Well, it is almost cliche at this point, but let me paraphrase Wayne LaPierre (90% sure this is his quote): If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own them.
More to the point, as someone else noted, allowing people to own guns, cuts down on the number of crimes committed. Criminals are less likely to break into a house if there is a possibility of a gun owner living there. Some folks may say this just escalates criminals usage of guns. I call bollocks on that, I believe that if a criminal can get a gun, he is going to use it regardless of the risks. As proof of this, I would note that after criminalizing gun ownership, the crime rate in the U.K. and in Australia rose (deaths due to fire-arms did decrease, I will admit).
This all misses the point, in my opinion though. The reason to have legal ownership is to guard against tyranny of the state. This is the entire reason the 2nd amendment was added, second only to the right to voice disapproval. Thus, the American citizen has the right to voice opposition to the tyrannical regime, AND they have the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical regime if their voices are ignored.
To me, this is the danger of criminalizing guns; a centralized government (or if you want to get more conspiratorial, the New World Order, or the Zionists, or some other Illuminati type organization I only half believe in) will be able to act with even more impunity. This, to me, is why the U.N. really wants the U.S. to get rid of their guns; to make it easier to dictate to the U.S. new global laws.
Right now, the U.S. still has a too independent outlook for them, and they need the U.S. to tow the line for Globalization to continue. Getting the U.S. to get rid of guns is tantamount to castrating a bull, in their eyes; it will make the U.S. just that more docile. This will make the Globalist agenda much much easier.

(Still off topic)
I agree. It is my impression that the UN has prevented a few wars from breaking out (such as Greek-Turkish conflict over Cyprus, and potential nuclear war between Pakistan and India over Kashmir) and provided major relief efforts in cases when war did occur. While they appear to have become more bureaucratic and ineffective lately and should get some serious reforms, they definitely aren't all bad.
Let me add to that list:
- The international postal union, which enables us to send mail to other countries (pretty useful IMO!)
- The international telecommunications union, which makes sure phone calls can be placed across borders, manages radio frequencies, and helps standardize stuff like ISDN, modems, DSL, various network protocols, digital image/video/audio compression and so on. Every electronic device I own works thanks to technology standardized by the ITU.

Yes. Not the same thing though. The universal declaration of human rights goes much further. The universal part of it, the aim for them to be binding globally is a quite different shoe. There are some problems with it - institution of marriage seen as centre of society; the western philosophy at it's core - but it's still an evolution and a step forward.
Mhm. Problem is - there are global bodies that dictate rules in the world, and most of them are a lot more influential than the UN. There also always will be forces like that. Sadly - the US and many Western countries play exactly that game. As does China, or any other nation that gained a position of local/international power. I can see your point, but I don't think it'll ever be possible to escape these external pressures. And then there are the less visible forces - privately owned global economic power houses, etc.
In an ideal world a self-goverment style approach of Direct Democracy/Anarchism would be possible, giving power to local communities to develop in the way that's best for their particular, individual situation. In this not that ideal, but realistic world, that never will be the case.
And given that we face one hell of a global challenge in addressing the unsustainable nature of our current resource use (with resulting impact on environment/people)... I'd think some organisation coordinating all nations is very likely the only way to solve it.
Of course - the UN likely is not the solution to that one, either.
It's the same in most countries with western style democracy, more or less. Germany, the country I was born in, is a system of Federal States, too. Likewise Belgium, Sweden and the UK (all countries I've lived in for several years, each) have a system of local and national governments with differing roles. Regardless - all of these, whether Federations or not, are single Nations where the large-scale political framework is decided in a top-down manner, and I am very certain an individual local division would be put under immense pressure by that central government should they divert from the course too much.
No worries :). Most people, even those that have been here for a long time struggle with that, too. GOG's forum system has room for improvement :).

That's ok, I didn't mean for it to be interpreted as my personal opinion. I too have been a legitimate gun owner all my life. This was sent to me by a friend who takes gun ownership very personal.
I have never felt like my gun ownership rights were in jeopardy. I don't belong to the NRA or any other organization for that matter. Mostly I wanted to get some input from the international community which might clarify how much truth there was in the video. . . I see nothing to make me think they are collecting guns here in the US or will be . . . ever. Actually, I didn't realize the fight had gotten so heated till I watched this.
As one of the most heavily armed nations in the world I find it amusing that the UN or anyone could succeed in collecting even a tiny fraction of the guns now owned by Americans. . . I feel sure most all guns would "disappear" . . .=)

Not necesarrily. Guns are a hot item black-market wise, so a thief would be *more* likely to break into a gun owning household to steal the guns, especially if they know there are guns in the house. That's why a good gun safe is a must.
There's no way to prove the possibility of a gun is a deterrent to crime. Yes, victims have used firearms to thwart offenses, but that's not a deterrent. I wish there were a way to tell if the possibility of a firearm was a deterrent or not and would reckon a guess that if it were possible, the deterrence factor would be a decreasing one, as many criminal just pre-emptivly arm themselves.

