You can't be serious...

My God, man... are you kidding me?

I have outlined my position on this matter in some detail (my "conversion post" is found HERE), but this warrants some re-touching...

In our recent past (that being defined by what we can recall as having effected us as individuals), we have seen the Federal Automatic Weapons Ban (HR 3355, signed into law in 1994) and the re-introduction of an even more aggressive ban proposed in SR 1431 in 2003, just months before the FAWB expired. These were the laws that made the purchase of a "folding" stock for our 10-22 Ruger ILLEGAL. The purchase or possession of a clip of ammunition that held more than 6 rounds was ILLEGAL under this law (thus, even our factory-made 10-round clips for the Ruger made the rifle ILLEGAL under certain conditions). Shotguns manufactured to hold more than 3 shells were ILLEGAL... semi-auto or otherwise. Handguns with a removable clip of more than 6 rounds (which constitutes 78% of all automatics made) were deemed ILLEGAL unless registered with FOUR Federal Agencies and State and local authorities.

The argument made in DC vs Heller was that the municipality had the right to regulate the sale and ownership of certain kinds of firearms, to better serve the safety of the general public. Crime did NOTHING but go UP after the ban, and gun-related violent crime rose by more than 60% in the greater DC area. As Ryan posted, the UK has had a handgun ban for more than 6 years now... and gun-related crimes have INCREASED by 40% across the board there.

As I have stated here in the past, the CRIME of this situation is that the Federal government here in the US has determined no less than 16 times that "... a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 1981 (the latest judicial example). If the individual safety of yourself or your family is NOT the responsibility of the government, at any level (meaning Fed, State or local)... then whose responsibility is it? Who is ultimately responsible for the safety and protection of YOUR children from acts of violent crime (which occur 18 times a minute in these United States of America RIGHT NOW)? Not the Federal authorities. Not the State Police. Not the local sheriff's department or police force.

So, it must be up to US, as individual citizens. It is simple and juvenile to assume that if it is ILLEGAL to own a handgun in a certain area (say Washington, DC), then criminals WON'T use them either. So, if someone is going to break into MY home with loaded weapons... I want to be able to exercise my Constitutional RIGHT to defend myself, my family and my property with whatever force is necessary to do so. If that means beating an intruder into a state of incapacity with a Louisville Slugger, then so be it... but I'd prefer to know that I don't have to be 36" from a violent criminal before I can defend myself. I want to be able to project the force needed to defend my home and family from a safe distance, and that means I want to be able to OWN A FIREARM that provides that force projection.

The premise of this post isn't to convince you guys of this fundamental flaw in the liberal agenda... I'm confident that all in this forum agree with me on this topic. I'm simply amazed that Jambo could think our RIGHT to keep and bear arms is unassailable in this modern world. It is NOT, and we must do all in our power to PROTECT that Right, even if we choose not to exercise it. The fact that I may be "anti-gun" or a "pacifist" shouldn't limit YOUR right to own the means to protect yourself and your family when needed.