Could someone please explain to me how the right to ...?

I have a friend from Austraillia (where they have very strick gun ownership laws) and he said that back in the 90's when they first passed laws to limit or restrict public ownership of assult weapons or semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that muggings and burglaries went through the roof. The people commiting these crimes knew that chances were much better that their vicitims were not going to be armed so they became bolder. Criminals will find and use guns regardless of any law in effect.

Even in the USA, where you need to pass background checks to own a handgun or even a rifle in some states the criminals have weapons. They don't buy their guns at Big 5 or Cabelas. They don't care about bans on semi-automatics or handguns. They get their firearms illegally on the streets. If you take the right to own firearms away from the innocent Americans the only people that will have guns will the criminals and we will really be F'ed. Right now a burgler in America has to think to himself "If I break into this house, will someone in this family shoot me?" and that prevents FAR more home invasions than any ban on guns would. I don't get what people don't understand about this.

Of course, there are always going to be nuts like this dude in Arizona but that is not unique to the US. Just be thankful that we don't live in a country where there are suicide bombings daily!

The right to carry it does NOT give you the right to use it incorrectly, or irresponsibly.

WITH the right to carry comes the responsibility to know how, where, and most importantly, WHEN to use it.

IF you use it to defend yourself or your family, there is nothing wrong being done by YOU.

Criminals, and "nutcases", ignore the responsibility part.

I assume it is the Tuscon shooting that brought about your question.

This nutcase opened fire at point blank range and STILL apparently did NOT manage to kill his "target," instead scattering bullets at random.

I would point out that HAD someone else, who KNEW how to use a firearm proficiently been there AND been armed, the nutcase would NOT have been able to do as much damage, as he would have been shot in short order.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that it is NOT the police's job to protect you, it is to enforce the existing law AFTER the crime has been committed by catching the person who broke the law.

Given THAT ruling, I intend to be able and willing to protect myself, and possibly others.

I am, and I HAVE.

Stricter background checks should be made and it should include a thorough mental evaluation of the person trying to purchase a weapon. Yes we have the right to bear arms but there should be responsible and diligent gun shop owners that follow the letter of the law in their background checks to prevent this nut jobs from getting their hands on lethal weapons.

Just because there are a few nutcases doesn't mean the rest of us have to give up our rights.

Move to Mexico, they have strict fire arms laws and no law abiding citizen has a gun, even a simple 22 rifle or pistol not permitted here. So if you don't like the USA & the Constitution then there are places to move to.

P

All i desire for Christmas is my 2 front enamel ( I had an twist of fate years in the past and the front have porcelin caps that ought to be replaced in approximately 2 months whilst i ought to have saved adequate funds to swap them!)

There is nothing negative about the ability a citizens militia has to stop a tyrant from enslaving millions or murdering millions of people.

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.