"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

having a peoples militia and a volunteer army are two different things. many people that believe they NEED a gun are not willing to fight for the country, only fight other citizens within the country for their right to fight. the government says you can have a gun but you cant disagree with the government and use that gun to change it. there is no humane argument for personal safety with market capitalism making sure that the product (guns) get into the hands of the consumers (anyone from hunters to thugs).... this country was founded by exploration and subjugated by the gun. theres no getting rid of them, no way to regulate all of them, and not enough education on the proper handling of them.

You are correct - furthermore, there never will be enough education on the proper handling of them until the industry is allowed to go about it's business without constantly having to fight for survival. NO ONE has more interest in seeing proper education offered to end users than the manufacturer's. Proper education will only help them sell more products.

As far as ever getting rid of firearms --- I CERTAINLY HOPE NOT!

By the way, the idea that gun manufacturers don't care who gets the guns as long as somebody does ((as espoused in your comment "...(anyone from hunters to thugs)...")) simply doesn't hold water. The industry has NO interest in the so-called "Bad Guys" getting their hands on guns. When guns are used for illegal purposes it directly affects the industry in a negative manner, ergo, enough of that kind of use will eventually destroy the industry.

Also, the exploration you tout as the foundation of this country could not have happened without the support of the guns the explorers carried.

As long as we are at it -- "Volunteer Army" is a joke. Read the constitution. It effectively dismisses the idea of a standing army of any kind. Volunteer or otherwise. The idea being that a government with a backing army is a government with too much power.

In short, this isn't about "need". It is about individual "Rights" (intentional caps). ONLY citizens can have Rights. Governments cannot. Our Constitution is in place to ensure our individual Rights, not to give the government powers to take our Rights away.

Notice there is no discussion of elimination of regulation and licensing of firearms. It is absolutely paramount that everyone understand that the firearms industry has no intent to eliminate licensing and regulation of firearms. In fact, most current laws regarding licensing and regulation are wholeheartedly supported by the industry. The Supreme Court upheld our individual Rights today --- They did not strike down legislation that will now allow everyone to own machine guns and flame throwers! There are many laws in place regarding firearms ownership and use. If the left-wing do-gooders would focus on the enforcement of these existing laws and less on the creation of new laws the world would be a better place.

I think DC will offer an interesting study in gun control policy. Will there be more gun-related deaths in the next few years or less? And to the poster above, are you really speaking for the entire firearm industry? Don't you think that's overstepping yourself just slightly? I would argue that firearm manufacturers are just like any other industry. There are honest, decent companies and there are profit driven companie who care about nothing else...and everything in between. Applying your logic to the automotive industry- wouldn't the car makers have installed safety belts much sooner instead of being forced to by the government? Same goes for airbags. A few acted before their time, some fought the government's involvement and some willingly accepted the mandate. The firearm manufacturers can lead the way in regards to safety or they can wait for the government to step in. I fail to see how the "left-wing do-gooders" are responsible for enforcement of the existing laws. Both sides share responsibility for the problem. Until each and every one of us refuses to live in a country where it's normal to wake up and see that a person has killed five of his co-workers, or a trade involving basketball players makes the headlines over the shooting deaths of two people, only then can we move past the partisan bickering and start making a safer place to live.

Seatbelts are to automobiles as safety switches are to firearms.

Seatbelt installation was mandated as a standard in the auto industry around 1970. Safety switches for firearms NEVER had to be mandated as standard equipment because manufacturers were voluntarily putting them on firearms long before the government had to get involved. Does this make the firearms industry more responsible than the auto industry?

As to safety in society where gun bans are enforced and whether or not the DC area will see a safer or less safe environment, all I can say is "take a look at societies where gun bans are enforced". Australia, for example, has a gun ban countrywide. Ongoing study in that country has shown a dramatic INCREASE in firearms related viloent crime. Why? Because the crooks know that the citizenry is unarmed!

Look, I am not advocating a free-for-all in regards to gun ownership. Just common sense. Look at it this way, every day you read about car accidents right? Some of these turn out to be accidents where the car is mis-used in a way that injures or kills someone. When that happens, do the press and all the left wing utopists come out of the woodwork calling for a car ban? No, of course not. However, if you write the same story and insert the word "GUN" in place of "CAR" you will get a completely different reaction. All of a sudden guns are everywhere and they are all killing people! It just isn't true or equitable logic.

