[uncbob]

The fact that freedom extends out of the barrel of a gun is an American concept, a product of your history in which the gun represented the ability to get one's food, shoot hostile natives and so on. Britain's roots are different in this regard. We regard freedom extending out of having our press being hostile and critical of the government. And as the Daily Telegraph proved during impeachment, our press is probably more free, and certainly more diverse than America's.

1. So how come Britain had to ask American citizens to send them arms before WWII
2.I suggest you learn more about your own history on BEARING ARMS and on American history as you are mistaken in both cases. America's 2nd Amendment and Right to bear Arms is inherited and based on British law . BTW the 2nd Amendment was written so the American people could fight off a tyranical federal goverment
3. So how come yesteday you talked about using your Cricket Bat . Americans would talk about strapping on their 45s etc. as some are now doing in the SW to protect their lands from the invasion from Mexico. After 911 there was a surge in gun sales in the USA . What do you think would happen if terror hit Britain
4.You didn't address the other points I made about President Bush and homeowners being prosecuted
5. Freedom of the press is wonderful for maintaining freedom as long as the government allows a free press>
6. He who owns the guns makes the laws and if only the governemnt is armed guess what.
Our little to do starting at Lexington and Concord was because of the King trying to drive that point home to the colonists

[MadIvan]

As for the British asking for guns during World War II - read up, we were short on EVERYTHING back then. Guns, food, you name it, we needed it - we were unprepared for the war, it's length, it's expense and it's duration.

Yes, our gun ownership laws are too restrictive, but the gun is not considered as central to our liberties as they are to yours because of the differences in history I describe. You just don't want to see that, do you?

You also fail to address my point - suppose Hillary took power tomorrow and she decided to shut down the Freedom of the Press. What chance do private citizens armed with guns have against say, the Army, the FBI, and other instruments of repression? As I say, you are applying a concept from Patrick Henry's time which worked when citizens had flintlock rifles, and the government had flintlock rifles. Now the government has tanks, bombers, surface to air missiles, tear gas, and so on. Under these circumstances, how could being armed with a handgun and a rifle possibly be a bulwark against tyranny? Remember what happened at Waco, for example.

I agree gun ownership is a bulwark against criminals - and a damn fine one too. It's even a bulwark against terrorists on the ground. But against the government?

No, what a real bulwark against the government would be, would be a crusading newspaper that said "Hey, those people at Waco didn't do anything wrong" and sought Bill Clinton and Janet Reno's heads on a platter.

Regards, Ivan