But then it seems that one would have the right to keep and bear arms as long as he is part of(or agrees to be part of if necessary) a well regulated miltia. Consequently then, only those that are part of the militia would have the right to keep and bear arms as stated in the 2nd Amendment. Right?

there is a comma between those two points

Yes, that's grammatically correct. And your point is...?

If you want to go look directly at the text of the 2nd amendment then yes that might be true. But seeing as there are no more militias, I think taking away peoples rights to bare arms is not the intent of the 2nd amandment. I know it is tricky, but I think that the right to bare arms is a useful right now as it was when The Bill of Rights was written.

If you type in "Gun Control, England" in google the whole first page is articles about how crime has risen since england has enacted their very strict Gun Control laws. The best way to judge a laws effectiveness is to see how it works in other places. And if england is any example all people for total Gun Control have no leg to stand on.

ah. i guess my point would now be that you're reading it as you see fit and not as it was written

I guess I'm missing something. Is there a point in there?

do you honestly believe that our founding fathers would write with your same intent? really?

The whole point I am trying to make, is that this issue is not as black and white as many would think. What was the intent of the founders? That's not so easy to determine.

My personal opinion is that some gun control is necessary. No one should have the right to posess rocket launchers like Tobias said. And what if we have a modern day Einstein out there who develops the ability to make a homemade nuclear bomb? Certainly, we can't allow that. So it seems that some gun control is not only reasonable but necessary to the security of our free state.

This is a no brainer. Criminals don't obey gun control laws, so things could only get worse.

I believe that the second amendment was actually put into place to keep the government from getting out of control. The right to bear arms was actually intended for the people to take back control of the government if it got out of hand. I believe that this is one of the biggest reasons that the government is pushing for gun control. They don't care if criminals have guns as the criminals only use them for their own selfish interests. Since all citizens are now required to register their guns, it won't be hard for the government to seize them. As someone else pointed out, this is how Hitler did it.

I agree

THE EXPERTS AGREE GUN CONTROL WORKS.


(HITLER, STALIN, MAO TSE TUNG, ECT.)

As far as the militia, in the context of the founding fathers, who had seen oppression from England ( Did you know that when paul revere made his famous ride it was because the British had orders to confiscate all guns, ball and powder?) they considered the militia anyone not in the regular army who was able to carry a weapon. This has not changed at all in that, if for example we were invaded, the people could and would defend thier homes, busineses, ect.
An invading army would be confronted with a scene where every street in america would have Guns sticking out of house windows checking who is comming down the street. It is a huge deterrant and in fact this alone makes a land invasion impossible. Also, the point made about the people being able to stand up against a govt gone corrupt is exactly right. For proof if you ned it, read the federalist papers, in which these founders explained the why behind what they were doing. They are timeles classics and should be required reading in our public fool system.

well mac, you'll have to forgive me. i thought from your early comment on guns that you were one for complete gun control

In a little town north of Atlanta, GA called Kennesaw, they do have gun control that works. If you live there, it is illegal to not own a gun. Their crime rate is almost nonexistent. Not sure if that law is still true today, but it was years ago.

No problem, toasted. Just don't be so quick to judge next time.

Actually, I used to be in favor of stringent gun control, but no more. I now live in an area where I am probably the only one who does not own a gun. And crime is nonexistent here.
The issue should be CRIME CONTROL not just GUN CONTROL.

I am really suprised that there is noone on this thread for gun control. I thought this would be a hot topic lol.

as far as im aware there has NEVER been an example of restrictive Gun control reducing the crime rate. When i was in the Caymans, they were telling me how wonderful it was that no one there was allowed to have Guns. I asked why there were burgular bars on all the houses if it was so safe there, to which i got no answer.

I am not totally opposed to the idea completely. For instance, I don't think it would be unreasonale to require some sort of minimum knowledge and competence with the firearm you are purchasing.

I am noone? Tobias that hurts! Going out for some Coke, I already have the rum, I'll check back later!

I did see some articles that state this but when I examined them they were all from gun lobbying sources and didn't really match the original data sources. According to our Dept. of Justice crime has been generally increasing steadily in many nations-including the US- but the US still has a per capita murder rate that is 6 times that of Englands and 3 times the rape rate- http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crpr.htm . There were some indications that robbery was becoming more prevalent in the UK but that could be linked to economic issues that have arisen there as well.

This does not mean I advocate that the same gun control laws that are in place there be implemented here. I think you can't compare the two. I believe we need to look at our culture and the problems here and try to figure out what will work here. Education might be more necessary. Guns are glamorized here and I think that is a problem but one I don't have a solution for...