The newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss, believes that terrorists may bring urban warfare techniques learned in Iraq to our homeland. If he is right, we could have a whole new war on our hands. The prospect is indeed scary.

The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls, is right out of Tom Clancy's most recent novel. If not for the fact that the 9/11 attacks were also foreshadowed in a Clancy novel, I would have given the idea no further thought.

However, rather than facing this potential threat publicly, the Bush administration is only focused on terrorist attacks involving missiles, nuclear devices and biological weapons. Stopping terrorists with WMDs is a good thing, but what about the more immediate threat posed by terrorists with guns? The potential threat of terrorist attacks using guns is far more likely than any of these other scenarios.

This leads to a bigger policy issue. In the post 9/11 world where supposedly "everything has changed," perhaps it is time for Americans to reconsider the value of public gun ownership.

The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a "well-regulated militia." At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists.

Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist groups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States' armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt.

The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States. According to the DOJ/FBI's Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003. That averages out to more than 9,000 people murdered per year. Nearly three times the number of lives lost in the tragic 9/11 attacks is murdered annually as a direct result of guns.

Examples of wanton violence are all around. One particularly heinous incident of gun violence occurred in 1998 when former Aryan Nation member Buford Furrow shot and wounded three young boys, a teenage girl and a receptionist at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles and then shot and killed a Filipino-American postal worker.

Another occurred in July 1999 when white supremacist Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, a member of the World Church of the Creator, went on a weekend shooting spree, targeting Blacks, Jews and Asians. By the time Smith was done he had wounded six Orthodox Jews returning from services, and killed one African-American and one Korean-American.

Just recently, in Ulster, NY, a 24 year old man carrying a Hesse Arms Model 47, an AK-47 clone assault rifle, randomly shot people in a local mall. While the Justice Department did not label this murder a terrorist attack, all the signs were there. The Ulster, New York shooting is an ominous warning of what lies ahead. Terrorism can be a homegrown act committed by anyone with a gun and is not unique to a "Middle Eastern-looking man with a bomb." As long as the public is allowed to own guns, the threat of similar terrorist attacks remains real.

The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task.

In fact, it will be a very difficult task. So far the civil liberties curtailment has affected generally disenfranchised groups such as immigrants, people of color and religious minorities. An assault on the Second Amendment will impact a much more powerful constituency.

According to the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002 41 percent of American households owned at least one gun. According to these same statistics, 50 percent of the owners were male, 43 percent were white and 48 percent were Republican. More than 50 percent of the gun owners were college educated and earned more than $50,000 per year. Regrettably, these folks are going to marshal their considerable resources to protect their special interest.

This is a shame. Instead of laying waste to the civil rights and civil liberties that are at the core of free society, and rather than squandering precious time and money on amending the U.S. Constitution for such things as "preserving marriage between a man and woman," the nation ought to focus its attention on the havoc guns cause in society and debate the merits of gun ownership in this era of terrorism.

So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians. The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.

I could just hear the applause going around the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding for such a clever turn when you hacked this one out. Progressives aren't anything if not full of themselves. I'm constantly impressed by their infallible ability to decide what's best for everyone else.

Ok. Again, the planet of apes in Muslim punditry. I have yet to read or hear anything original and particularly enlightening emanating from the hallowed halls of Muslim ÏwinkÓ tanks, whose aping of the thoughts of others is clear. The issue of gun control and terrorism is a forced thought. Terrorism is bad, but it is also political, and what is political is informed by policies. This whole war needs to be comprehensive, as do Muslim winkers who enjoy composing such spittle as the article on ÏUmmah-itis" and other acts of mediocrity. Please, altmuslim, be choosy in what you post.

you are f***ing stupid for fighting this gay ass war!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just recently, in Ulster, NY, a 24 year old man carrying a Hesse Arms Model 47, an AK-47 clone assault rifle, randomly shot people in a local mall. While the Justice Department did not label this murder a terrorist attack, all the signs were there. The Ulster, New York shooting is an ominous warning of what lies ahead. Terrorism can be a homegrown act committed by anyone with a gun and is not unique to a "Middle Eastern-looking man with a bomb." As long as the public is allowed to own guns, the threat of similar terrorist attacks remains real.

if that was someone of a different race other than white he would be considered as a terrorist!!

