Maybe someone can explain the second amendment to this Canadian. No matter how many times I read it all I see is improper use of a comma.

"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."

Now, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed." makes sense. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms" just seems mashed in. Is it saying "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is necessary for a well-regulated Militia? The kind of civilian militia that doesn't exist? (You don't bring your own gun when you join the army). If this is the case, why isn't stressing over the fact that America has no well-regulated militia? (Other than white supremacists in Washington and Oregon).

While I'm at it, does anyone really believe that if the American government couldn't subdue its own people? You have a rifle. They have a billion dollar military fund.

Also, do you really think the government would just attack its own citizens? I mean, that happens eventually but doing that from the start is so 19th century. We know now that you start with a slow dissolution of citizen's rights, creation of an enemy (or enemies) within, further government control, suppression of free speech, less privacy in the name of security. Once you've succeeded there, then you can start using a little more force. Maybe militia-like teams that can bust into people's homes for little reason. Or something like that.

[For those of you playing at home, "Free speech zones", "Presidential wire-tapping", PATRIOT ACT, SWAT)

I dunno. Makes more sense to me to watch for those crimes rather than think your rifle (or ak-whatev) is really going to make a difference.

[PS. I'm not for the abolition of guns. Hunting and protecting your home in the inevitable apocalypse are good reasons to have a gun. I'm just questioning the "It's gunna protect me from the guvmint" line of reasoning.]

I am also glad we agree on something I think the "hunter culture" is the closest we have to a 'gun culture' in Canada.

Whether the purpose of the right to 'keep and bear arms' was intended only for the preservation of militias is still something that is contended. But the general consensus in America is that the people regardless of militia status have a right to own firearms. In the light of the culture at the time of the second amendment's passage, I personally believe that it had more to do with the preservation of militias; as such 'minuteman' militias were instrumental to the winning of American independence. And at the time, local militias were more of an integral part of American life that to suggest the government taking away such a right to defend their localities by banning such organizations or their ability to arm themselves was seen as taking away a town's right to defend them and their families from outside aggression (mainly invaders and Indians) as well as tyranny. And at the time, militias were vastly comprised of everyday people; so "the people" and "militia" in terms of the right to keep and bear arms was almost synonymous at the time. And of course now the cultural climate of America (we now have a standing Army, etc.) is so different that "the people" and "militia" isn't so synonymous anymore. Whether that connotes the irrelevance or now the heightened importance of an armed populace will be a topic of future contention. But I believe we at least need to underline the vast differences in the America then with the America now.

But I'm sure most other Americans on this board will disagree with me.

But even with that in light, I don't think the government has the prerogative to completely ban weapons anyway. I used to be completely pro-gun rights; I would essentially disagree with any legislation that would place any kind of hindrance on the populace to be able to blow things away. I think I've matured this line of thinking by now. Now I see the virtues in certain caps, and especially gun registration; but I also don't think guns should be completely outlawed. Generally speaking, the responsibility of gun safety should be placed on the shoulders of those using them (or the parents of those using them). Likewise, if someone commits a crime with one, you should punish that individual under the law rather than attempt to somehow lessen such crimes by banning that specific weapon.

Also, something that is contrary to popular belief in the United States and something worth sharing is that, I believe the Second Amendment hasn't even been officially applied to the states. So theoretically any state could pass laws abolishing private gun ownership within the realms of the law and Constitution. That is, until someone takes it to court and the Supreme Court finds that the 14th Amendment applies the 2nd Amendment also to the states.

I wouldn't really say this is true; especially because Canadians have more guns per household than Americans. I would say that the culture of fear and militarism seems to be rather distinctly American (at the present time). I definitely think the obviously unprecedented amount of gun violence in America has more to do with the American cultural and ideological climate than the availability of guns. We Americans need to focus more on maturing this culture than banning guns, thereby attacking the problem at its source.

Why are Americans afraid of everything? Well, it may sound like a cheap answer but it's got a lot to do with media. We have three major cable "news" channels going at it for 24 hours a day. I put news in quotes because half of the time, they're not even reporting on the news, unless you believed that Paris Hilton's jail episode really counted as hard-hitting and relevant. Everyday you hear about terrorists, war, terrorists, war, hidden terror cells within America, threats, general threats, rumors of threats, "gut-feelings" of threats. Local news isn't much better: Every night it's murder, assault, rape, drugs, murder, murderer on the loose! Even though the violent crime rate has been dropping since the 90s, the media coverage of crimes has been on the increase for quite some time. Every hour of every day, Americans hear of the threats to their lives from every angle, and it's no wonder why we're so afraid.

I've lived in areas where the crime rate is low, and where it is high, and those statistics don't really play into what is shown on the news at night.

Why do they do it? Ratings. The nightly news is but a business owned by a corporation, whether it be General Electric, Time Warner, News Corp, etc. To keep making money, to keep their "businesses" lucrative, they need ratings. Fear sells, violence sells, sex sells, it's very simple really.

Cut the arrogant crap gar.
Britain also has its "big brother" concerns...

BBC NEWS | Politics | Watchdog's Big Brother UK warning
Big Brother: What it really means in Britain today - Independent Online Edition > UK Politics

As I said before it was a cheap answer, I was just blowing off some steam, it is a lot more complex than "the media", but it does play a role in perpetuating fear unto the masses. You asked why are Americans afraid of everything and I gave you an answer. It is a lot deeper than what I had said. But you'd have to admit, if we weren't being told everyday that we may die soon from a psychotic junkie or a terrorist attack or a disease, we'd be a lot less afraid and we would have a need to carry guns around at all times.

Yes, the culture of fear has been around for far longer than the advent of electronic media; but with radio, television, and the internet, it is so much easier to spread one's message, to spread fear. A news report can tell the masses of the next possible flu pandemic a hell of a lot quicker than any town crier could, no matter how loud he was.