly what that bitch was up to and it is not paranoid to see that as being a distinction without a difference from her stated mission of caring about her health or indeed anything else that her totalitarian mind has been conniving at since she first was vomited onto the public stage.

People who want to control guns want to control people who legally own them. If we cannot keep hundreds of tons of drugs a year (month?) out of the US, nor millions of illegals, how will we keep guns out of the country?

Oh. I get it. Law-abiding citizens won't be armed, and that's the whole goddamned point.

My goodness.

I thought that insanity left the diplomatic ranks when Joe Wilson quit. Now I find out that there are even crazier loons representing the USA overseas? I think that we need a better vetting process for ambassadors, for damn sure.

As to the proposal itself, it is unworkable at best, sinister and evil at worst. It would complete the leftist agenda of shredding the Constitution.

After all, crooks don't pay attention to the law, only law abiding folks do. Since crooks are only a small percentage of the population, the leftists are willing to put up with some bumps in the road in order to keep the rest of the rabble/serfs in line.

Yes, SERFS. That is what the leftists would turn us into.

The 2nd Amendment was never about hunting. It is all about protecting ourselves from a tyrannical central government...Appearantly the one that has manifested in Washington, DC...

%%% EXPERIMENTAL %%%
Look at it this way. Suppose all firearms were banned and police are given authority to just shoot anybody who has a firearm. Wouldn't the firearm make it much much easier for police to identify the bad guy even in a crowd?