You know, crouton, more people would agree with you if they understood your point. As for my contribution, my plaint is about weak punditry and bobble-head agreements.

>>Progressives aren't anything if not full of themselves.<<

Amen to that.

Im only 16 so im not the best writer, so please excuse my poor grammar. but I was just thinking while reading your article, that whether guns are legally allowed to the public or not people will have them, people will make them, and the terrorists could still easily get them. One idea is to have more people own guns, and be conscious to the fact of urban terrorist warfare. this way if someone did end up shooting people in the middle of a mall or the like, then they would b taken care of much quicker, and yes there are many many flaws to this. If you were in a mall with about 5 security guards, they can't be everywhere, and a terrorist starts shooting, wouldnÌt you rather have a gun to pull out and incapacitate the terrorist with minimal casualties than wait for a security guard which could take minutes. think about this, it takes one bullet to kill someone, the terrorist has two 18 bullet clip pistols, with 6 extra clips, that is 144 people dead before the security guard even gets there, and thatÌs if he doesn't get shot too.
I feel that the public owning weapons should be stressed not the other way around. The public should be trained and have low cost training. You don't want an American public that cannot defend themselves do you? There is very little to an possibility to getting rid of guns to the public, there is too much at stake.

i meant there isnt much of a possibleity of getting fid of the public owning guns*

Switzerland requires its men to possess a military weapon, ammo, and be practiced at using it. They have little crime.
England, Australia, Washington, D.C. and New York and many others have banned gun possession by citizens and crime has done nothing but go up.
The U.S. has remained free for over 220 years using the principals of the Constitution, other countries have overthrown government frequently.
Millions of people come to this country yearly, both legally and illegally as it remains the greatest nation on earth, yet people try to change the US into what has failed elsewhere.

Where do you want to live? A location where you can defend yourself or where you are dependent on a response team that has no responsibility for your safety? If you do not like the U.S. has it is, I will contribute to your permanent move elsewhere!!!

I must vehemently disagree with the thrust of this article. Just three quotes of disagreement:

"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater."
-- Peter Venetoklis

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
-- Mohandas Gandhi

Yup, you saw that correctly. GANDHI, the advocate of nonviolence, condemned taking away the weaponry of the people.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

I must also condemn Mr. Afeef's logic: since other Amendments have been weakened, it's OK to weaken more. Ah...how 'bout we go ahead and REPAIR the damage done, hmm? It's like saying "Well, my house already has the door removed. Why don‘¯?t I smash all the windows also?"

Oh, and the first two quotes were taken from the website of Open Source advocate Eric S. Raymond: http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/ . In case you wanted to check the source of the quotes or something. It's also got further statistics on the issue.

>>If you do not like the U.S. has it is, I will contribute to your permanent move elsewhere!!!<<

How about I contribute a few $$$ for you to get a real education away from FOX news ?

Well if we follow this guy, why don't we just put an end to the constitution and government and get ourselves a dictator? And why stop with guns? Why not get rid of freedom of speech and all rights that we now share? Sounds like a modern day Hitler. You will have more murders and deaths by guns if anyone ever tries to enforce a law that takes away our right to own and carry guns. You will have a damn civil war on your hands. Use your logical mind and just try to imagine the havoc that will ensue once government forces start coming into cities demanding us to lay down our arms. This is not a perfect world where guns aren't needed. This is a world where you would have me stand there and get killed by someone that if I had had a gun I could have defended myself and stopped someone from killing me and then continuing to kill others. Wow that makes alot of sense don't it. Open your eyes, see the world for what it is not for what you want it to be.