Speech on Gun Rights...

[Sir Suomi]

Hoping this shall spark up yet another debate, and also help me with an assignment.

Well, in a class I am currently taking I am assigned to write about a controversial topic. And what better topic to argue over than Gun Rights. Now, all I'm asking for are some opinions from BOTH sides of the debate, and also I'm looking for some advice on what exactly to put in my speech. By the way, if this information helps at all, I am for Gun Rights.

[CharlieFinley]

Make especial mention of the fact that guns are used in suicides more than in self-defense, suicides go down as access to guns drops, and if the government ever turns tyrannical, an AR15 will do absolutely nothing against an M1 Abrams.

[Cicero]

This is a good one to explain how I feel: http://i.imgur.com/lNxEi6z.png

For your speech. Start with a captivating topic sentence. Then provide what both sides believe, then say what you believe and why. Then wrap it all up.

[IAMWILL]

Use the argument this guy did.
http://youtu.be/dhXPlCjr0Vw

[MisterSix]

Use the argument this guy did.
http://youtu.be/dhXPlCjr0Vw

How is he going to defend his family when the guns are in a locked safe?

[Horizon]

I honestly feel like our right to bear arms, should stay. I also feel more gun control should put in place, because then lunatics will have a harder time obtaining those guns.

And when it gets brought that guns cause crime, here is an argument for that:

Guns do not have a brain. Guns don't make the decision to shoot people. Sure, guns are a commonly used weapon for murders, but all in all, the gun didn't make the decision.

[MisterSix]

I honestly feel like our right to bear arms, should stay. I also feel more gun control should put in place, because then lunatics will have a harder time obtaining those guns.

And when it gets brought that guns cause crime, here is an argument for that:

Guns do not have a brain. Guns don't make the decision to shoot people. Sure, guns are a commonly used weapon for murders, but all in all, the gun didn't make the decision.

Thats like saying smoking and aids don't kill. Technically, they don't kill, but realistically, they kill people

[Mobalo]

You only need to read this forum to figure out there are a lot of depressed people out there, people with difficulty handling their lives and who has psyciatric problems. You don't really notice if you see them on the streets or even if it's a good friend of yours. It's much easier to act normal or pretend you don't have problems than actually talking about them. When people with these problems have easy access to guns, it's a disaster waiting to happen. They might take it out on them selves (suicide) or they might even decide to punish the society.

I'm not saying there are many people who are potential bombs like that, but you only need a few, don't you. If there's 1 in a million, how many would that make only in the US?

You say "guns don't kill people - people kills people", and you're right. But people with psychiatric problems don't tend to think the way a "normal" person does. They might have problems with logic and empathy. You could of course use billions of dollars to strenghten mental health services and maybe end up locking up people that are innocent and aren't really a threath, or you could just make it a little harder for them to accuire a gun!

[Φρανκομβριτ]

j3JMSTPSsbU

[Harry Smith]

I think that since america was founded on the Basis of Militia's rising up and fighting against the british that's why it states in the constitution that you have a right a bear arms. The us consitution just like the British Magna Carta was great domestic moment for liberty in there countries but look it was written 200 years ago by several Old, white and Rich american's. Is that the basis of your country? Look at newtown, think of all those children who died, never going to have the joy of life

[Gwen]

My opionon is simple. Don't blame guns all the time they're a cause but without them I'm sure it would've been an insane knife man or chainsaw murderer. It's the mental stability that has to be looked at. I've stated time and time again all the individuals who attacked had some mental issue. America needs to address the root not just put a bandage on the problem and hope that it ends. It won't end banning guns doesn't stop people, they'll obtain them illegally or find something else. Taking away people's rights won't help. Helping the people will.

[Harry Smith]

What about the large number of Cartels and Criminals who use guns to help with there crimes? Look at Newtown, the shooter didn't own those guns, his mum owned them. America will not be able to eradicate mental Illness, it's not a visible condition. Someone you know could be a sadisitic sociopath, but unless you have witnessed an element of there conditon you would have no idea. America needs to modernize

[Mobalo]

My opionon is simple. Don't blame guns all the time they're a cause but without them I'm sure it would've been an insane knife man or chainsaw murderer. It's the mental stability that has to be looked at. I've stated time and time again all the individuals who attacked had some mental issue. America needs to address the root not just put a bandage on the problem and hope that it ends. It won't end banning guns doesn't stop people, they'll obtain them illegally or find something else. Taking away people's rights won't help. Helping the people will.

I think we must agree that guns make a lot more damage than knives or chainsaws, and it's easier to defend yourself against someone with a knife. I know that banning guns isn't a cure. It's just one thing to reduce the probability that some mental case obtains a weapon of mass destruction. But if you take the norway incident of July 22nd 2011, the man made a bomb out of stuff you can legally obtain in Norway and set it off in the middle of the capital. That's one thing that a ban on guns wouldn't help with. However, he also went to a youth camp and saw to it that a lot of parents had to bury their own children, and for that he used a gun that he had legally obtained.

