[Long Cut]

"Sadly this has degenerated into a 2nd ammendment debate where, rather than engage an argument about the societal benefits of guns"

It is difficult, if not impossible, to debate the role of firearms in society WITHOUT also discussing the relevant Constitutional Amendment which legalizes them, but very well, then.

Some points, in the interest of debate:

1. Privately owned firearms are used, annually, to thwart over two million crimes. This is a "win", by any account.

2. Of military-styled firearms, which we are discussing, only one half of one percent are ever used in any crimes. This is, to most, scant reason for their confiscation. Or else, all cars, knives, ropes, and ciggarette lighters must also be confiscated. They are used in more crimes, after all.

3. The most important point: the Bad Guys have guns already, and always will. Denying them to the Good Guys only renders the Good Guys helpless. Far from increasing "peace", prohibition of firearms would result in a bloodbath, as those villains the courts have seen fit to set upon us in their "wisdom" would have even less deterrent than they now do.

"gun tracking in the interest of law enforcement and crime prevention might be defeted by a reasoned argument."

Allow me: The tracking of firearms by means of registration has an absolutely DISMAL record of "solving crimes", as most criminally-used firearms are beyond the reach of any registration, by one means or another.

Besides, the purpose of registration, as you alluded to earlier, is most certainly NOT "crime control", as if the Left ever really cared about that. No, every recent registration scheme in every state and nation it has been implemented in has led directly to confiscation, as it always will. You stated that we were easy to "rile up". TRUE, and no mea culpas at all. After all, you propose the confiscation of our chattel property, by force, with absolutely NO real reasons beyond your, and others', FEAR of inanimate objects. The vast, overwhelming majority of firearm owners commit NO crimes at all. They should NOT be made to pay for the actions of a few criminals (who should have been locked up anyway) with their rights.

"I wanted to see how long it would take: Less than 100 posts! Congratulations to you open minded freepers!"

If you are going to exhalt in your self-assumed greatness, please tell us so we can don our sunglasses, that we might be shielded from the Light of all that is you. /sarcasm

[Jhoffa_]

It is difficult, if not impossible, to debate the role of firearms in society WITHOUT also discussing the relevant Constitutional Amendment which legalizes them, but very well, then.

They always skimp here.. Why is that?

It's like Skyline and the cheese that's supposed to come on a "cheese cony"

Come on.. That's important, you can't leave it out and act like no one will notice it's missing.

[Pitchfork]

Thank you for engaging the debate!
Sadly the statistics on the crimes thwarted by guns are as supsect as the stats sometimes advanced by the gun control advocates in public health journals. Unfortunatley the NRA has been one of the biggest impediments to the collection by government of accurate firearms ownership data that could be used to test these hypothese!

The good-guys bad guys argument is an old one. We would never be able to stop determined criminals (gangs, the mob etc.) from owning guns. However, most gun deaths are not a result of the activities of organized or habitual criminals. Most gun murders are first time offenses (drunken fights, domestic violence etc.)

On the Michigan case which has been raised a few times. Pray tell me has Michgan closed its borders? Does it search cars for imported guns? Selecting a single state or municipality and predicating an argument on its failure ignores the fact that guns are transportable. What might fail at a state level could work on a national one. (a testable and falsifiable proposition)

For those of you who are thinkers here is a question:

Which is more important to the maintainence of democracy?
1) an armed citizenry?
2) a disarmed government?

Saddam can suppress his citizenry via superior fire power. If the government were less well armed (i.e. no standing professional army) would he be able to do this? The argument has been made that the reason Britain democratized in the 1800's while Germany didn't is that Britain was a naval power with a small standing army. Germany a land power has a big army that was used to suppress the masses. Costa Rica a bastion of constitutional government in Central America may have achieved it success by getting rid of its standing army.

Could we instead read the federalist to be arguing against insitutionalized implement of government coercion? Like armies?