[QUOTE="hrice2"]

[QUOTE="murlow12"]Guns aren't for killing, just like the hydrogen bomb isn't for killing.  These things are for protection.  Ideally, merely having these things will deter others from making us use them.  But in the cases where they don't work as a deterent, we need to be able to use them for protection.  And if private citizens can't legally carry guns, then they lose their deterent value and nothing but the law is stopping criminals from terrorizing the res of us.  And as we've learned, the law isn't a very good deterent for someone set on commiting a crime.murlow12

If the hydrogen bomb is only for protection, not for killing people, then why are we so worried about anyone that doesn't have one developing one?  After all, it isn't to kill anyone, they just want to be as "protected" as we are.  For that matter, why not let private citizens possess bombs then, since they are just for "protection".  Since you said yourself that the law and the government cannot be relied upon to deter criminals and protect people, you never know when our country might face a threat, and Washington drops the ball.  That's when we as private citizens will need our personal stash of nuclear ordinance to "protect" ourselves.

And as far as guns, quit kidding yourself.  Guns were invented to kill things; deterence had nothing to do with it.  When the first gunsmith realized "Hey, if we put some of this explosive Chinese powder into a tube, then find some way of igniting it, we could propel a projectile at unbelievable speeds" his partner did not look up and say "Wow!  Something like that would really deter violence!"  You can rationalize all you want that guns are a "deterent" for "protection"; that is merely a byproduct of their inherently violent function.

I'm not talking about why guns were invented, I'm talking about why the founding fathers thought it was so important that we have the right to carry them.  It was for protection, which is the same reason they are still legal today.  I don't specifically know why guns were invented, but I can venture to guess that it had more to do with power than killing people.  As for your ridiculous suggestion that all citizens carry bombs for protection, that's obviously unrealistic.  Hydrogen bombs serve as protection for countries/governments, just as guns serve as protection for private citizens.  Have you ever heard of proportionality?

First of all, as I stated before, read the entire 2nd Amendment.  The Founding Fathers were interested in "maintaining a well regulated militia" in order to maintain the "welfare of the State".  That is the National Guard.  Once the national guard was established in each state, the necessity for private citizens to keep and bear arms was nullified.  Private citizens "protecting" themselves had nothing to do with it.  You venture to guess that guns were invented for "power" rather than to kill people?  Exactly what power does a gun grant the holder other than the power to kill people?  The power of persuasion?  Only because it can kill people.  "Protection"?  Only because it can kill people.

As for my "ridiculous suggestion", since the concepts of sarcasm or hyperbole are obviously lost on you, I will clarify.  Based on your own statements, we cannot trust the law, and therefore the government that creates and enforces those laws, to protect us.  You said that, not me.  So, by that logic, if we cannot trust them to protect us from lone psychopaths armed with handguns, why should we trust them to protects from much larger, more dangerous national threats?  And since your suggestion for protecting ourselves from individual gun wielding criminals is to arm ourselves with guns of our own, then it follows that private groups of citizens should arm themselves with ordinance to protects us from national threats if or when the government fails to do so.  Now if you think that the suggestion of private citizens having that type of weapon is ludicrous, I agree with you.  However, the logic that reached that type of conclusion was found in your own statements.

By the way, you neglected in your response to answer my question.  If weapons like the H-bomb are NOT for killing people, but rather for "protection" or "deterence" then why are those countries that have them so dead set against other countries obtaining them?  They just want to be "protected" too, right?

Guns aren't for killing, just like the hydrogen bomb isn't for killing.  These things are for protection.  Ideally, merely having these things will deter others from making us use them.  But in the cases where they don't work as a deterent, we need to be able to use them for protection.  And if private citizens can't legally carry guns, then they lose their deterent value and nothing but the law is stopping criminals from terrorizing the res of us.  And as we've learned, the law isn't a very good deterent for someone set on commiting a crime.murlow12

If the hydrogen bomb is only for protection, not for killing people, then why are we so worried about anyone that doesn't have one developing one?  After all, it isn't to kill anyone, they just want to be as "protected" as we are.  For that matter, why not let private citizens possess bombs then, since they are just for "protection".  Since you said yourself that the law and the government cannot be relied upon to deter criminals and protect people, you never know when our country might face a threat, and Washington drops the ball.  That's when we as private citizens will need our personal stash of nuclear ordinance to "protect" ourselves.

And as far as guns, quit kidding yourself.  Guns were invented to kill things; deterence had nothing to do with it.  When the first gunsmith realized "Hey, if we put some of this explosive Chinese powder into a tube, then find some way of igniting it, we could propel a projectile at unbelievable speeds" his partner did not look up and say "Wow!  Something like that would really deter violence!"  You can rationalize all you want that guns are a "deterent" for "protection"; that is merely a byproduct of their inherently violent function.

To those saying "if guns are banned, we should ban any other object that can kill" :

Knives were invented to cut things, but bad people twisted them into a tool used to kill.  Hammers were invented to drive nails, but bad people twisted them into tools used to kill.  Screwdrivers were invented to turn screws, but bad people twisted them into tools used to kill.

Guns were invented to kill.  Period.  They serve absolutely no other purpose, and were never intended to.  At one time, when indiviuals were forced to hunt in the wild just to provide meat for their own table, it could be argued that they were a necessity for every individual to hunt more efficiently.  Not now; the vast majority of gun owners buy their meat at a grocery store.  So don't give me any more crap about how it would have been just as easy for this guy to kill 32 people with a tire iron as it was a gun.  It merely makes you look that much more the idiot.

 To those that quote the 2nd Amendment:

Go back and read the beginning of that Amendment again.  See that part about "a well regulated militia?"  Two hundred years ago they were talking about private citizens, not today.  You know what our well regulated militia is today?  The National Guard.  Those guys can keep their guns because they are trained when and how to use them; that's where the "regulated" part comes in.  You like the 2nd Amendment so much, go join the Guard.  Because if a foreign army does invade us, and manages to wipe out our professional military AND the guard AND our police, do you really think that a bunch of untrained civilian yahoos are going to stop them?

Finally, to those that say "Banning guns won't stop murder" or "People that want guns will just get them illegally":

You're right on both counts.  There was murder before guns, and if every gun disappeared from the earth today, there would still be murder.  And yes, people obtain banned items and substances illegally all the time.  However, no one actually said that murder would be eliminated, merely that it would REDUCE murder rates.  No one said that gun nuts wouldn't get guns somehow, just that it would be HARDER to get them.  By your logic, any solution that does not completely solve a problem should never be attempted.  And since in reality most problems are never solved by one solution, nothing should ever be done.  Why stop at gun laws, why not just eliminate any laws?  Not everyone pays there taxes, so lets just eliminate them.  And there will always be someone willing to murder, so lets legalize it.  And the government doesn't help everyone, so lets just abolish it.  That's called "anarcy" folks, and if you actually study your history, you'll find that it really never works out well.

No one is saying that banning guns will make a perfect world.  Nothing will ever make a perfect world.  That would be Utopia, another nice fantasy concept that, unfortunately, basic human nature will never allow for.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.