I think everyone shoud have guns and swords if they want them. GCJ

Specifically, I collect rapiers and other fencing weapons, mostly because I got interested in college when I joined the (foil) fencing team. So if you're an Aussie, you can't practice the Olympic sport of fencing, nor can you be a fencer or fighter in the SCA (although the fighter's use rattan "swords" for practice, most of them tend to own real ones, too). And here's another one: some pagans use a sword during their rituals (to define the cicle, open/close a doorway in it, etc). And what about military dress swords?

Those who are criticising gun laws are all missing the point. The laws aren't meant to stop people from owning guns (as you know, criminals don't obey the law and will get guns regardless of what the law says), the laws are meant to give government the power to do something about guns in the hands of criminals when necessary.

I'm not saying that these laws are good or bad or effective or not, I am merely trying to point out that you all MISS THE POINT.

In Germany every now and then the police manage to find a group of neonazis who are stockpiling guns in their flats. If there were no laws regarding gun ownership, the police could do NOTHING about the incident and we'd have to wait until the group use their weapons for a crime, when it is usually too late. In the Weimar Republic, before WWII, there was a militia (the free corps) who had guns, and guess where these people turned up using their guns?

The witty statement "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is true, but misses the point too; what is also true is that if guns are outlawed, outlaws can be caught earlier, because preparing for the crime becomes a crime too.

Do consider for a minute how history would have been different had the police in the Weimar Republic had the power to simply take away the guns from the political parties' militias BEFORE they used them for the ultimate crime.

I consider for a moment how things would be different if the American colonists were not allowed to have guns.

Maybe there should be laws against STOCKPILING the weapons. Unless it happens to be collection of old guns. Guns is always a sticky subject.

But swords? I have never seen any news or anything about anyone using swords to attack, only daggers, etc.

actually in China.....for centuries martial arts were practiced with authentic weapons.  For risk of up-rising, communist china has made real weapons illegal and instead allowed people to practice with some watered down versions of their combat counterparts.    For example....
This:  http://www.takwah.com/weapons/TigerFork.htm
Became this:  http://www.gungfu.com/pics_info_pages/weapons_chinese_wushu_tiger_fork.htm
The fact that the outer prongs of the fork turn inward, make it impractical for using the weapon properly.  Similar things were done, in a subtle fashion to other martial arts weapons as well.  So in the event of a rebellion, the people would not have useful weaponry.

Guns don't kill people - people with guns kill people.

Can I have a perimiter of landmines ? Whoops! Slipped down the slope

I believe in my town the law is that you can have a perimiter of landmines, as long as you have a fence with a latching gate. 

Jeremy, the same goes for refrigerators kept outside or on a patio.
Ian, I would have loved to keep my Browning Automatic Rifle when discharged; but the marine corps was funny about that eventhough I wanted it to hang on the wall--nowadays, it would be on my shoulder as I walk the dog.

Steven andalus - didn't your BAR belong to the Marine Corps? I'm not surprised they wanted to keep it...

Stockpiling wepons - at what point do you get "too many" weapons. I want to get a pistol, a rifle of some kind, and maybe a shotgun. That's three guns for me right there.

"I consider for a moment how things would be different if the American colonists were not allowed to have guns."

I do believe rebelling was illegal then.

Anyway, apart from the smarty standard "argument"; did you consider the scenario I mentioned?

"Similar things were done, in a subtle fashion to other martial arts weapons as well. So in the event of a rebellion, the people would not have useful weaponry."

I'm glad that someone else knows these things! As a martial artist, I have a profound interest and respect for Oriental culture. Other weapons that were originally tools are:
The Nunchaku ("Numchucks" is the american bastardized pronunciation") - Nunchaku were used for beating the rice grains off the stalk.
The Bo - used to raise the rice from the paddies.
Sai - the three pronged "fork" was used to poke holes for planting seeds.

As mentioned, the peasants were not allowed to use weapons. Samurai were the only ones allowed to carry swords, their traditional katanas (beautiful, beautiful swords). Peasants were forced to use their tools to defend themselves, and it eventually transformed into a deadly art.

Another interesting martial art is Capoira (sp?). This is a very graceful Jamiacan(I think, definitely Carribean) martial art form, in tune with rhythym and music. The Jamaican government banned the commoners from learning any form of self defense...easier for The Man to keep them down. The Jamaican martial artists turned their art into a form of dance, Capoira. This way, they could pass their knowledge on to new generations and the The Man was none the wiser.

The moral of the story? Disarmament won't keep the peasants down.

"The moral of the story? Disarmament won't keep the peasants down."

This certainly defeats the argument that a right to own guns is needed as a check for government, doesn't it?

Guns Schmuns! I think I'm much more threatening when I try to attack people with a plastic spoon.

Thanks for the post. I recall the 'Port Arthur' massacre and the outcome of that in disarming Aussies. It is the same the world over. In Iraq and in Afghanistan the same is happening. In Haiti the troops are going house to house taking arms as well. Disarmament is part of the New World Over, qua, 'globalization' process and will be continuing until no use of force in defense is possible. In no way is there any other goal to it. The reply of Mr. Brehm is typical and has no premise due to lack of historical context.
A extreme example is put forth and the leap is to, therefore all must be disarmed. A has a gun, a gun can be used by A in a crime, therefore stop B from defending himself against A by disarming him. It speaks for itself and requires no serious consideration.