You are right that helping people will reduce the problem dramatically. How long will it take, though? How much money will it take? To change society, to reduce crime, to identify those who need help and to help them? It will take years - generations even.

In the meantime, taking away people's "rights" (as you call it), is a low price to pay for saving hundreds of children from mentally ill people who obtains weapons legally.

[Gwen]

I think we must agree that guns make a lot more damage than knives or chainsaws, and it's easier to defend yourself against someone with a knife. I know that banning guns isn't a cure. It's just one thing to reduce the probability that some mental case obtains a weapon of mass destruction. But if you take the norway incident of July 22nd 2011, the man made a bomb out of stuff you can legally obtain in Norway and set it off in the middle of the capital. That's one thing that a ban on guns wouldn't help with. However, he also went to a youth camp and saw to it that a lot of parents had to bury their own children, and for that he used a gun that he had legally obtained.

You are right that helping people will reduce the problem dramatically. How long will it take, though? How much money will it take? To change society, to reduce crime, to identify those who need help and to help them? It will take years - generations even.

In the meantime, taking away people's "rights" (as you call it), is a low price to pay for saving hundreds of children from mentally ill people who obtains weapons legally.

Of course it'll take time everything takes time. But who is willing give up their possessions? There has been small gun bans before in certain areas, people hid their guns in a place that could take a day of searching to find. Some people will comply easily and they'll save lives technically. People have used guns to defend themselves though so this can be reversed. Someone who has a gun legally now can take more advantdge of people without. This is all hypothetical and many things change the situation. The basis is what I'm saying is to make checks on health care it'll take years and money but will slowly help and give a semi-permanent safety. Taking away guns only stops the problem for a limited time.

[Mobalo]

Of course it'll take time everything takes time. But who is willing give up their possessions? There has been small gun bans before in certain areas, people hid their guns in a place that could take a day of searching to find. Some people will comply easily and they'll save lives technically. People have used guns to defend themselves though so this can be reversed. Someone who has a gun legally now can take more advantdge of people without. This is all hypothetical and many things change the situation. The basis is what I'm saying is to make checks on health care it'll take years and money but will slowly help and give a semi-permanent safety. Taking away guns only stops the problem for a limited time.

And that is MY point exactly. Taking away guns reduces (doesn't stop) the problem for a limited time. In that limited time you address the other problems such as crime, health care, etc.

[Horizon]

Thats like saying smoking and aids don't kill. Technically, they don't kill, but realistically, they kill people

Well no, it's really not.

I never said guns don't kill. just guns get used to kill. There's a huge difference.

and also, people make the choice the smoke, not the cigarettes.

And AIDs is very circumstantial, so it should not have even been brought up.

[CharlieFinley]

No handguns. They're used in crime but not home defense. Carry a knife for self-defense, have a rifle at home. Works for Switzerland.

[Professional Russian]

No handguns. They're used in crime but not home defense. Carry a knife for self-defense, have a rifle at home. Works for Switzerland.
"No handguns are used in crime use a knife foor protection that would be taking a knife to a gun fight and I ain't going up against a gun with a knife. I'm gonna go up against a gun with a bigger gun And handguns.are used for home protection. My house its protected by 2 44s. One mine and one my dads

[gui0506]

USA is too liberal, but in a way which is not always good to American citizens. Freedom is right, okay, but EVERY time when the government tries to regulate dangerous stuff such as gun possession, American liberals disagree, saying it's against their freedom.

Here in Brazil it's kinda hard to get a handgun and it's impossible for a regular citizen to buy an assault rifle. In many US states, it's legal, and guns DO kill people.

Here in Brazil some right-wing people see criminals as sub-human beings, forgetting that this criminal behavior in many cases have social causes. Poverty, hunger and inequality are causes to the growth of crime. Where equality exists, crime statistically decreases. It's proven.

Danger in society isn't about "protecting ourselves", like an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. It's about eradicating factors for crime growth and punishing crime in a way to civilize the criminal and then reinsert him in society, for him to have a job and not to commit any crime again. Death penalty is unfair and brutal...

[Professional Russian]

USA is too liberal, but in a way which is not always good to American citizens. Freedom is right, okay, but EVERY time when the government tries to regulate dangerous stuff such as gun possession, American liberals disagree, saying it's against their freedom.

Here in Brazil it's kinda hard to get a handgun and it's impossible for a regular citizen to buy an assault rifle. In many US states, it's legal, and guns DO kill people.

Here in Brazil some right-wing people see criminals as sub-human beings, forgetting that this criminal behavior in many cases have social causes. Poverty, hunger and inequality are causes to the growth of crime. Where equality exists, crime statistically decreases. It's proven.

Danger in society isn't about "protecting ourselves", like an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. It's about eradicating factors for crime growth and punishing crime in a way to civilize the criminal and then reinsert him in society, for him to have a job and not to commit any crime again. Death penalty is unfair and brutal...

