This Thread started out on a bad foot. It asks a "what if" question. And several other have continued with "What if's". Such as "what if" you don't use the 2nd Admandment as a defense so the rest of the world could understand ... .Or "What if" the man at the Gifford shooting had shot .... . Fact is none of these are factual situaions.

2nd Admendment is the law of the land. Why would anyone ask to not have it included in a discussion, if its the law of the land? Simple, they don't know or comprehend the law and want to add their two cents based upon something they know. Therefore; let me (him) take a statement based upon something in my (his) land, so I (he) can be correct in the statements against guns. When you walk into someone's home, you go by their rules, not suspend them so you can do as you want. As for the 2nd Admendment - it's a fact, and it's the law, and one he can't or shouldn't argue with. The reason he shouldn't, is because of the old statement only a fool argues against facts. That is why he is trying to take the law out of the equation. He doesn't want to be a fool.

As for the person who had the gun at the Gifford situation. Facts is he didn't shoot. So now this person wishes he would have shot the man who wrestled with Jared Lee Loughner so he could say see! This actually proves the person with the gun makes the choice - its not the gun! Loughner shot - the other did not - FACT.

And the final and original "What If" - a plane is loaded with guns....
This "what if" is wanting opinion because it is not based upon any real situation. Well what if you pull that stick out of your arse, will you still have that stiff upper lip? Is it the stick that makes it stiff? Isn't that what they say about you Brits? You keep a stiff upper lip! I think it the stick. I have mustered no facts to make this statement, just like you, but title it "What If".

Fact one bullet can bring down a plane. But that one bullet can come from within or from the ground. So does it really matter from where it came from? ....But does one bullet bring down a plane all the time - NO. In fact rarely and that could have many very(s) in front of it. That is a false situation where people get sucked through a window of a plane, let alone an explosive decompression when a bullet goes through a side of a plane. Oh I am a air craft structual tech. I know about air craft structures.

"What if" you Britts made a law not to allow bombs aboard planes. We wouldn't have had Pan Am Flight 103. What if all those people were allowed to bring a bomb aboard, we wouldn't have had that Lybian blow it up. You at least caught the master mind and tried him and jailed him, then let him go for oil. You let him go for money. What fools!

Of course that is an opinion under "What If".

Just out of interest, do you think it is possible that Americans could discuss gun ownership WITHOUT making any reference to the 2nd Amendment? That way, maybe the debate could concentrate on the actual pros and cons of widespread gun ownership, rather than on the relative value of decisions made by a group of men (no women, of course) over 200 years ago. It might also allow the rest of the world to join in the debate without being accused of poking their noses in where they're not wanted. Gun control is not just a US issue.

At last there seem to be signs of rationality coming into this debate.

Reverting to the 2nd Amendment issue (which as has been pointed out is constantly thrown around as justification for carrying a lethal weapon) - remember it was passed around 200 years ago. It may well have been reasonable to have that right in those days and under the conditions then pertaining. However conditions nowadays are somewhat different. The test of "REASONABLENESS" should therefore be applied.

Under today's very different conditions - the US is no longer a wild western style frontier territory being carved out of wilderness but purports to be a modern society in a world that has moved on 200 years. So, it is very relevant to ask if it is still "reasonable" that everyone should go around armed to the teeth with the excuse that a 200 years old law gives that right. What is the actual need for it ?

Like others, I'm only posing a question - so there's no need for anyone to go around pointing fingers and shouting about sticks up arses, is there?

PS 1. There is only 1 "t" in "Brits"
2. The Lockerby (Pan Am Flight 103) bomber was released under Scots Law which carries connotations and provisions about unreasonable and inhumane punishments, etc. Those who quote the 2nd Amendment because it gives rights in US law should remember that Scots law also gives certain rights to people. The court was told that the man was dying - he took a long time over that but he is frying in hell now. In the UK the law pays more attention to inhumane treatment of prisoners and other "unnatural" punishments than it appears US law does. The bomb was not loaded onto the aircraft in the UK. As I recall it, the last leg of the flight commenced in Italy, not the UK.

At last there seem to be signs of rationality coming into this debate.

Reverting to the 2nd Amendment issue (which as has been pointed out is constantly thrown around as justification for carrying a lethal weapon) - remember it was passed around 200 years ago. It may well have been reasonable to have that right in those days and under the conditions then pertaining. However conditions nowadays are somewhat different. The test of "REASONABLENESS" should therefore be applied.

Under today's very different conditions - the US is no longer a wild western style frontier territory being carved out of wilderness but purports to be a modern society in a world that has moved on 200 years. So, it is very relevant to ask if it is still "reasonable" that everyone should go around armed to the teeth with the excuse that a 200 years old law gives that right. What is the actual need for it ?

Like others, I'm only posing a question - so there's no need for anyone to go around pointing fingers and shouting about sticks up arses, is there?

PS 1. There is only 1 "t" in "Brits"
2. The Lockerby (Pan Am Flight 103) bomber was released under Scots Law which carries connotations and provisions about unreasonable and inhumane punishments, etc. Those who quote the 2nd Amendment because it gives rights in US law should remember that Scots law also gives certain rights to people. The court was told that the man was dying - he took a long time over that but he is frying in hell now. In the UK the law pays more attention to inhumane treatment of prisoners and other "unnatural" punishments than it appears US law does. The bomb was not loaded onto the aircraft in the UK. As I recall it, the last leg of the flight commenced in Italy, not the UK.