An epic debate.

I'm certain no one will care about this, but I had a rather enjoyable debate with someone on one of the conservative forums I frequent and thought I would share. To his credit he seemed like a nice guy and it was very civil.

Him:
I'm not native English speaker, so forgive my redaction. I'll ask some questions for you to consider: why is ISIS just attacking kurds, chia and iraki christians? if they're USA and Israel enemies, why don't they attack their military bases in iraq? why does USA let that group just grow and grow? why the supposed bombards aren't having any effect? why did an US senator take a pic with the leaders of that bloody terrorist group? Why are the leaders of ISIS mostly from western countries? they stole Mosul bank.. why weren't their bank accounts blocked? why does France keep selling them guns? they now control many oil fields, who buys them the oil production? If they're muslim, why is their leader vowing to destroy the kaaba, the most important muslim monument?

Me:

Why is ISIS just attacking Kurds, chia and Iraqi Christians?
Because ISIS are Sunni Muslims so they sympathetic toward other Sunni’s. Kurds are primarily Sunni Muslim but are a different ethnic group and they don’t always get along with the Arabs.

If they're USA and Israel enemies, why don't they attack their military bases in Iraq? I’m sure they would if they could. They did attack Camp Speicher, a former U.S. military base. I don’t believe they have reached any bases under U.S. control yet.

Why does USA let that group just grow and grow?
Because we have a weak president whose afraid to get involved.

Why the supposed bombards aren't having any effect?
For one they are very limited, but even those limited bombings are having some effect. The beheading of US journalist Steven Sotloff by the Islamic State group, called it retribution for continued US airstrikes in Iraq.

Why did an US senator take a pic with the leaders of that bloody terrorist group?
That was John McCain’s poor attempt to find “moderate” rebels to support against Bashar Assad.

Why are the leaders of ISIS mostly from western countries?
Say’s who? Their leader was born in Iraq and before that al-Zarqawi came from Jordan. There are some westerns fighting for ISIS, no doubt because of recruitment on social media sites.

They stole Mosul bank.. why weren't their bank accounts blocked?
I’ve looked into this and it appears it was a hoax. Iraqi bankers say they never stole $430 million from Mosul, US intelligence has doubts about this also.

Why does France keep selling them guns?
I haven’t found anything about this, only that France was sending weapons to the Iraqi Kurds.

They now control many oil fields, who buys them the oil production?
Last I heard China was the biggest beneficiary of Iraqi oil.

If they're Muslim, why is their leader vowing to destroy the Kaaba, the most important Muslim monument?
There's many different Muslim sects. Apparently ISIS see’s the Kaaba as idol worship.

I know what your insinuating but there are many factors that led to the rise of ISIS, an inept U.S. administration, the U.S. withdraw from Iraq, the Arab Spring which led to the conflict in Syria, the proliferation of arms from Libya, etc. There’s no hidden conspiracies. ISIS is an offshoot of Al-Qaeda that grew because of the instabilities in the middle-east.

Him:
And Al-Qaeda is an ofshoot of the CIA. When I see old Rambo films, the yihadists are the good guys along with the americans, fighting against the evil soviets. You can't deny all this situation is produced, directly or indirectly by the presence of U.S in the region. Look at the situation of Iraq and Afganistan before u set ur feet in their land. It wasn't the paradise, but they were far better than now. The women could go to school and work, the distinct religious groups lived in peace as they had done for hundreds of years. But then democrazy came... I respect U.S history you have done great contributions to technology and shared them with the world. But I think from Vietnam War your foreign policy is just being creepy. It's like you're losing economic influence in the world, so you kick some tins for the world to understand you're still here. Well, Sometimes I think it's all about lack of resources. I'm afraid what will happen to South America if someday water starts to scarce...

Me:

Al-Qaeda is an offshoot from the CIA? Not true, that is a myth. Al-Qaeda is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Afgan Arabs like Osama Bin Laden had little to do with the CIA. Bin Laden was wealthy enough to fund himself, he was always anti-American, and operated independently. The groups we supported were defeated by the Taliban who harbored senior members of Al-Qaeda.