Guns DO NOT kill people. People kill people. A gun does not have mind of its own. My dads 44 isn't going to come out from under his bed walk up to me cock it self and ire it self. It is an inanimate object it can not do anything with the help of an outside force. Which would be the human. Jesus Christ why do people always think that guns kill people?

[Harry Smith]

but the bottom line is that the purpose of the gun is to injure or kill. You keep the 44 to kill someone, yes I understand the need for self defence but the thing is having a gun dosen't gurantee that you'll fight them off. Also what is stopping you from getting that 44 and shooting someone in cold blood, whats stopping you giving it to a friend, what is stopping you from using it for crime. Look at Newtown, what will convince america to change

[Professional Russian]

but the bottom line is that the purpose of the gun is to injure or kill. You keep the 44 to kill someone, yes I understand the need for self defence but the thing is having a gun dosen't gurantee that you'll fight them off. Also what is stopping you from getting that 44 and shooting someone in cold blood, whats stopping you giving it to a friend, what is stopping you from using it for crime. Look at Newtown, what will convince america to change

Well first of all I'm not a mission to kill. Second when will foreigners learn criminals don't follow laws.

[gui0506]

Criminals do not follow laws, but the government has no right to decide on anyone's life, criminal or not. Death penalty and the thought that "criminals don't follow laws, therefore their lives worth nothing" is inhuman, cruel, stupid. Criminality is the result of bad economical and social conditions, and criminals can return to society, as long that there's a honest job for them. It's proven. It works in some European countries. America should try it, instead of allowing people to get assault rifles.

[Professional Russian]

Criminals do not follow laws, but the government has no right to decide on anyone's life, criminal or not. Death penalty and the thought that "criminals don't follow laws, therefore their lives worth nothing" is inhuman, cruel, stupid. Criminality is the result of bad economical and social conditions, and criminals can return to society, as long that there's a honest job for them. It's proven. It works in some European countries. America should try it, instead of allowing people to get assault rifles.

People do not get "assault rifles" we get a semi automatic rifle looks like a military weapon. The only thing they share are caliber and looks.

[CharlieFinley]

"No handguns are used in crime use a knife foor protection that would be taking a knife to a gun fight and I ain't going up against a gun with a knife. I'm gonna go up against a gun with a bigger gun

See, here's the thing. The state has a vested interest in your not having a handgun, because handguns are used for crimes much more than anything else, and the state therefore has an interest in not having handguns in circulation. What's more, knives are actually more dangerous at very close ranges. If you're being mugged or are otherwise threatened, you will have much better luck with a knife, for two reasons.

The first is that, if you are in a situation where you could draw a gun, you are certainly in a situation where you can draw a knife, because you can store a knife in ways that make it much more accessible than a gun. If you can't draw a knife, then you're in a situation where the bad guy could ventilate you if you went for a gun, anyway. The second is that knives are actually more dangerous than guns at close range, anyway. So I'm sorry, but you don't need your prosthetic phallus.
And handguns.are used for home protection. My house its protected by 2 44s. One mine and one my dads
That's dumb. Shotguns work better.
Criminals do not follow laws, but the government has no right to decide on anyone's life, criminal or not. Death penalty and the thought that "criminals don't follow laws, therefore their lives worth nothing" is inhuman, cruel, stupid. Criminality is the result of bad economical and social conditions, and criminals can return to society, as long that there's a honest job for them. It's proven. It works in some European countries. America should try it, instead of allowing people to get assault rifles.

You don't believe that there are those who cannot be rehabilitated? Even in Norway (whose prison systems I would prefer we emulated) there are occasionally those (serial killers, for instance) who have no interest in functioning normally in polite society. I say that not to dispute the point that criminals should be rehabilitated, but rather to dispute your generalization.

[Harry Smith]

Calling me a foreigner is a bit rude, I understand the legal system perfectly well.Why does the fact that I'm british have anything to do with my grasp of the gun control. Also You seem to be suggesting some sort of dracion style prison system where any criminal is lynched. Last point pro-gun groups on this forum never actually address the issue of NEWTOWN.

[Professional Russian]

Last point pro-gun groups on this forum never actually address the issue of NEWTOWN.

I would but its a bit of touchy subject. And that has nothing to do with it. That was legally posed gun from someone with no mental disorder. The thing that got fucked was gun safety. If the gun was locked up and the key where the kid wouldn't find it it would have never happened. Blake the owner. Not the gun.

And where the fuck did I say anything about criminals being lynch. My theory: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

And too the person that negrepped telling me its a MSSA. The only things they have in common is caliber and looks. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Harry Smith]

You implied that you should be able to take action against criminals. Also have you heard the saying that an eye for any eye makes the whole world blind. Also having a un dosen't ensure that you're trained to use it, I've shot air pistols, .22 and shotguns yet I would have no chance against a criminal who is armed

[Professional Russian]

That's dumb. Shotguns work better.

