It is more sane and wise to support *some* gun control.

The 2nd 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.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition; the 17th century definition of “Well-regulated”, in reference to troops, meant “Properly disciplined”. http://tinyurl.com... This definition is supported by article 1 section 8 of the constitution; “[The Congress shall have Power] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia” Prior to 1791, states had their own bill of rights, most of which included a right to bear arms. For example; “That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. “ ~ Section 13 of the 1776 VA Bill of Rights The right to bear arms derives from the Battle of Lexington and Concord. The Secretary of State for the colonies gave orders to the Governor of Massachusetts to disarm the local militia. The local militia had long been the main source of defense for local communities. The founders believed that best defense against an invading force would be if every citizen was trained and armed. The founders also believed that standing armies were dangerous, and that an armed populace was a natural defense against a future tyrant using military force to suppress the American people. Practicality In 1764 an Italian criminologist named Cesare Bonesana wrote a book titled “On Crimes and Punishment”. In chapter 40, titled “Of false Ideas of Utility” he discussed the subject of gun control. Cesare stated that those who would ban a tool in order to prevent the tool from being misused are the same type of people “who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.” Cesare stated that gun laws only disarm “those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent.” and that “those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code” are less likely to respect the “less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance”. Cesare also noted that such laws “subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty” Preventative laws only serve as a loophole to undermine our 8th amendment rights. They do not prevent crimes; they only increase the punishment’s severity, while undermining the liberty of law abiding citizens. From an economic point of view, such restrictions do not work. Price ceilings and/or prohibitions cause an excess demand, which creates black market monopolies; this is why the prohibition of alcohol and drugs both failed. Most guns used in violent crimes are illegally obtained. Because the guns used by criminals are already illegal, gun control would just make it harder for the victims to defend themselves. http://tinyurl.com... Alternatives I would rather be the victim of a gun crime, compared to alternative weapons. I would rather be shot, then stabbed or blown up. Getting stabbed is much more gruesome than getting shot. Timothy Mcveigh used fertilizer to kill 168 people, and injure over 650 more. The blast from the bomb damaged or destroyed over 300 buildings. http://tinyurl.com... Even if you were able to reduce gun crime, the guns would just be replaced with another weapon, which may be worse than the original.