“**Since** [INSERT WHATEVER THE HELL YOU LIKE, HERE] , **then** the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be infronged.”

Sorry.

It used to be a valid statement to say that there was a culture difference between the U.S. and England. Brits have always been more “civilised” (in my opinion) than your typical American. But that’s only when comparing urban, gang-riddled, crime syndicate flooded urban centers. “Self protection” has for very long been a much more necessary thing, in America, than in the UK. But that’s because of a viscious cycle of Gun availablility leading to gun-armed gangs, and gun-armed gangs then becoming a threat to citizens, who arm themselves in greater numbers, creating a larger availablility of guns to gun-armed gangs, who then become an even greater threat to….. and so on.

The main focal point on gun control is supposed to be a check against government tyranny. And just like you said, you would think gun control opponents would clue-in on the fact that a check on tyranny of a government armed with bazookas, is not gonna be a bunch of conceal carry permit holders and their Glock 9′s. However, the gun control rights focal point has now become the right of self defense. And that is an equally valid point. It’s sad that it is necessary, but it IS necessary. But flying that flag under the 2nd Ammendment is gonna fail if the real intent of the ammendment is ever seriously settled. It will reveal the fault in the current thinking.

Nevertheless, the 2nd Ammendment DOES in fact protect the right to small arms as much as large. Consider it this way:

“**Since** , **then** the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be infronged.”

Insert anything you like. It does not change the fact that “the right shall not be infringed.” If we feel up to the task of taking on an out of control, tyranical government with nothing but a million Glock 9′s, then that’s our perogative, if not our last resort.

And, I should point out that the anaology of comparing the UK crime scene to the American crime scene is quickly become more alike. Skinheads, and Islamic Radicals, and the likes are a very rapidly increasing problem in the UK. And there, they face nowhere near the level of opposition they would face in America. The reason islamic radicals haven’t attempted much more incursion into America than they have already is at least partly out of the knowledge that they face a much more dangerous target, much more willing and able to smack the living daylights out of them if they wanna try that shit here. They know that they will require a significantly greater presence here before they can attempt anything like what they’ve already gotten away with in England. There’s no part of New York City where the laws of the United States, and the State of New York do not trump all foreign, parasitic laws. But there are parts of some English cities (that’s IN ENGLAND) where Enlgishmen dare not set foot, and where English Courts, now, are not allowed to govern becuase they have abdicated their right of rule to the Sharia law of some muslim community.

Over here? Maybe the government will… but Bubba ain’t gonna play that shit.

And I’d throw my lot in with Bubba if it came down to a U.S. Government that was no longer able or willing to protect my constitutional rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Some parts of England seem to have been taken over already. And let’s not prevaricate about the bush… You will NOT be able to reverse that, now, without bloodshed.

Check it out for yourself. Google Street View. Carlisle & Ambler in Bradford. And whole swathes of Birmingham. If you had a determined islamic uprising in England (which you KNOW is the goal), you’d have a hell of a bad situation in your hands and the Government would NOT be able to help you.

We allow handguns in Canada. You just need a PAL and have to register them (as you now must do with all longarms). The ones that are banned are the under 4″ barrel models along with .25 and .32 cal models (banning by calibre: more politically correct BS).

What you cannot buy here are automatics and magazines with greater than 5 round capacity for rifles.

@#4
I remember reading the Lott study years ago that showed just that: states where concealed carry was legal had lower incidents of violent crime involving firearms. Nope, nobody has any working plan to deal with gangs. They are the white elephant standing in the corner of the room (with an uzi).

Personally I would care less if they slaughter each other, if not for the innocents that get caught in the middle

Guns have never been legal. You could if you jumped through hoops, got a permit etc, buy a pistol but it was miles away from being common. It’s not like you could buy a gun in a supermarket. There was never a real problem with gun ownership (until Dunblane). Nobody really owned guns (except for sport – see my 2 ft rule).

The rise in knife crime is certainly entirely unrelated to gun control and is probably more a result of gangs, ‘thug life’, drugs and the rise of chav culture than anything else.

Ultimately if guns were legalised here, the people that would run out and buy one would not be your innocent home owners, it’d be the chavs, thugs and social trash. Then everyone else would be pretty much forced to ‘arm up’ as all the criminals would have upped the ante. No thanks.

It’s also well established that some of the most violent areas in America have the strictest gun control:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=409

So yea I would say that the left-wing is full of shit on this one. Banning guns may make people *feel good* but they don’t make much sense when criminals by definition don’t follow the laws. But whatever, enjoy your knife crimes.

Oh and to the Canadian guy, you can see the same differences in gun deaths between U.S. rural and urban areas. The difference is *cough* gang crime, but no one wants to talk about it. We just had a gangsta kill another one over a necklace in SF. That type of idiocy causes all kinds of problems, gun related or not. Gangstaz in Oakland kill each other with all kinds of instruments. Guns are just the most effective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

One major difference is, we don’t allow hand guns. It’s almost all hunting rifles and shotguns, just like you said.

If it was actually motivated by a concern for public safety, and could be proven to work, then I would have little issue with restrictive gun control. I am terribly cynical with regards to the true motivations of our officials, however, whether they have an axe to grind, a butt to kiss, or a personal agenda: it’s not about the people, and never has been.