Shotguns cause more calateral damage. With my 44 I can make 6 shots look like one. A 44 will not go all Tue way through a person with the correct loads. Shot guns on the other hand spread out at a very fast rate. And in the middle of the night I don't think I want to shoot my 835 with 3 1/2 mags in it.

You implied that you should be able to take action against criminals. Also have you heard the saying that an eye for any eye makes the whole world blind. Also having a un dosen't ensure that you're trained to use it, I've shot air pistols, .22 and shotguns yet I would have no chance against a criminal who is armed

Well get out and shoot more often on multiple targets. I prefer replica combat engagements but it still works out pretty well. Now if someone walks in my house in the middle of the night I may hesitate just because I'd be taking a human....but if I hesitate my dad will shoot the bastard. (Mods I know I'm double posting but I'm on my phone and its hard to copy pate and edit messages.)


Merged Double Posts. -StoppingTime

[CharlieFinley]

You implied that you should be able to take action against criminals. Also have you heard the saying that an eye for any eye makes the whole world blind. Also having a un dosen't ensure that you're trained to use it, I've shot air pistols, .22 and shotguns yet I would have no chance against a criminal who is armed
Can you really not see the difference between self-defense and vigilantism? That worries me.

If you really don't think you'd stand a chance against a criminal with a shotgun, that worries me even more.
Shotguns cause more calateral damage. With my 44 I can make 6 shots look like one. A 44 will not go all Tue way through a person with the correct loads. Shot guns on the other hand spread out at a very fast rate. And in the middle of the night I don't think I want to shoot my 835 with 3 1/2 mags in it.

You've been using a sawed-off? :confused: Put a better choke on your shotgun, then. Handgun bullets, especially from such a caliber as a .44, penetrate through walls and such very, very easily. Buckshot won't exit your house, in most circumstances,

[Harry Smith]

In Britain you are only allowled to use double Barrel shotguns, and then one I was shoting was a 12 bore which meant it had a hell of a kick. And I do understand the difference very much, self defence is where you use a reasonable amount of force to defend your well being, vigilantism is where you go and act as the judge, jury and executioner. The thing that sickens me is that the NRA want to put armed guards in schools, so what you've got someone with probaly a 9mm and a low amount of training. Also it dosen't look good for america if you need to guard your schools. America needs to modernize

[Sir Suomi]

Shotguns cause more calateral damage. With my 44 I can make 6 shots look like one. A 44 will not go all Tue way through a person with the correct loads. Shot guns on the other hand spread out at a very fast rate. And in the middle of the night I don't think I want to shoot my 835 with 3 1/2 mags in it.

Do you own any Glocks? Personally I'd want to arm myself with a Glock 19. Decently sized, 15 rounds in the magazine, and it's fairly accurate. And don't have to worry about collateral, being such a small caliber. Just saying.

[Professional Russian]

Do you own any Glocks? Personally I'd want to arm myself with a Glock 19. Decently sized, 15 rounds in the magazine, and it's fairly accurate. And don't have to worry about collateral, being such a small caliber. Just saying.

A Glock? And 9MM? AHHHHHH Il take my 1911 over a glock. I hate glocks with a passion

[Harry Smith]

Nothing is wrong with the glock, its got a nice shape to it, it's lightweight and as mentioned as 15 rounds opposed to the 8 which are commenly found in the m1911

[xmojox]

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.


Enough said.

[Professional Russian]

Nothing is wrong with the glock, its got a nice shape to it, it's lightweight and as mentioned as 15 rounds opposed to the 8 which are commenly found in the m1911

But theres a big difference in caliber. the Glock 19 is 9mm the 1911 is 45 ACP the 45 ACP is nearly twice the size of a 9mm. and with alot more stopping power.

[Harry Smith]

This is an idea which in its concept was a great idea, in the WOI the US relied on a series of militia's. It was a great concept 200 years ago. But it needs to modernize, did you know on the day that it was signed and proclaimed that 'all men were created equal' slaves were literally being sold outside the building. It took about 70 years for slavery to be abolished. Just because a piece of paper signed by rich, white, old men says you have a right to bear arms dosen't mean that its a good argument. The US broke about 100 british laws in rebelling against the british- but that was a wise thing to do.

And yes stopping power is important but with a .45 the chances are that it will go threw your attacker through the wall into either another person, a car or something of value, the 9mm is widely used not only as a pistol cartridge but as sub machine gun cartridge throughout military and police forces. Also with the recoil of a .45 you'll be lucky to get two accurate shots

[Professional Russian]

This is an idea which in its concept was a great idea, in the WOI the US relied on a series of militia's. It was a great concept 200 years ago. But it needs to modernize, did you know on the day that it was signed and proclaimed that 'all men were created equal' slaves were literally being sold outside the building. It took about 70 years for slavery to be abolished. Just because a piece of paper signed by rich, white, old men says you have a right to bear arms dosen't mean that its a good argument. The US broke about 100 british laws in rebelling against the british- but that was a wise thing to do.

