This a lot of pish and waffle spouted about paedophilia these days, I went to public school and was roundly buggered, never did me any harm, built the British Empire it did.

Lt Colonel Sir Watkins Bletchley-Smythe (Rt)

Satan can't take your call right now, please leave your soul after the tone.

1) The vast majority of crime is not gun homicide, in any country, therefore the Swiss can have a very low overall crime rate while having a high gun murder rate.

b) Er OK, 100% of non-gun owners don't use their guns to kill anyone.

2) The Japanese supported their government right to the close of the war - are you suggesting if they had all been toting side arms they would have overthrown Tojo and made peace? All evidence suggests they would not.

3&4;) If you won't accept international comparisons showing that having lots of guns in a country leads to lots of murders, how about internal US statistics showing looser gun laws = more gun deaths:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022167036

You can't play the 'culture' card there, and within the US it will be harder to enforce those differences as there are no internal borders and guns can move from gun-nut to liberal states more easily, but still you can see the correlation. San Diego eh? You should be more sensible, California is blue isn't it?

Note: 'by the minority' in the case of the US revolution was the justification precisely that laws were being enforced without the consent of the majority? "No taxation without etc...."

In this instance if gun laws are brought in by a duly elected president it is by the majority, if the minority try to overturn the majority it is undemocratic, if they do so violently it is traitorous.

And Churchill said "democracy is the worst possible form of government, except all other forms that have been tried" Both Churchill and Franklin were democrats (small d).

Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive, you are both, just as we are both a democracy and a constitutional monarchy.

1) The UK's murder rate has gone up since 1937? How is that an argument? It raises all manner of red herrings (e.g. has the detection rate increased or the actual rate of murders). Are you trying to suggest that an American is simply more murderous than a European? How does that explain the law abiding Swiss? Give me a counter theory - if it is not the availability of firearms, what is the cause?

b) So you are saying there is no such thing as 'the heat of the moment' you have never done anything you later regretted? Yes a proportion in that situation will go on to commit the crime in cold blood, but the majority will not.

2) You can vote for whatever you like, but you cannot use the argument 'I need my guns in case my (democratically elected) government needs violently opposing'

3 & 4) That is precisely what is happening, the sensible half of your country (for now in the ascendant) wants to (and will) implement greater gun control, and you and the poster of this discussion are threatening violent revolution.

I believe people who advocate armed revolution by the minority to be undemocratic, tyrannical, traitorous and dare I say it 'unamerican'.

Correct, tribes are become nations, nations become federations, then we become the united federation of planets, just as Roddenberry foresaw.

1. a) Yes there is:

Number of murders per 100,000 USA = 6, Switzerland = 2.9 England = 1.5. England is empirically safer, I have a lower chance of getting murdered.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/ 2009/oct/13/homicide-rates-country-murder-data

b) My point is that it is not that 'the guns are in the hands of the criminals' as there are fewer criminals in Switzerland than either US or UK, the guns are in the hands of ordinary law abiding citizens, but the fact they are out there = crimes of passion = dead pool boys.

2. My point there is that the argument it is a barrier to tyranny does not hold water as your pea shooter doesn't have a chance against an abrams, you can't vote for guns to be used against the government while simultaneously voting for more money to the government so they can arm themselves better. We have a very small armed force who frankly wouldn't have chance of oppressing the will of the people guns or no.

3. Yes an amendment is a part of the thing it is amending, but amendment means - change, ergo it can be changed!!!

A. Laws some how magically stop criminals

- I prefer my criminals unarmed

B. a someone who has been robbed,raped,or murderd or all of the above is somehow morally superior to the person that defended themselves.

- I just don't understand that argument, if someone steals my car and I shoot him, I have committed the crime of murder he has committed the crime of theft, who has committed the greatest sin? (you're the christian...)

C. see response to A, also all the weapons in Sandy Hook were legally owned, again would it not be better if Adam Lanza had had to use a bread knife?

D. The constitution is NOT SET IN STONE, it is not a biblical tablet, it can be amended by the will of the people through their government hence... there already are 27 AMENDMENTS. The 2nd amendment can be repealed if it is the will of the people.

"the second amendment tells the government they cannot pass ANY laws restricting the people's right to keep and bare arms."

1) The government can repeal the 2nd amendment

2) Am I / and should I be allowed to own my weaponized anthrax?

The government in a democratic country are the representatives of the people, to rebel against them is to rebel against the people - if you want to change the government, vote for Sarah Palin.

Erudite and insightful.

"The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct."

Marcus Tullius Cicero

What do you mean 'so what':

The whole thrust of this debate is 'Religion / Christianity is bad for learning' my case is that Pagan Rome encouraged science / debate / literacy / learning hence the great thinkers I have listed. Christian Rome (and the Catholic church thereafter) oppressed learning, hence... the dark ages.

Only after the Catholic Church lost it's stranglehold on power did learning take off again. Hence: the Renaissance.