By the way - I feel somewhat qualified to speak for the industry. My company is in the industry and we sell millions of dollars a year of all kinds of hunting, shooting, sporting and law enforcement equipment.

So you have an economic interest in the firearms industry and we are to believe that you are the voice of reason on related issues? Also, how does a safety switch keep a criminal, or anyone for that matter, from misusing a firearm? And a few questions about Australia. I couldn't find useful data online so perhaps you know what their firearm related homicide rate is compared to the US. To that matter, how does the US stack up against other developed countries when it comes to firearm related homicide?

Honestly, I think this issue is so divisive that we, as a society, have decided to bury our heads in the sand rather than deal with it. Barely a day goes by in this city without someone being killed or wounded by gunfire. How did we let that become normal? Shouldn't we all be ashamed that for all the advances we have made as a country, we can't seem to figure out this problem.

Not expressing an opinion on handguns per se, but at the time the Bill of Rights was written, there wasn't much of a free-standing permanent military in our young country. The "militia" was you and me. Whenever there was a war, or even a small-scale skirmish with Indians or whatever, they'd gather up a bunch of citizens who were expected to provide their own muskets to go fight. They'd serve for a few weeks or months and then go home with their weapons. That was the context in which they wrote the Second Amendment, but does it still apply today?

The D.C. handgun ban was one of those good-intentioned things that spawned unintended consequences. If the ban had been effective in reducing the total number of guns or gun deaths, I doubt this case would have ever been brought. But the net effect of it was that criminals were easily able to obtain handguns illegally, while law-abiding citizens were prohibited from possessing them. That's a pretty screwy situation.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm a gun owner. I have handguns for protection and hunting rifles. That said, I don't believe that the Founding Fathers meant for the second amendment to necessarily give all Americans the right to have guns in their homes without any sort of restriction. It was written at a time when militias were made up of average citizens who were required to purchase and maintain their own firearms for military use. Obviously, this isn't the case today. If you volunteer for the armed services, proper firearms will be provided for you.

Obviously, I think Americans should be able to bear arms as I am a gun owner myself. That said, I am not an NRA member who believes that all gun legislation is bad. I think it's a little too easy in Indiana to get a gun permit and a gun. All you have to do is ask and not have any felony convictions. Some states require you to take a gun safety course before being granted a license, which I would be in favor of.

If you have guns in your home and you have children, your children should be required to take firearm safety classes as well. There have already been several cases this year in Indiana of children shooting themselves or siblings with their guardian's firearms.

When I was growing up, my next door neighbor and close friend accidentally shot himself while playing with one of his father's hunting rifles. He was 8 years old. That would have never happened at my house, because my dad taught us to fear and respect his guns, but not all children have parents that care about them enough to do this. I received my first shotgun at 13 years old for hunting rabbit. Before that, I trained on pellet and BB guns for years.

I also don't feel there's a need for ordinary citizens to have machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, or other military-grade weapons. The fringe members of society that have these are mostly mentally ill gun nuts that should probably be locked away for their and our safety. Some people view gun ownership as more of a religion than a right.

Unfortunately, you are right. It is a pretty screwy situation. Criminals will always find a way to have the upper hand against innocents. If the innocents are judicially proscribed from legal methods of defense, then the criminals will always win.

By the way. The case was brought because a licensed security guard that was required to carry a firearm while on duty was legally prohibited from carrying it while off duty. Yet another screwy situation.

Rictor - I couldn't agree more.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gun...

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.

Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimein_theUnited_States

Where there is a marked disparity between the incidence of crime in the US and all other comparable developed countries is in the per capita rate of murder committed with firearms. The most recent data show that the proportion of Americans killed by firearms is more than three and a half times greater than the next country of comparable development (Portugal.)[37] The proportion of Americans killed by firearms per year is more than seven and a half times greater than the comparable proportion of residents in the 10 developed countries with the next highest rates of firearm homicides.[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GunviolenceintheUnited_States