Do you really think life was better under the Taliban and Saddam?? The Taliban banned music, television, the internet. They forbid girls to go to schools or to work outside their homes. Public executions and punishment were routine under the Taliban. And Saddam was a brutal dictator who
gassed his own people. How many people have died under the Taliban and Saddam? It wasn’t going into Iraq that caused the problem, it was leaving Iraq that caused the problems.

Him:
 I'm refering to Iraq before Saddam. Saddam was a puppet of the USA to fight against Iran in the 80's. Once he was no longer useful, they got rid of him. Now let's talk of Al-qaeda.. Let's put in in Hilary's words: "the people we're fighting today were funded by us 30 years ago" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw

See now the ISIS, and offshoot of Al-Qaeda. You were so commited to destroy secular and stable but not US-aligned syrian regime that you funded every group fighting against Al-Assad. You gave them weapons, money and filled syrian land with mercenaries. And what u got? ISIS. As someone looking this crap from outside I can say this is the biggest threat to american soil from 9/11. They're al-qaeda overpowered (and I still think the highest spheres of wester power have let them be). I've got another question in mind. It's just matter to investigate a little to realize 90% of the muslim terrorism is directly funded by Saudi regime. That include those who did 9/11. Why the hell do you protect them? You say 'it's our ally' (what an ally!) You should invade Saudi Arabia, not Iraq or Syria.. You should fear King Abdullah, not Iranian president! But the reality is, all your presidents bow to Saudi King...

Me:

Politicians can be wrong too. The Mujahedeen didn’t just morph into Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden’s mentor and co-founder of Al-Qaeda, Abdullah Azzam, started out in the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the ideological roots of Al-Qaeda, but I have addressed this already. By the way if we had not intervened in Afghanistan in the 80’s it would be under Russian control now.

For the record, I do not agree with the Obama administration on most things and I didn’t agree with supporting the Syrian Rebels. There’s no good guys in Syria. Having said that, our support for the Syrian opposition has been very limited, the biggest contribution has been a few dozen TOW missiles. The Syrian opposition has said U.S. arms have been too few to be adequate. The Rebels also get support from the gulf states. As for ISIS most of the U.S. weapons were taken from the Iraqi military and the rest is mostly either Russian or Chinese made. ISIS also gets it's money from various sources, including social media, wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, and from the local economy, including oil installations and refineries, food granaries, and by extorting and taxing individuals operating businesses in the region.

So as you can see their weapons and funding come from a variety of sources, so there’s a lot of blame to go around. Some U.S. arms may have inadvertently ended up into the hands of ISIS when some of the Syrian opposition forces joined ISIS but that in itself would have been marginal and would not have contributed to the growth of ISIS. As for Saudi Arabia, I agree they are not true friends. At best they are frenemies.

Him:
Well, I agree this is not just USA's government blame.. It's just the elites playing their game of thrones. I guess China is also involved in this. They would be happy if West and Middle East weaken each other. When I'm in optimist mood I think ISIS is just an strategy to attract all the extremism in one place and then.. boom. Nuke'em all. With those people, the elites, we can not know. They make us think there is a big conflict between West (Usa, Europe) and East (China, Russia) but if u ask the richs, they are all friends and don't have nationalities when it comes to defend their wealth and business. Greetings, Texas guy.

Me:
There's so many players involved, it's hard to keep track of them all. Anyways I'm out. Thanks for the civil debate, it's been fun. Peace.

Did the U.S. arm ISIS?

I'll preface by saying I'm certainly no fan of the Obama administration or of supporting the Syrian opposition but there is the belief going around that the U.S. armed ISIS by supporting the Syrian opposition. I admit I've said this a few times myself. But how true is it? I decided to do a little digging and find out for myself. First a look at the Syrian opposition.