And yes stopping power is important but with a .45 the chances are that it will go threw your attacker through the wall into either another person, a car or something of value, the 9mm is widely used not only as a pistol cartridge but as sub machine gun cartridge throughout military and police forces. Also with the recoil of a .45 you'll be lucky to get two accurate shots

No. With 45 it a low velocity round with a heavy bullet it will most likey stop in the person. 9mm is a high velocity round with a small projectile which will just go through a person and out the other side. you have calibers mixed up. and what the hell do you mean by modernize. are asking for a complete ban on all guns or just "assualt" rifles?

[Harry Smith]

I'm asking for a ban on all Assault weapons because I think that is the only thing that has a chance of passing through congress. A ban on all guns would be ideal because I doubt that the British or Big Federal government are going to try and take away your land. That was why it was written, it wasn't written to stop criminals. with Assault weapons the key is in the name. And by modernize I mean that it is a document which is over 200 years old

[Professional Russian]

I'm asking for a ban on all Assault weapons because I think that is the only thing that has a chance of passing through congress. A ban on all guns would be ideal because I doubt that the British or Big Federal government are going to try and take away your land. That was why it was written, it wasn't written to stop criminals. with Assault weapons the key is in the name. And by modernize I mean that it is a document which is over 200 years old

"Assualt" Weapons i agree with. they are just to have fun with in my eyes. an all out ban? what about People that hunt? Self Defense? Joy Of Shooting? and modernize? that mean we are going to change the 1st 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th and 10th amendments too? or are you just targeting the 2nd? The 2nd protects the 1st.

[CharlieFinley]

I'm asking for a ban on all Assault weapons because I think that is the only thing that has a chance of passing through congress. A ban on all guns would be ideal because I doubt that the British or Big Federal government are going to try and take away your land. That was why it was written, it wasn't written to stop criminals. with Assault weapons the key is in the name. And by modernize I mean that it is a document which is over 200 years old

You're kind of an idiot. Whether a weapon is an "assault weapon" is defined by cosmetic features like a bayonet lug (guess how many bayonets have been used in crimes) or folding stocks. Banning "assault weapons" because "omg they sound scary" is dumb.

Nothing is wrong with the glock, its got a nice shape to it, it's lightweight and as mentioned as 15 rounds opposed to the 8 which are commenly found in the m1911

Para-ordnance 14.45. 'nuff said.

[Harry Smith]

I'm not an idiot thanks, it weakens your debate aswell. An assault weapon is not an official definition, it is merely the name that was mentioned in the ban. I never mentioned that they are scary did I. Also I actually know someone who was stabbed with a british army issue bayonet.

And I'm just saying that America needs to adjust, espically after newtown or any of the other terrible massarces that have occured. The consitituion is a blessing and a curse

[CharlieFinley]

I'm not an idiot thanks, it weakens your debate aswell. An assault weapon is not an official definition, it is merely the name that was mentioned in the ban. I never mentioned that they are scary did I. Also I actually know someone who was stabbed with a british army issue bayonet. Out of curiosity, was the bayonet attached to a rifle at the time? What's more, "assault weapon" is an actual, legal term that refers to weapons with a very specific set of entirely cosmetic features. An "assault weapon" is no more dangerous than a semi-automatic California-legal rifle; it just looks scarier.

[Harry Smith]

nahh he left the SLR at home, he was a nutjob though, and sorry I'm not an expert within the sub sections of the law. I assumed an assault weapon was one with a large magazine and a mainly used by criminals due to the fact it has features such as folding stocks, silencers etc to help in combat.

[Sir Suomi]

A Glock? And 9MM? AHHHHHH Il take my 1911 over a glock. I hate glocks with a passion


:eek: Are you kidding me? I love Glocks! One of my favorite handguns to shoot! Yet I still do love 44.'s... Ugh my heart is torn between the two :wub:

[Gigablue]

"Assualt" Weapons i agree with. they are just to have fun with in my eyes. an all out ban? what about People that hunt? Self Defense? Joy Of Shooting? and modernize? that mean we are going to change the 1st 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th and 10th amendments too? or are you just targeting the 2nd? The 2nd protects the 1st.

The second amendment doesn't protect the first. Here in Canada, we don't have the right to bear arm in the constitution, but we still have basically the same rights as are in the US bill of rights. You don't need guns to be free.

[Professional Russian]

nahh he left the SLR at home, he was a nutjob though, and sorry I'm not an expert within the sub sections of the law. I assumed an assault weapon was one with a large magazine and a mainly used by criminals due to the fact it has features such as folding stocks, silencers etc to help in combat.

Suppressors are hard to get. They need ATF approval and a $200 tax stamp. Unless you paying out the ass for an illegal one. How does a folding stock help a criminal?

The second amendment doesn't protect the first. Here in Canada, we don't have the right to bear arm in the constitution, but we still have basically the same rights as are in the US bill of rights. You don't need guns to be free.

