Jeff,

the summation you presented as the opening thread is merely the opinion of the current administration.
One can also find summations that upholds the thinking that this is a state's rights, not an individual's right

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

Thank You Boyz...My whole life has been devoted to taking responsibility for my actions...and promoting people to be responsible for their actions....this has been done largely on the fundlmental personal level...Liberals want to abrogate personal responsibilty for social responsibilty..This is the old... man is inherently evil routine....

As an example of my taking responsibilty...there are a number of homes in my neighborhood that are self destructing due to th expansive soil they were built upon....most of my neighbors choose to remain ignorant of the problem so that when they sell their homes they don't have to disclose the condition thus passing off the problem to the next guy....I am one of the only ones in my hood to take the builder to task by sueing him thus making him responsible for his actions...which he is not...

That aside.....

Yu would be amazed at the accuracy attainable by a Whitworth rifle at 1000 yards....

I have a Nesika Heavy Tactical Rifle on my Christmas Wish list...I would buy it in 308 as the 300 WM has a bit more recoil than I want...I would put either a Leupold or Nightforce scope on it...maybe even a Unertl USMC Sniper...but I am told the field of vision is limited wt the Unertl...

I also have an ED Brown Custom Tactical 1911 on that list

I am looking for a Sharps 1877 Long Range #1 Rifle in 45/100...a 1000 yard Creedmore Target Rifle.

Currently I am having a custom Gibbs style long range (1000 yards) muzzleloading target rifle built in .451, and I own several other 1000 yard target rifles with historical interest...

Straw man argument. And false as well by the way.

It is equally false to say "Conservatives want to control personal decisions with religious social doctrine."
What is wrong with "social responsibility" anyway? Isn't that what is happening when you sue a contractor on behalf of other (unknown - future) buyers?

Who says I sueing for future buyers....I sued to protect my own investment....

It maybe a straw man arguement, but it is and accurate account of the Liberal mind set....

Why is "gun control" always the equivalent of "taking all our guns away" in this discussion?

Society, and its "enforcement arm" aka government(s), regulate and control all sorts of behavior, rights, privileges, and activities, with the informed consent of the governed, without banning them - except for criminal acts.

What is the real loss to gun ownership benefits by controlling access to weapons like we control access to driving on the street, racing on a track, practicing medicine, or dog ownership (substitute your personal favorite) through licensing and regulation?

In that case you should be happy, as there are a myriad of gun laws on the books allready..and CA is one of the most restrictive of states...Yet in CA the Liberals are always proposing new restrictions, and even Grey Davis an arch proponent of gun control told his Liberal legislature to cool the new lgun control legislation until the efficacy of the GC laws that had just passed was established...Did they listen...NO....

It is simply the agenda of gun controllers to abolish private ownership of guns..take GB and Australia for example...after they got the guns in GB they went after Fox Hunting...what is next in the UK?

Wildly inaccurate.

Liberal ideology is strongly slanted towards maximum freedom of the individual vs the state or society - commonly referred to a "liberal" interpretation of mores and rights.

Actually, modern liberal ideology is slanted toward maximum freedom only in relation to certain personal issues -- for example, drug use, medical procedures (abortion), freedom of speech and press.

When it comes to issues such as economic freedom, liberals normally do not side with the individual over the state or society. Most have limited agreement to the idea that people have any absolute right to their property, or to the idea that people should be free to contract with others and exchange goods and services without government interference. This opposition to economic freedoms is connected to their "fear" of guns in the hands of their fellow citizens -- they see the firearms as a "danger" in their attempts to take the property of others.

"Classical liberalism" --respecting both personal and economic freedoms -- is closely associated with libertarianism today. Liberals, in the "Democratic Party sense," do not share the philosophy of classical liberalism.

Unlike the other things you mention, the 2nd Amendment is a right. Rights should be subject to enfringement only in the most extreme circumstances. Freedom of speech in some situations during times of war (location of embedded reporters for example), yelling fire in theatre, etc.