Weapons used by the Syrian opposition come from a variety of sources. There's a mix of very old and newer weapons from many different countries (some of which no longer exist) including China, USA, Russia\USSR, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Nazi Germany, France, Romania, Hungary, Iran, Israel, Czechoslovakia, Syria, Croatia, Serbia, Sweden. The majority are Chinese and Russian made, but the weapons are shuffled around so much from one country to another, it's impossible to say who funded what. Heavy equipment, such as tanks and vehicles, were captured from the Syrian army. Armed groups in Syria have acquired at least eight models of MANPADS, or man-portable air defense systems, most of which were designed and/or manufactured in China or Russia. The likely sources of these MANPADS are from Sudan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. support for the Syrian opposition thus far has been very limited. A few dozen BGM-71 TOW missiles have been the biggest contribution. The other American made weapons seen have been the M1911 Pistol, M4 Carbine, M14 rifle (rare), M16 rifle, Mk 2 grenade, M72 Law RPG,  and M40 anti-tank rifle. These weapons may have come from the United States or from countries which the United States have supplied weapons to. The U.S. deliveries have not included weapons such as shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles, known as MANPADs, which can shoot down military or civilian aircraft.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states lobbied aggressively for the Obama administration to step up its support. In June of 2014 the Obama Administration has lobbied congress to supply the opposition with $500 million worth of weapons, equipment, and training, which have yet to be approved as of this writing. Currently the opposition claims the supply of arms have been too few to be adequate.

Now on to ISIS.  Their armaments are predominantly a mix of veteran Soviet tanks; large, advanced U.S.-made systems; and black market arms and include rocket launchers, grenade launchers. Other weapons include the American-made M60 machine guns from Croatia through Saudi Arabia, soviet made SA-7 MANPAD, Chinese HJ-8 and Russian AT-4 anti-tank systems, Soviet 12.7mm DShK machine guns, and Chinese-made Type 65 or Type 74 37mm twin-barreled anti-aircraft guns. Most of the U.S. weapons and equipment were taken from the Iraqi military, including night vision goggles.

ISIS gets it's money from various sources, including social media fundraising and wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. ISIS have also taken control of the local economy, including oil installations and refineries, food granaries, and by extorting and taxing individuals operating businesses in the region.

In conclusion both the Syrian opposition and ISIS gets it's weapons and funding from a variety of sources and there's many players involved on all sides. Some U.S. arms may have inadvertently ended up into the hands of ISIS when some of the Syrian opposition forces joined ISIS. However the U.S. contribution has been so limited that it's not likely to have contributed to the growth of ISIS in and of itself, which is due to many factors.

What is the real face of Islam?

One day after ISIS released a video of the beheading of American Journalist Steven Sotloff, Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech in which he said Islam is a “peaceful religion based on the dignity of all human beings,” and continued to assert that ISIS is not “the real face of Islam.” A few days later President Obama echoed that sentiment, "ISIL is not Islamic. No Religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslims." -Barack Obama (Sep 10, 2014)

Islamic apologists often like to distance Islam from Islamic terrorism the way atheists like to distance themselves from Communism. But just as Communism couldn't exist without atheism, Islamic terrorism couldn't exist without the Qur'an. The willful blindness about Islamic terrorism ignores the violent history of Islam and the Qur'an which encourages it. So what is the real face of Islam? To answer this question we must take a brief look at the history of Islam.

Muhammad first tried to spread Islam, which means "submission", peacefully. When that failed he turned to the sword and never looked back. In his last ten years alone he ordered 65 military campaigns. His last words to his followers is said to have been “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah.’”. Likewise the Qur'an says, “Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them [captive], and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.” (Sura 9:5).

His followers took his last words to heart. In 570, when Muhammad was born, Christendom stretched from the Middle East along North Africa, and embraced much of Europe. But only eighty years after Muhammad’s death in 632, a new Muslim empire had displaced Christians from most of the Middle East, Egypt and all of North Africa. Islam had spread as far East as China and the Indian Ocean, and as far West as Morocco. It then spread into Europe though the Iberian Peninsula and onto Spain and southern Italy, as well as many major Mediterranean islands including Sicily, Corsica, Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, Malta, and Sardinia.