No you need guns to protect that freedom

Please use the multi-quote to respond to multiple posts, instead of double posting. You should know that by now. ~TheMatrix

[Harry Smith]

look at the 1962 ole miss riots, a black student was allowled to enroll by the Supreme court. He went in but the Governor of Mississippi called in the National guard to help the shotgun bearing white protesters who didn't want a Black student. Kennedy had to call in the US Marshals just to get him in the University. A good example of where 'people power' is completely perverse.

Also one the day that the US consitituion was signed they were selling Slaves outside, Please tell me how all men can be created equal when they are being sold right outside the building

[Professional Russian]

look at the 1962 ole miss riots, a black student was allowled to enroll by the Supreme court. He went in but the Governor of Mississippi called in the National guard to help the shotgun bearing white protesters who didn't want a Black student. Kennedy had to call in the US Marshals just to get him in the University. A good example of where 'people power' is completely perverse.

Also one the day that the US consitituion was signed they were selling Slaves outside, Please tell me how all men can be created equal when they are being sold right outside the building

What the hell does all men being equal have to do with gun rights?

[Harry Smith]

I'm saying how your gun rights are based on the consitution yet there was a fundemental flaw within the the 1st amendment. I also think that the right to bear arms was meant that there was a right to uphold an organised militia to stop the British. This is 200 years out of the date, we've disregarded nearly every other law from back then. Are the big bad federal government going to come down to your house and try and destory you. Probaly not, and if they did you would be severly outgunned. You base your views about guns on a piece of paper which was signed my unelected, white, rich and for a couple slave owning men.

[TapDancer]

In Australia, our gun laws are incredibly tight. In America, the government wants them that tight, but the people think that the American Government "Land of the free" is taking way their "freedom" by taking their gun laws. In Australia, we don't feel that way. Our laws do not affect our "freedom". If you want a gun, you need a reason. If you have one, you get one. Simple. And, I mean a good reason. Family protection does not count, that's what the bloody police are for! I believe that most people are too stupid to be able to handle a gun, that's why so many people get killed, because their gun accidentally backfired, or someone else stole it to murder someone. I am for the American Governments idea to restrict guns. Less violence. But people need to understand, they aren't taking away your "rights and freedom", they are simply protecting the people.

[Professional Russian]

I'm saying how your gun rights are based on the consitution yet there was a fundemental flaw within the the 1st amendment. I also think that the right to bear arms was meant that there was a right to uphold an organised militia to stop the British. This is 200 years out of the date, we've disregarded nearly every other law from back then. Are the big bad federal government going to come down to your house and try and destory you. Probaly not, and if they did you would be severly outgunned. You base your views about guns on a piece of paper which was signed my unelected, white, rich and for a couple slave owning men.

You know. the 2nd amendment is good thing. it assures us defense if the government ever tried to take them. all a government should be more afraid of its citizens then the citizens are of the government

In Australia, our gun laws are incredibly tight. In America, the government wants them that tight, but the people think that the American Government "Land of the free" is taking way their "freedom" by taking their gun laws. In Australia, we don't feel that way. Our laws do not affect our "freedom". If you want a gun, you need a reason. If you have one, you get one. Simple. And, I mean a good reason. Family protection does not count, that's what the bloody police are for! I believe that most people are too stupid to be able to handle a gun, that's why so many people get killed, because their gun accidentally backfired, or someone else stole it to murder someone. I am for the American Governments idea to restrict guns. Less violence. But people need to understand, they aren't taking away your "rights and freedom", they are simply protecting the people.

I would not trust a cop with my life. it takes them 10 minutes to 30 minutes + and talking in Australia now. in the US it usually takes 10 minutes. by that time my whole family could be killeed and robbed and that criminal could be gone. id rather be judge by 12 than carried by 6

[Harry Smith]

Do you know anyone who has been killed by an armed robber? Often people who burgle are criminals who are not naturally voilent, I knew someone who was sitting in there room and the burgler walked into the room saw them and legged it. Also I know someone who had a burgler try and get through there back door, but he saw them in the house and ran back out. It is extremely rare for someone to kill your family.

Also mate the if the government wanted to they could ruin you in about 30 minutes, do you really think killing is the only way to destroy someone's life. They could get the for example in this country MI5 could plant contraband in your car or person, they could get you fired from your job, they could cut your brakes on your car. The government has the ability to, all you have a .44 and a piece of paper written by unelected officals 200 years ago

[Professional Russian]

all you have a .44 and a piece of paper written by unelected officals 200 years ago

And thats all that matters

[Harry Smith]

And to you it probaly does, I doubt either of us are going to change the others view. At least you know your guns, I can't stand people who know absolutely nothing about them but still claim that they are good based on Call of Duty

[Professional Russian]

And to you it probaly does, I doubt either of us are going to change the others view. At least you know your guns, I can't stand people who know absolutely nothing about them but still claim that they are good based on Call of Duty

Oh Jesus Christ dont get me started. someone tried to tell me they could one of my guns out and kill someone from 1000 yards away with no scope adjustments. I hate people like that.

