To make any constitutional change in the US you need support from 2/3 of the states, 2/3s of both houses and support of the President. Anyone trying to pull the wool over people's eyes are going to need a lot of wool.

People buying drugs illegally don't effect anyone over than those taking the drugs. You never hear stories of people going on a rampage in a mall and trying to get 20-30 people to overdose on aspirin.

You can use arguments about knifes being used to replace guns, but you can't exactly go on a spree with a knife, either. In the UK, you cannot have a knife in public, and if you're caught with one that can mean (I think) up to 4 years in prison. Knife crime is a completely different kettle of fish when it comes to crime solving, as well, as the culprit needs to get up close which means they could leave DNA, also they'd need to get close to the person, which means they probably need to know the person that they're stabbing (just see how close a stranger would let you get to them), so the police can look at known associates, also there's a chance that the stabber could be overpowered.

As for banning guns, I don't personally think that hunting should be a right, and that you should have to obtain a license to kill animals - which could all be part of greater gun control. If the criminals don't have as many guns, then the people defending themselves also don't need as many guns. It's all relative.

Illgeal guns are used in crimes.

Also its like once every 3 years you hear of a truly big shooting. Its so rare. Children and innocents die to drug crumes because of drive bys etc etc.

And as for the "Government gone gaga" ideas that would be highly unlikely, if not impossible. Surely taking the military and police force out of the Government's hands would put a stop to that.

In the UK, for example, the Government is not above the law, and the Government does not have its own police force (I don't believe that any real liberal democracy would allow for the Gov't to have its own police force). The military is in control of the Queen, which essentially means the PM, but she can (technically) still reject the PM's request for military use. Sure, she could be a facist at heart, but she's had sovereign power over this country for over 50 years, if she wanted to do something like that, she would have had to have done it a very long time ago. Whatsmore, the way things are moving, the power over the military will be removed from the Queen and given to Parliament over the next 10 years, reducing any Hitler's chance of success further.

Yes, I bloody get it, "illegal guns are used in crimes", I think I understand that now, you've said it enough, but I didn't say otherwise, did I? I said that it's easier to illegally obtain guns when they are also legally obtainable.

And, yes, I already live in the UK, and, no, we don't eat steak with a spoon (whatever that meant).

It means You cant even own a knife to protect yourself. Next step is no knives to eat with. Lol

A spoon can make for a good murder weapon, just see "Murder of the First" (or don't, it's a very sad film).

Actually, the support of the president is not necessary for a constitutional amendment (Hollingsworth v. Virginia). An amendment to the Constitution can be proposed by two thirds of both houses or a constitutional convention which is convened by congress when two thirds of state legislatures request it. If a proposal has been made, it can be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or three-fourths of the state conventions. It is more difficult to pull the wool than you thought. 

^ Well, thanks for strengthening my point.

you do realize that its easier to kill 16 people with a pistol.. than it is with a kitchen knife not to mention less messy and demanding on the physical strengh of the attacker

and as typical for humans if it takes too much effort we dont do it ..but if you can just point something at someone and kill him we tend to do it more likely than having to actually get close to that person and stab him or her 49 times

as for mrstickballs claims.. i find them both preposterous and offensive to anyone of decent education and intellect

its simply naive to think that only because you have a gun means that you will stop a dictatorship thats romantic but not realistic, you simply fail to see the issue here ..as did many germans.. or pretend to after the war.. its not "the man" vs the people in realitiy there is no such distinction , its your boss your neighbour your friend your son. not just some part of soceity but all soceity thats what makes a dictatorship a dictatorship

and quite frankly i dont see where your morale superiority to these people lies

terislb - Care to explain Switzerland and their gun laws to me, then? They require each household to own an automatic weapon, yet have less murders than your country.

I understand your arguments about it being easier with a gun, but the fact is that we can look at US gun laws by state, and their respective crime rates, and see absolutely NO correlation between the presence of guns and crime. All I have to do is point to crime rates in Detroit, NYC, Washington DC, and other areas that have comprehensive bans of firearms, and their crime rates vs. areas that have very liberal gun laws, and less crime. Why is that?

Firearms are a balancing act. There are negatives to an armed society, but there are positives. I've given you hard statistical analysis from research papers that point to the fact that guns do not cause more crime in the US, but I fail to see your repudiation of them. Europe is safer because it's a different society than ours, not because of the presence guns. I challenge you to come to America and understand the gun culture we have. They are not as crazy as you may think them to be.