I would never own a gun, pistol or rifle of any kind - it just isn't something I feel safe possessing BUT I recognize our laws say that I have the RIGHT not a PRIVILEDGE to BARMS. Is it so strange of you to grasp the idea that a country has chosen to gives its people the ability to rise against possible triany in its government, or to protect itself against any threat to life?
As strange as you find the U.S., I think we find your theories a little (saying this as kindly as possible) sissified. You have guns to hunt with, yet you claim only police in the line of duty can carry or use firearms. A perfectly good gun that could save your life against assault is locked safely away from ammo, never to meet unless (what) a flamingo flies by on "Pink Bird Day"?
You honestly would NOT use a gun to protect your own life or the life of your family? I'm afraid I just don't get that one. I assume while someone is being killed, they are to call the police and hope that they arrive in time EVEN IF they have weapons (legally owned weapons - if only meant for hunting) they would still NOT use those guns for self-defense? And to go further, to have countries where it is illegal to kill someone in self-defense is not a very safe sounding place for anyone to live, I'm not sure if that is YOUR COUNTRIES POLICY - but that idea frightens me.
I have handled weapons, even the great 44 magnum of Dirty Harry Fame - they scare the crap out of me, I didn't shoot it, only a shotgun and a small handgun at a gun-club. Normally it causes me great anxiety to be even near them. But, that does not change the fact that I have a right to possess them. There has always been a quiet debate on the issue of BEARING ARMS and OWNING ARMS - the former meaning to possess arms for immediate use (as in to take arms against an enemy attack) then give them up. As where to OWN is to possess for any reason from a collection to protection and any other use deemed legal.
Our Founding Fathers were smart enough to realize that a possible INTERNAL THREAT to the foundation of government was possible, as is the case in most all of history. I believe though that their laws and subsequent amendments have created a righteous society, not one where ARMS will undo our land in another Civil War, but allow us "representation through elections" without the use of weaponry across our own land.
Only history will prove that out, we all hear of militia groups in the North-Western states armed to the teeth with every imaginable rocket launcher, automatic weapon and nearly an endless supply of ammo - but I pity the day they decide to use that to take on the Government and our military. They will surely just be a black spot on the satellite images of Google Maps.
No, I don't think EVERYONE should own a weapon, we don't sell them at corner stores and getting licenses are tougher all the time - more importantly, I don't think ARMS should include rocket launchers, cannons, flame throwers or anything else the nut-case militias may have. I doubt that anyone in 1776 could foresee the parade of weapons we have available both legal and on the Black Market today. So if you are to include everything as Arms, then LIMIT the AMMO someone can possess.
Our government survives on a Checks and Balance System, or as we seem to hear it called in this politically correct land of ours - oversight committees :roll: Neither side of Legislature is stupid enough to ever play real hardball because of the "Don't throw stones in a glass house rule". Maybe this is too American for some people to grasp - heck, we don't really understand it all, most of what we learn about US Politics is over by the 5th grade.
But, we understand the trickle down theory that from a Nation of 50 states, to counties and parishes, to local governments and finally to the voter, we are all part of the process and although it isn't flawless now, nor have we EVERY gotten it totally right, but when we step into a voting booth we are given great power and in return the only things we are asked to do is pay our taxes and serve on Jury Duty - the latter I believe is the greatest of all honors a citizen can receive.
And thus, although it wasn't chronologically powerful, I end my rant on Saddam. Yes, he was the topic afterall :-\ and Jorn you can call his trial a sham, most of us feel the same about OJ Simpson - a murderer walks free among us and there is nothing to do about it. At least Iraq doesn't have that problem with Saddam, he's burning in the flamming pits of Justice where he belongs. Sorry you feel hanging that murderous scum was so unjust, but taking away his Teddy bear and sending him to bed with out supper just seemed so so wrong.