[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by Draven

The right to "keep & bear arms" here in American is our right as citizens to rebel against our government. The right to own a weapon (not only limited to firearms) is key to allowing a civilian population to defend any other rights. So yes it is something, I could see fighting for. Of course our first amendment leaves various safe guards for abuse of 2nd amendment rights.

Originally Posted by The US Second Amendment

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.

I'm seeing two things here. Firstly the reference to a "well regulated militia". The amendment does not implicitly state that the individual has this right. Private gun ownership hardly constitutes a "well regulated militia", unless those who exercised this right were required to be part of some organised group.
Secondly, "being necessary to the security of a free State". This would appear to refer to the security of the state (ie. the nation), not to the right of the individual to defend themselves. Given that the second amendment was made law only a few years after the War of Independence the primary consideration may well have been the security of the state against foreign aggression. I don't see any mention there of taking up arms against the (US) government.

I realize that the meaning of the second amendment has been debated at length by many legal minds: I don't think you and I are going to come to a definitive agreement.

Originally Posted by Draven

Why would you not see having the power to defend yourself and your rights as not something to fight for?

Largely because I can't defend myself if I'm dead.

Originally Posted by Draven

In one way you are very correct, in another way you may be wrong. You are correct in that few civilian populations have what is takes to defeat a larger military force. However, I'd like to point out that the leading sources of information on guerrilla warfare say something quite different.

I think the main problem we have here is our vastly different perspectives. You, as a former soldier, are confidant (perhaps rightly so) of your ability to wage guerrilla warfare, and of the damage you could thus inflict. I am thinking from the civilian perspective. Most western citizens are highly unwilling to endure hardship, or risk injury and death. Thus I doubt many people would take up your cause. I am also considering that the larger and more dense a population center is, the more easily it can be controlled/coerced by simply cutting off power, water and gas. A few days of this, even in mild weather, and people would not only be begging for the return of services, they would cheerfully inform on your activities in order to bring about a faster resolution. Government forces would not have to enter a city (and expose themselves to your guerrilla forces), they could hold siege from without. A first-world city is less able to withstand such a siege than a medieval village.

Originally Posted by Skelton

This must be an American thing, but firearm ownership does make a difference. It allows us to rebel and overthrow our government. Besides I would be very unlikely to die defending my guns because of the shear number of resistors and also because who is going to shoot a 15 year old kid.

See above for my view on the right to overthrow your government. And, yes, I do think it's an american thing. Following the Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania (the crappy little island of the south coast of Australia), the government banned the private ownership of semi-automatic weapons. (Full-autos were already illegal.) A compulsory buyback scheme was initiated: all semi-autos had to be surrendered and compensation paid. Since gun licenses and registration were already mandatory anyone with a legally owned semi-auto could not hope to keep it because the regulating body already knew that they owned it. So, with the exception of illegally owned firearms, the vast majority of semi-autos were surrendered. My point? Although there was considerable outrage from some sections of the community (drowned out by the shocked reaction to Port Arthur), I am not aware of any australian actually dying rather than hand over their weapon.
As for who would shoot a 15 year-old kid: I would if he pointed a firearm at me. So would most US cops I'm sure.

Originally Posted by Draven

Actually owning a firearm gives you the ability to protect yourself, your property and your loved ones. Even then the historically, violent crime was lower in a society with an armed civilian population. Think about you gonna rob, mug, rape or assault someone who has a gun to? Not if you have brain stem.

When it comes to gun ownership I believe there are only two balanced situations. Either everybody has one, or no-one does. Since it is naive to assume that criminal elements will ever be completely disarmed I support private gun ownership, on the following conditions:

1. That all owners be licensed, have completed a firearms safety course, and that all firearms be registered. (This is already law in all states of Aust.)
2. That anyone who is carrying a firearm on their person, for whatever reason, be subject to drug and alcohol testing in the same fashion as motorists. I include police and security guards in this. (The Australian army already performs random drug tests.)
3. I also believe that any gun sold should have ballistic tests performed and the results stored on a central database to enable ballistic matching to be carried out on any bullet or cartridge found at the scene of a crime. (I know that barrel wear can negate this, but if you re-test whenever the gun changes hands it lessens the odds.)

Having said which, Australia has a very low rate of gun crime. In 2003 there were 290 gun deaths. (I couldn't find more recent stats but I believe the figure is lower now. 193 of these were suicides. (Which I don't see as a "gun" problem.) Only 54 were homicides, 40 were accidents, (Darwin strikes again,) the remaining 3 were legal shootings (by cops presumably).

Sorry I've gone a bit off-topic here, but I thought it would be helpful to give my perspective on firearm ownership.