You can't compare this British Broadcast news report with what I'm suggesting. In Britain, hand guns are barred completely. I never said that we take guns away completely. Those that pass a set of stringent criteria, and that means more than just showing two forms of ID as was the case with Cho, can own a gun. I don't disagree with that. I am for more stringent requirements to obtain, own, and use a firearm. In the military they conduct significant background checks regularly for security clearances. A background check similar to this, maybe not as thorough, should be what is required. They usually take 6 months in the military.

and that means more than just showing two forms of ID as was the case with Cho Have you any evidence to support this assertion, or are you just speaking "ex recto"?

You can't compare this British Broadcast news report with what I'm suggesting. In Britain, hand guns are barred completely. I never said that we take guns away completely. Those that pass a set of stringent criteria, and that means more than just showing two forms of ID as was the case with Cho, can own a gun. I don't disagree with that. I am for more stringent requirements to obtain, own, and use a firearm. In the military they conduct significant background checks regularly for security clearances. A background check similar to this, maybe not as thorough, should be what is required. They usually take 6 months in the military.

You just made my point. In britain hand guns are banned completely, yet 28% of their criminals are carrying hand guns. Unless you suggest they are strapping rifles to their backs as they walk around. So if in a country that has banned all hand guns, 28% of the criminals are still carrying them, how will more regulation in this country achive better results than britian with their outright ban?

Well... If you'll notice in my original post, I never visited Britain. I am aware that they have a no hand guns "period" law. Which I disagree with, because then, Yes, as the NRA saying goes, "only criminals would have guns". Again, I'm not saying that one shouldn't have a gun... I'm saying that the process to own one should be more than just showing two forms of ID and having one within 10 day wait period (or whatever the wait period is). I do know this. I have lived 4 years in Germany and 3 years in Italy... and their systems work. Yes, these countries do have their gun incidents every now and then, but we're not talking about two in one week as we observed in the USA this week.

You forgot a couple of things: 1a. Revolution. That is why the second amendment was made to the Constitution. I would hope that that would eliminate #2. Before WWII, the British had very few guns and Americans had many guns. 60,000 civilians were killed in Britian during WWII while 0 civilians in The United States of America were killed. The Japaneese considered invading the US, but did not want to face civilians with guns. They were not afraid of the military.

The second amendment was made because the nation needed a militia. It was too young, with no budget (the U.S. tax system wasn't in place), and it could not pay for a standing active Army. Therefore, everyone was given the right to bear arms, which was outlawed by the British, so that the nation could defend itself without a standing active paid Army. Today, we have an active military with a multi-billion $$ budget, which includes the "organized militia", i.e., the National Guard. This idea of an "unorganized militia" is outdated and no longer relevant. Regarding the British and World War II... 60,000 civilians killed by German Luftwafa (airplanes). Also, for your information, the U.S. was invaded by the Japanese with aircraft also... i.e., Pearl Harbor... or did you forget? All those petty little handguns running around in the USA with the "unorganized militia" are not going to protect us against another aircraft attack like Pearl Harbor.

How many civilians were killed at Pearl Harbor? It wasn't even a state at the time. The Japaneese would have invaded the United States (boots on the ground) if it was not for citizens having firearms. That was stated shortly after the war by one of the Japaneese generals planning the war. Since the British were killed by airplanes that makes me think the civilians need anti-aircraft guns. That is what the founding fathers were thinking when the made the second amendment.

Hmmmm.... so you don't consider any of the U.S. territories as part of the United States? Even though all inhabitants of U.S. territories are U.S. citizens? Out of curiousity, do you know the names of all the U.S. territories today? There was an American flag flying over Hawaii when Pearl Harbor happened. Who was the Japanese general that made that statement?

I don't know how many, if any, civilians were killed at Pearl Harbor. I don't recall where I read the interview with the Japanese General and can't find it. I could come up with most of the territories.

So... what are the territories of the the United States? 48 civilians were killed at Pearl Harbor within one hour 2 hours by Japanese aircraft. Would be nice if you knew the name of "some Japanese General" before you start quoting him. From my Pacific War history, the Japanese had no intent to invade the U.S. Reason: (A) Too far from home and their objective was to occupy Asia, not the USA. (B) The reason for bombing Pearl Harbor was because they intended on taking several U.S. strategic locations in Asia (one primarily starts with a "P", can you guess what country that is?), and they knew they had to disable the U.S. Naval fleet at Pearl Harbor, otherwise taking these Asian U.S. outpost would soon be retaliated by the naval fleet at Pearl Harbor.

Yep. They planned on winning the war in a couple of months too. It was later in the war that they planned on invading the continental United States because of the damage that we doing to the Japanese. Good night. I have to get up in the morning and take my 14 year old son turkey hunting. I don't think that would happen in Europe and I don't see why it needs to be any more expensive or harder to do here.

Have a great night. Hope you have a successful hunting trip tomorrow. They don't hunt turkeys here. In Bavaria (one of the German states), thay hunt wild boar and deer... a little larger game than shooting turkeys I guess.

Yep. We have deer here too, but we hunt them in December. The son that I was talking about got two last year.

Super... tell him congratulations from me. And I hope he gets a big turkey tomorrow. Really appreciate your input to this blog, Sir. Thanks.

Regarding the British and World War II... 60,000 civilians killed by German Luftwafa (airplanes). Also, for your information, the U.S. was invaded by the Japanese with aircraft also... i.e., Pearl Harbor... or did you forget? All those petty little handguns running around in the USA with the "unorganized militia" are not going to protect us against another aircraft attack like Pearl Harbor ---------------- If enemy wanted to occupy, then small arms would be put to better use in a guerilla style war.

Man... what's your phone number, you sound like a great candidate to help us out in Iraq with all this talk about "guerilla style war". I'd like to have one of the recruiters call you, especially with all your experience in the "unorganized" militia. For your information... not one country is going to try to "occupy" the United States. (A) Since the end of the Cold War... we're it. We're the most powerful nation in the world. (B) Our country is too vast for any other country to even attempt to occupy. You know, there are some strategic thinkers out there.

Man... what's your phone number, you sound like a great candidate to help us out in Iraq with all this talk about "guerilla style war". I'd like to have one of the recruiters call you, especially with all your experience in the "unorganized" militia. --------------- Isnt that what the insurgents in iraq doing right now? I dont see that they have any tanks planes, helicopters or any of the stuff we have. All I see is a bunch of guys with small arms and some explosives.

Yep, and they sure don't have the capability to "invade and occupy" the USA.

Yep, and they sure don't have the capability to "invade and occupy" the USA. That is true...what Im trying to say is in certain situations small arms still have a place.