The Muslims were eventually driven out of Europe but by 1095 Islam was on the move again, conquering lands that had previously been held by Christians and threatening the Byzantium empire. The Seljuk Turks, recent converts to Islam who had invaded the Middle East, captured Jerusalem, and driven to within one hundred miles of Constantinople. It was at this point that emperor Alexius Comnenus of Byzantium, wrote a letter to Pope Urban I asking for help. In his letter the emperor detailed gruesome tortures of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land and vile desecrations of churches, altars, and baptismal fonts. The Pope answered the call which led to the Crusades. Constantinople would eventually fall to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. Historian Viscount John Julius Norwich notes, “Had they captured Constantinople in the seventh century rather than the fifteenth, al Europe—and America—might be Muslim today.”

With Constantinople as its capital, the Turks established a middle-eastern caliphate that lasted for six centuries. It was during this period that Christopher Columbus inadvertently discovered America as he was trying to find an alternate route to India because the Muslims had effectively created a blockaded of the trade routes, including the infamous Silk Road. It was also during this period that the United States fought it's first foreign war (and war on terror) against the Muslim Barber Pirates in 1778, which was immortalized in the Marines' hymn "Battle of Derne".

During World War 1, the Ottoman Empire Allied themselves with the Central Powers and found themselves on the losing side. Out of the fall of the Ottoman Empire the Muslim Brotherhood was formed in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna with the eventual goal of re-establishing an Islamic Caliphate. Hassan al-Banna allied himself with Hitler against the Jews during World War 2, as did many prominent Arab leaders including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj-Amin-al-Husseini. Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" continues to remain a best seller in the middle-east.

One of the earmarks of Islam has always been infighting, but with the birth of Israel in 1948 Islam found a new rallying point to unite Islam. When the Muslim world was unable to defeat Israel militarily they turned to terrorism and Islamic terrorism was born. With the fresh infusion of Nazi fascism, Islam had fully awakened from it's slumber. 

The Muslim Brotherhood formed the theological foundation for Islamic terrorism and has since spawned many terrorist organizations including Hamas and Al-Qaeda. One of the outgrowths of Al-Queda is ISIS, which was started by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in 1999 with monetary help from Osama Bin Laden. After the death of al-Zarqawi, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi came to power. Abu Bakr has a PhD in Islamic law and theology from Baghdad Islamic University, so he knows his Islam.

This brings us to the present. Currently Islamic terrorism has spread to every corner of the globe Including North America, Europe, Africa, Asia,and more recently Australia. Muslims have immigrated in mass to the Western world, often imposing their cultural and religious beliefs instead of assimilating and adopting the customs of their host country. This has been due to conflicting goals between Western civilization and Islam, which is to recreate a caliphate, destroy Israel, and dominate the world.

With this background in mind we can finally see the real face of Islam. When Obama or anyone else talks about radical Islam, they are talking about the root of Islam. The word "radical" comes from the Latin word "rādīcālis" meaning "having roots". In order to go to the roots of Islam we have to look at Muhammad, whose life was replete with conquests, slavery, and murder. According to Islamic theologians a true Muslims is one who reads the Qur'an, and follows Muhammad.  Muhammad is the model for Islam. ISIS and every radical Muslim is just following Muhammad's lead just as every Christian tries to follow and emulate the life of Jesus Christ. They believe only though Jihad is a Muslim guaranteed a place in Heaven. Thank goodness for moderate Muslims, but they don't represent the true face of Islam. It's true not all Muslims are Jihadists but the fact is all Jihadists are Muslim, and Islam is anything but moderate.

The new rules of war

As the Israel-Gaza conflict rages on, so do the accusations of civilian deaths and disproportionate use of force by Israel. These charges are nothing new, we've heard these same arguments during the first Gaza conflict in 2008. I began to wonder where did these new rules of war come from? It certainly hasn't always been the standard. During World War 2, while military and industrial installations were targeted, civilian targets were also fair game. Such as the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the semi-indiscriminate bombing of Berlin.