Controlling access to guns has proven ineffective in curbing crime. In fact, the opposite has been the result in the places that have the most extreme laws (Washington DC, England, Australia).
Would you feel safer in Switzerland where "OMG everyone has military weapons at home?" or California?

Gun owners/citizens would lose a fundamental right in a counterproductive attempt to obtain more security. The person who is against "having one of those things in my house" is in some way being protected by the neighbors that do have guns. Not knowing who in the neighborhod is armed is a deterent to certain crimes.

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

I would certainly feel safer with a neighbor that has an extensive gun collection and a bad temper....

Prohibiting smoking in a public place protects who? Society from the indivdual or the indivdual from society? Hmmmm

Gun Control protects who...Society from the indivdual or the indivdual from society...Hmmmmm?

Disagree with the notion that the only personal freedoms liberals support are those you find personally distasteful. "Blue laws" and other restrictions to commercial activity on days some religions consider sacred have been limited or even removed by liberal / progressive legal interpretation of a citizens right to happiness versus the society’s desire to control personal behavior.

Judicial and public policy doctrines of "greater good" limit citizens, as well as governments, absolute control over anything - much less property rights. That doctrine isn’t ideologically liberal or conservative. It is policy developed over many years through the necessity of governing. It is subject to interpretation and use that is ideological, though. Sometimes business interests use eminent domain to pursue commercial interests like city development or business parks. Sometimes environmental groups use the same doctrine to protect federal lands and resources.

Don't see a lot of liberals marching around demanding more limits on economic freedom and opposing "contract with others and exchange goods and services without government interference". What is an example of liberally controlled government interference with exchanging goods and services?

I did mention rights (after behavior) Chris, and even rights, as you point out, are controlled. No right is absolute in our culture or society. JMPO that gun based violence is reduced in those countries. Canada is another example. Switzerland has a small homogenous and old (pre gun history) culture without a long history of personal gun use to reinforce that sense of security you describe. Unlike the USA – where history and culture celebrates gun use. I just disagree that regulating gun ownership automatically results in the loss of ones right to own a gun. Or that there is some liberal conspiracy to take guns away from people.

Prohibiting smoking or gun control - reduces an individuals ability to affect the health of another individual.
Elections decide what society wants prohibited or controlled.

Liberals have been imposing social taxes on businesses especially in CA, which impedes their competiviness...excessive Workers comp regulations....

Your personal opinion on gun based violence reduction in gun control countries is contrary to the facts...GB has experienced a marked increase in gun related crime since it's ban has been imposed on the citizenery....Washington DC has been singled out for it's gun related homicide rate...

Ahhh but the health of which indivdual....and since you can't tell which one they are all lumped together as a society of indivduals...

Elections huh..thats why gun controlers have give up on the electoral process...remember prop 82 in CA..that went down in flames back in the early 80's....and that why they have chosen to use the judical process to go after gun owner ship..trying to rely on Liberal jurists....

Ohhh try again......

From Boston U. School of Public Health: people killed with handguns in 1996
30 in Great Britain
106 in Canada
211 in Germany
15 in Japan
9,390 in the US

Centers for Disease Control study shows that American children are nearly 12 times more likely to die from a gun injury than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. They are 11 times more likely to use a gun to commit suicide and 9 times more likely to die from an unintentional shooting.

Economic ranking by GPD - California is the world's FIFTH largest economy: United States, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, California (if it were an independent nation) France, China, Italy, Canada and Brazil.

Socially taxed right to the top....

Scot,
Any chance you can dig up the numbers for later years, or at least Great Britain and the US for comparison?

As you may be aware, the UK is experiencing a dramatic rise in crime since their gun ban went into effect in 1997. London's crime rate is now greater than New York's for example.

Australia would be another good one to compare crime rates pre and post gun ban. They are enjoying the same "benefits" as the UK I've heard.

I would be being disenengenuous if I thought my examples proved anything but it's less of a stretch than the "correlation equals causation" argument you are implying by comparing handgun deaths in one culture vs another.
-Chris

Here you go Thom

http://www.jjjasper.com/ce/images/fu..._bear_arms.jpg