I’m pissed at both of you. You want an argument or to try and control a conversation, go share your emails and have it somewhere else.

Complete lack of respect.

Thanks so much, wave bye bye to my dream of an honest discussion, post shut down.

Mostly, its just a question of ‘how big is your checkbook’ since those items are all ridiculously expensive because private demand is so exceptionally low.

You do need to go through a somewhat more extensive background check for the things that actually go boom, though I’m pretty sure most Americans could pass it.

Societies can certainly abrogate their rights to their governments…here it just takes a more than a simple majority.
Changing a part of our Constitution requires 2/3 of both our National legislative bodies, and 3/4 of the States to concur.
Its difficult to make these changes for good reason…majorities are fickle and ever changing.

Not disagreeing with you per se, or saying ‘our way is best’ Just kind of laying out why a majority (if a majority to greatly restrict firearms even exists) is insufficient to do so here.

And I find that writing is a good way of learning, and focusing your thoughts for oral arguments.

For you, I have no idea what you can do to solve your problems. Maybe you are right for having off-duty cops patrolling about – that may foster the spirit of community with the cops and reintroduce trust at a young age? Maybe ammend Ammendment 2? Make it compulsory for licences?…

I did like one thing you said: the choice to place children in schools to foster better environments for growth. Does your son wear a uniform? (Most kids here at schools do wear uniforms – I did right through to final year when we were finally allowed to wear mufti).

Finally, Im getting sick of seeing video games being blamed for all the violence (when there is evidence to suggest otherwise).

Even the universal rights of man are in the end a document written by a group of like-minded people, which was then accepted as truth by other like-minded people. Just because those like-minded people tend to be the majority of the worlds population, does not mean it is therefore a universal truth.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with the universal rights of people, among which is to defend yourself. I’m just trying to point out that the rules of society are made by the participants in that society, not by some general truth.

This means that if your population in majority disagrees with your constitution, you should change it. No man (or group of men) is smart enough to write the rules of a society for millenia to come. Again, this is not a stab at the constitution (or in a broader sense, at christianity), I am merely pointing out that YOU and your countrymen decide how your country should be ruled and organized.

I, as a citizen of the Netherlands, have chosen to live in a country where guns are outlawed, because I believe this will increase the security of me and my own. I also believe that my government will not try and wrest control from the public. I willingly give up the right to defend myself with a firearm, because I believe that if the majority of the population of this country disagrees with the government, they will either listen, or we will make them listen in a non-violent way.

I also agree that – as I have stated in a previous comment – this solution will not work in the US. That’s fine. It is up to you and your fellow citizens to debate how you wish for your society to be governed. There are no wrong opinions in this matter.

Humans have the natural right to protect their life and the lives of others under their protection (family, friends, etc) from immediate threats.
Humans also create and use tools. This of course means humans naturally have the right to use tools to aid in defense of life. We call this class of tool “arms”

Historically, these tools took strength, exceptional skill or both to wield effectively which limited defense of ones person to the strong, the young, or the wealthy who would hire the young.

The invention of the firearm changed this paradigm. Compared to the arms invented before it, the firearm requires minimal training and strength. The firearm allows the poor, old, infirm, and weak the ability to defend themselves against the strong and the young.

Every human universally has the right to defend themselves and use tools to aid in their defense, just as every human has the right to speak freely, to think freely, to petition their government for redress, to worship (or not) as they so choose, the right to be secure from arbitrary and unreasonable searches of their person/property, and other rights.

What is not universal among political institutions is respect for these rights.
Even the right to speak and to think freely is infringed by many nations that we would typically consider ‘free’

The right to defend your life (and the lives of those under your protection) is the most basic of rights.
When you deny the means of defense, you deny that people have the right to defend their life.

The only particular right singled out was the importance of maintaining a militia in a set of political circumstances that have not existed in this country for a century and a half, and in no way resemble today’s circumstances except in the minds of the childish and paranoid.