Somewhere along the lines the rules of war changed. The first real shift occurred during the the Vietnam war. The news media and anti-war protestors were quick to pick up on communist propaganda and harp on civilian causalities. The American troops returning home were spit upon and called baby killers. These accusations were an obvious attempt to slander and shame the United States military, and it worked. Militarily we won the war, but politically we lost it. Liberals today have adopted these contrived rules of war and have applied them to every conflict since, with America and Israel bearing the brunt of the scrutiny.

In Israel's case, it does everything it can to minimize civilian casualties by dropping leaflets, sending out text messages, and even calling people's home. More than what anyone has done prior. Not only does this come at a strategic expense to Israel, but it's also exploited by her enemies. If Hamas knows Israel is reluctant to fire on civilian buildings for fear of killing civilians, they will use those buildings from which to launch their attacks, and those civilians as human shields. And if Israel does attack and kills civilians they can use it to demonize her. It's a catch 22 for Israel, their damned if they do and damned if they don't. In reality Israel isn't responsible for protecting another nation's civilians, they are only responsible for protecting their own civilians. And that's just what their doing. Wars are never fought fair, there fought to be won. One has to wonder if we could have won World War 2 under the same constraints as Israel is placed under today. I don't need a magic eight ball to tell me "very doubtful".

The games we play

I admit I'm not much of sports fan. I never watch the Super Bowl or the Major League playoffs. So I haven't really been following the recent Association football games (aka soccer) like the rest of the world. I've only had a moderate interest in who wins only because a friend of mine cares about it.

But I do think we can learn something from the games we play. I don't profess to know much about the rules of Association football, but take the last two games for example. The United States tied Portugal 2-2. Neither sides loses and they both advance forward. In the next match the United States losses to Germany 1-0. Yet the United States still doesn't technically lose and advances to the next round. Apparently even when you lose, you still win.

Compare this with the games American's play. In Baseball, there is no draw, the game will go on indefinitely until one side wins. In American football the game will go into sudden death to break a tie. And above all a loss is one of the worse things ever. American's play to win.

I know I'm probably not the first to make this observation, I just find it interesting that Americans play games that foster true competitiveness, while the "international community" play games that make you feel good about yourself, even if your a loser. Maybe this is the reason why soccer has never really caught on in the Unites States.

Bush invaded Iraq for oil, lied about WMD's DEBUNKED

This was something I was intending to write about for awhile now, and since Iraq has been in the news again lately it seemed like the perfect time. The two biggest assertions by liberals about the Iraq war is that it was about oil, and the false pretense of weapons of mass destruction. You know the mantra: Bush lied, people died. This myth has been perpetuated long enough, and it's time to set the record straight.

The policy for regime change in Iraq actually began under president Bill Clinton when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, which states that it was the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government. WMD's were only one of a litany of accusations against Saddam including: 

• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
• Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

 If you recall, Saddam had previously invaded Kuwait 1990 and tried to annex it. It was only though military intervention that he was forced out. In 1991 he signed the Gulf War truce, which he continually violated over the next 10 years. Eventually George Bush Jr. gave Saddam an ultimatum, obey the Gulf War truce or else. Two months before the deadline, Bush went to congress to request the use of military force in the event that Saddam didn't comply with UN Resolution 1447. Both Houses of Congress including a majority of the Democrats in the Senate voted to allow military force in Iraq. Saddam ultimately refused to cooperate and the 2003 Iraq War began. Had Saddam agreed to cooperate the war would have never happened.

As previously mentioned, WND's were only one factor yet it is the one most singled out. The notion that Bush lied about WMD's is absolutely false. At the time the whole international intelligence community believed Saddam had WMD's, and rightfully so. It was well known that Saddam used chemical weapons on his enemies and his own people in the 1980's. And in 1981 Israel had bombed a nuclear reactor just south of Baghdad. The fact that he used chemical weapons before proved that he did have WMD's. In tape recordings discovered from the 1990's, Saddam admits to having chemical and germ warheads. The tapes also reveal Iraq's persistent efforts to hide information about their WMD programs form U.N. inspectors.  Later it came out that Iraq had concealed it's biological weapons program. So where did these weapons go? Former Iraqi general Georges Sada, who was the second highest ranked general in the Iraq Air Force, claims these weapons were transported to Syria shorty before the Iraq War. This is plausible considering Syria has one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world.