[Synyster Shadows]

i did a paper on this very topic for an English essay, working on persuasive writing. I took the side of stricter control laws without banning guns. We do have the right to bear arms but background checks would be more in-depth and now I would include mental stability checks, among other things.

[Xenonrecover]

Guns obviously do a lot more damage than knives and other things. But if a man tries to defend his family from a gunman with a knife then it will not work. In my opinion guns should be allowed and that they can only be kept in houses so they can deal with trespassers and burglars

[Gigablue]

No you need guns to protect that freedom

No you don't. Here in Canada we don't have anywhere near as many guns. How are we any less free?

[TapDancer]

You know. the 2nd amendment is good thing. it assures us defense if the government ever tried to take them. all a government should be more afraid of its citizens then the citizens are of the government



I would not trust a cop with my life. it takes them 10 minutes to 30 minutes + and talking in Australia now. in the US it usually takes 10 minutes. by that time my whole family could be killeed and robbed and that criminal could be gone. id rather be judge by 12 than carried by 6

Stricter gun laws, means there are not people throwing guns in your face. I have never seen a gun I real life, not even on a police officer. They use tasers. That is how safe we are. So tell me how much better off America is with lax gun laws.

[Professional Russian]

No you don't. Here in Canada we don't have anywhere near as many guns. How are we any less free?

I didnt say it made you less free. I said too protect that freedom.

Stricter gun laws, means there are not people throwing guns in your face. I have never seen a gun I real life, not even on a police officer. They use tasers. That is how safe we are. So tell me how much better off America is with lax gun laws.

You are in Australia this america. We have a lot of guns and nice black market for them. If you ban guns you taking them away from the law abiding citizens and basically giving them too the criminals.

[xmojox]

I'm asking for a ban on all Assault weapons because I think that is the only thing that has a chance of passing through congress. A ban on all guns would be ideal because I doubt that the British or Big Federal government are going to try and take away your land. That was why it was written, it wasn't written to stop criminals. with Assault weapons the key is in the name. And by modernize I mean that it is a document which is over 200 years old

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable us to be able to protect our own lives and freedoms from whatever source should happen to threaten them, whether it be a home invader, a foreign invasion, or our own government.

In order to grasp the necessity of this you have to grasp that American Sovereignty is shared by each and every American. Not so in many other places. To suggest that sovereign Americans should surrender any type of firearm is tantamount to suggesting that the British military not issue assault weapons, but, rather, place such weapons stictly in the hands of the UN.

Simply because a thing may possibly be used in a heinous manner does not by any means indicate that said thing should be banned. There was a woman in Dallas a long time ago who drowned her 3 children in the bathtub. Should bathtubs then be banned? God, I hope not.

[Harry Smith]

Please your example about the british Military is rather out of place. The british military is a trained and high respectable group of dedicated men and women who have fought for the last 300 years in the name of Britain. Our military are trained to fire and use weapons in a safe manner. In a number of US states as long as I have never commited a serouis crime I could purchase myself a 9mm with out any training.

I just think that there needs to be a change in gun control, look at newtown. What are americans going to do to stop events like that happening. I ask you have you ever had to use your firearms to take on a foreign invasion, have you ever had to take on the federal government with just cause?

I really admire the US consitituion but the truth is that it was written over 200 years ago, in Bristol which is south england theres an old law which states your allowled to kill a welshmen with a crossbow if it past 1 am. Now that law is complete and utter bullcrap but hey since its written 200 years ago we should still follow it.

Think how many children died at newtown, think of the batman shootings, think of virgina tech univeristy shootings, think how many people will never experience the wonders of life purely because of a firearm

[xmojox]

The second amendment doesn't protect the first. Here in Canada, we don't have the right to bear arm in the constitution, but we still have basically the same rights as are in the US bill of rights. You don't need guns to be free.

Sorry for the double post, but I don't know how to edit and add a quote.

The Second Amendment protects not only the First, but all of the others and the main body of our Constitution, and our Declaration of Independence as well.

I won't argue the Canada is less free than the US, but I will argue that we are better able to safeguard and guarantee our freedoms. In any nation with an unarmed populace, the people are as free as the current government allows them to be. Should there be a change in your government and they suddenly decided to strip you of your freedoms, what would be your recourse? Angry rhetoric?

Our founders knew perfectly well what they were doing.

[Harry Smith]

what counts as stripping you of your freedom. Some die hard tea party members claim that Obama should be impeched and that he is breaking the consititution, does that mean that they have a right to go and shoot him because in there view he is 'stripping them of there freedom?

In britain we have had two examples of overthrowing a king, and we didn't need an armed populace for that, france didn't have an armed populace to ovethrow king Louis. Also how is a couple of homeowners with pistols and the odd rifle going to stop a military coup or some sort of dictator with the whole US armed forces at his will

[xmojox]

Please your example about the british Military is rather out of place. The british military is a trained and high respectable group of dedicated men and women who have fought for the last 300 years in the name of Britain. Our military are trained to fire and use weapons in a safe manner. In a number of US states as long as I have never commited a serouis crime I could purchase myself a 9mm with out any training.

