I understood it was the right of every citizen to bear arms against an unpopular governments and rulers......I remember Dick Gregory in a documentary saying much the same thing.



US constitution Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms see http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

QUOTE:

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.

The 2nd Amendment, starting in the latter half of the 20th century, became an object of much debate. Concerned with rising violence in society, and the role firearms play in that violence, gun control advocates began to read the 2nd Amendment one way. On the other side, firearm enthusiasts saw the attacks on gun ownership as attacks on freedom, and defended their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment just as fiercely. If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate, they might have phrased the amendment differently, because much of the debate has centered around the way the amendment is phrased.



Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm.



Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, "Yes." The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.  etc etc UNQUOTE

......

 WhiIe I oppose the excessive ease of access of arms in the US and believe it leads to the kind of school shootings that seem to be part of American life, it is clear that it is the activity of governments in the arms trade that leads to the greatest violence and the US is the biggest offender. Private gun ownership should be subject to greater regulation and gun sellers should be informed of potential shooters- look at the outrageous armoury  and profile of the latest Cleveland shooter

http://think.mtv.com/044FDFFFF0098989A00160098A676/

In Australia only certain guns are allowed and they cannot be  repeaters.

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade.asp

The arms traders are the merchants of mass murder and such trade is a boomerang which comes back to haunt them.

Africa has been impoverished by the arms trade Africa received about 350 billion in aid and spent the equivalent in arms.

The present administration believes that violence is as a means of solving problems so it is not surprising that there are citizens which emulate the President who, in some sense, is the international equivalent of the typical high school shooter.

The more hated the isolated shooter the more he shoots.

Violence begets violence and  governments must not only ban illegal trade but legal trade as well, to the victims of war the distinction is irrelevant.

if we are to continue to evolve and not destroy ourselves WMD must be completely eliminated and the whole arms trade halted.

Our spaceship earth is hurtling towards disaster  because of weapons we must join hands and cooperate to survive instead we are fighting in the isles.

The first class passengers may feel safer but they will crash with the rest of the passengers even if their cabin is sealed off. At the moment the captain is shooting the passengers who are fighting in the isles.

http://peacesource.net/