Take away guns and only criminals will be holding them. Simple truth. Anyone who believes anything else they have either been raised wrong, never seen violence first person, has a mental issue, or a combination of all.
I do like the NRA's general goals, but their spending of the membership money is the reason I never joined. I simply tell anyone wanting to take a gun from me to try and get it, they're all loaded and next to my bed.
EDIT: Also forgot to point out in countries that outlaws guns gets a rise in crime, a major raise. I also had 2 break-ins in my property before, in one of those the guy only ran off after I raised my pistol at him and jacked a round in the chamber. I will not argue about the fact guns make the world dangerous, they make it safer and it's proven.

That is why i mentioned the crime numbers from the U.K. and Australia...

Everyone I know owns a weapon of some sort, few of my old military buddies even have automatics (with permits). I found the video to be over the top myself since most Americans simply would not give up their weapons regardless of who did the asking. I see some really bad situations if they ever try to implement the things discussed . . . shucks, I may even get upset . . . =)

Yeah I will agree the video is a little over the top but it still transmits a universal truth. I remember a saying from Benjamin Franklin:
"Give up our guns for plows and the ones with guns make you plow for them."
I think that's it from memory, didn't need to look it up. All across history warmongering cultures couldn't conquer others that had the means to defend themselves, the ones who couldn't simply disappeared into history. Rome is a shining example, you never hear about the states they conquered you only hear about the Roman Empire.

I agree, the entire argument has gotten a little out of hand. Some of these assault weapons (full-auto or not) that people buy make me scratch my head. A buddy of mine just bought an AR-15 M6A3 (semi-auto). I acknowledge it is a pretty gun, but what is he going to do with IT? Shoot deer? Home defense (rofl)? It isn't even a 6.8mm, it is a 5.56...
Link to a pic of a AR-15, in case anyone wanted to see it. Just your basic, run of the mill, assault rifle. [url=http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Zuz&resnum=0&q=m6a3&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=qZ9TS8P8HZO1tgexicGtDA&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=image&resnum=3&ved=0CBUQzAMwAg]http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Zuz&resnum=0&q=m6a3&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=qZ9TS8P8HZO1tgexicGtDA&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=image&resnum=3&ved=0CBUQzAMwAg[/url]
Edit to reply to tb87670:
I saw a T-Shirt that I almost bought. It said something like: I own guns + you own food = I own guns and food.
A T-Shirt I actually did buy: ATF: Sounds like a great idea for a convenience store. (For those not in the US that may wonder, the government agency ATF stands for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms)

What about Sweden, Norway, Germany, ... ? The majority of the countries in this world do not allow private ownership of guns to the degree that is the case in the US. I don't think (feel free to prove me wrong) a correlation between amount of criminal activity and gun ownership is all that obvious/easy to prove.
The problem is what exactly is meant by "crime rate"/"crime numbers"? There are very many very different interpretations around on that end, alone. How do you arrive at a statistical evaluation that can - accurately - examine whether gun ownership would have prevented or escalated occurrence of crime? Crime rates themselves are subject to so many different influences ranging from local culture to legislation to ... well even chance.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_statistics#Recording_practices
The only list that is somewhat well sourced and aims for a global comparison I could find is only looking at homicides:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Edit: Also interesting with this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
Edit: And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Don't see any obvious correlations between any of these, really.

Thx for making me laugh. Really. For saying that countries that outlaw guns have increased issues with crime, followed by "I had 2 break-ins in my property". Very credible indeed.

Well... yea. If you make it illegal to own a gun then everyone who then has one will by definition be a criminal.
Back on topic...Is the original intention of the 2nd ammd. applicable today? Probably not (if a bunch of schmucks ever end up overthrowing a corrupt US government I'll take it back). Does the federal government have a right to prohibit the possession of guns entirely? Probably not (I'm talking conceptually, of course the 2nd ammd itself completely prevents it at the moment given current interpretations). In the end there's really not even an issue here because there will never be a majority large enough to repeal the 2nd ammd. anyways.

Drunk driving, cost to society of drug addicts, drugged-up burglaries and murders, etc. etc.?
Stupid people will abuse drugs and can hurt others. Stupid people will misuse guns and hurt others. Surprise!
I'm not arguing for or against the Second Amendment, I am merely playing devil's advocate to expose ideological hypocrisy.