Lastly, if the war was about oil we wouldn't have wasted our time on liberating towns like Fulujia, and we certainly wouldn't have left. A truly malevolent country would have just taken the resources like the British Empire used to do, but we didn't. We pay for those resources like everyone else, and usually more than there worth. In truth the U.S. has plenty of oil on it's own.  The US is set to overtake Saudi Arabia in oil production and become the world's biggest oil producer by 2016. And that's not even counting the oil that is largely untapped on federal lands. China has actually been the biggest beneficiary of Iraqi oil. They buy nearly half the oil that Iraq produces, and are angling for more. So there you have it. As Paul Harvey would say, now you know the rest of the story.
 
Sources used:
The Threat We Face
Here’s what Saddam Hussein said
 Saddam's Secret Tapes
Bush lied, people died?
China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom
U.S. surges past Saudis to become world's top oil supplier

Why gun control just doesn't work

I get it, I do. Gun control activists don't want to see people die from senseless gun violence, well neither do gun enthusiasts. Neither side wants to see some guy walk into a crowded movie theater or school and open fire on innocent civilians. We both see the problem, but we see two very different solutions. The pro-gun control crowd believes banning guns will solve the problem, the anti-gun control crowd knows this won't work.

For one the bad guys don't care about laws. This might surprise some, but some people just don't care if something is illegal or not. Laws have never prevented murders or robberies, if it did the prisons would be virtually empty. The truth is gun control has never worked. Strict gun control laws in Chicago, for instance, have never made it safer to walk down the street at night.

Second if a person want's to do harm they don't need a gun to do it. In March of 2014 eight terrorists wielding knives at a Chinese train station killed 29 civilians and wounded 140 others. China is no stranger to knife attacks where guns are illegal. There's also been a series of knife attacks on innocent Chinese school children. In Cologne Germany in 1964 Walter Seifert killed 10 and injured 22 others with a homemade flamethrower and a lance. In 1927 Andrew Philip Kehoe set off a bomb in a school that killed 43 people. In Bavaria, Germany in 2009 a man with Molotov cocktails and an axe injured 15 people at a school.  On 9/11 a couple of terrorists with box-cutters killed 3000 people at the World Trade Center. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with a fertilizer bomb.  The Boston bombers killed 3 and wounded dozens more with a pressure cooker. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. In many of these incidents a person with a concealed weapon could have ended the attacks before they began. Incidentally it was this same reason that dissuaded the Japanese from attacking the West Coast of the United States during World War 2. The Japanese military was afraid of an armed civilian force with a gun behind every blade of grass.

Let's pose a hypothetical scenario. Let's pretend the Second Amendment is struck down and owning any kind of gun is illegal. This still would not prevent gun violence. Currently in the United States there are enough firearms for every man, woman, and child. These guns would remain in circulation for decades to come. The demand for guns would fuel a black market and some enterprising criminal would figure out a way to run guns into the U.S. Then there is the other side of the coin. Frankly I would be uncomfortable with a government that spies on it's own people and target's political dissidents to be the only ones with the guns. In fact this is one of the reasons for the Second Amendment, to ensure the government behaves themselves. The Founding Fathers knew power corrupts and the only way to ensure freedom is a government that fears the people.

Here in America guns have been a part of the culture since it's inception. The Second Amendment has given everyone the right to bear arms. It used to be buying a Thompson Sub-machine gun was as easy as ordering it through the mail. And some schools had shooting ranges and actually let their students bring their guns to school. Such a thing would be unfathomable today. Senseless mass killings were almost non existent a generation ago. Sure they happened but they were much more rare, not like today. What happened to society between then and now? What changed to the point that we now need metal detectors in schools now? Society has changed and not for the better. There are probably many factors, including a less virtuous society. But it's clear gun violence is merely a symptom, not the problem. The only thing gun control does it put a ban-aide on a gushing wound. Gun owners know in an ever increasing violent world the best protection is a firearm.