I just think that there needs to be a change in gun control, look at newtown. What are americans going to do to stop events like that happening. I ask you have you ever had to use your firearms to take on a foreign invasion, have you ever had to take on the federal government with just cause?

I really admire the US consitituion but the truth is that it was written over 200 years ago, in Bristol which is south england theres an old law which states your allowled to kill a welshmen with a crossbow if it past 1 am. Now that law is complete and utter bullcrap but hey since its written 200 years ago we should still follow it.

Think how many children died at newtown, think of the batman shootings, think of virgina tech univeristy shootings, think how many people will never experience the wonders of life purely because of a firearm

I respectfully submit that it isn't out of place at all. The point that I'm making is that it's ludicrous to even suggest such a thing. Your argument seems to be that since some very disturbed people have committed some very heinous acts with firearms then firearms should be banned. The fact that our Constitution is 200 years old is irrelevant. If we should scrap part of it because of age, why not the entire thing? The point that you're missing is that each American is Sovereign, and a Sovereign entity has the right to be able to defend that Sovereignty.

[xmojox]

what counts as stripping you of your freedom. Some die hard tea party members claim that Obama should be impeched and that he is breaking the consititution, does that mean that they have a right to go and shoot him because in there view he is 'stripping them of there freedom?

In britain we have had two examples of overthrowing a king, and we didn't need an armed populace for that, france didn't have an armed populace to ovethrow king Louis. Also how is a couple of homeowners with pistols and the odd rifle going to stop a military coup or some sort of dictator with the whole US armed forces at his will

One thing I can guarantee you is that without weapons, we won't. And if all we have are a couple of homeowners with a couple of pistols and the odd rifle, what's the problem in the first place? Either gun ownership in America is significant or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

[Harry Smith]

Sovereignty is the most over used word in the international relations. Germany claimed soverignty over austria and poland. Argentina claim sovereignty over the Falkland islands. And I know that firearms will never get completely banned in america because of the nature of the country, I just think that limits need to be brought in to reduce the chances of these massarces happening. I was always leaning slightly towards anti-gun control until newtown. what I'm saying is that nearly every country in the world has firearm control in different degrees, America loves to see it self as a world leader and superpower however its the only western country to still maintain a death penatly. Its the only western country to openly break the geneva convention, and I just feel that gun control is something that conservatives have to face, you never actually answered directly about the many people affected.

Robert F kennedy
John F kennedy
Ian Brady
John lennon
Martin luther king
32 newtown victims
12 virgina tech victims

These people were all killed as a result of a bullet

[xmojox]

Sovereignty is the most over used word in the international relations. Germany claimed soverignty over austria and poland. Argentina claim sovereignty over the Falkland islands. And I know that firearms will never get completely banned in america because of the nature of the country, I just think that limits need to be brought in to reduce the chances of these massarces happening. I was always leaning slightly towards anti-gun control until newtown. what I'm saying is that nearly every country in the world has firearm control in different degrees, America loves to see it self as a world leader and superpower however its the only western country to still maintain a death penatly. Its the only western country to openly break the geneva convention, and I just feel that gun control is something that conservatives have to face, you never actually answered directly about the many people affected.

Robert F kennedy
John F kennedy
Ian Brady
John lennont
Martin luther king
32 newtown victims
12 virgina tech victims

These people were all killed as a result of a bullet

Imagine the length of the list of people killed by vehicular homicide each year. By your logic, vehicles should be banned. Fully automatic weapons are illegal in the US. That doesn't prevent criminals from obtaining and using them. My point is that you propose sweeping legislation that would restrict the rights of millions of people who will never commit a crime in response to the actions of a few disturbed individuals, and I simply can not agree with that response.

I'm not some unfeeling bastard, either. I cried when the Newton shootings happened, and I donated money to help those folks. I know money is nothing when someone has lost a loved one, but, as i live over a thousand miles from there it was the extent of what I was able to do. When catastrophes happen, wether they are natural or man-made, all we can do is to do the best that we can to help the survivors.

And the fact that we have capital punishment (with which I happen to strongly disagree) or have or have not broken the Geneva Convention (which is sadly true), is irrelevant vis-a-vis gun control. I'm not saying that this country is perfect, because everyone knows that it isn't. There is a tendency to confuse the actions of a government with the desires of a people, and is an unfair thing to do. Knowing how imperfect my government is makes me all the more determined to keep my guns.

[Harry Smith]

I appreciate that mate. Money can help after these things and I think its a great tribute to the american pro gun lobby that you did.

But I'm saying that vehicular homicide is where someone goes out with the intention of killing someone. However this is not the case, in a car accident it is caused by accidents or distractions. However all those people were intented to be killed by something that is terribely effective at the job, those people were killed as result of someone picking up a gun and aiming it at them.

And that is a perfectly valid point which I accept, I just feel that something needs to be done to stop the next newtown.

[xmojox]

I appreciate that mate. Money can help after these things and I think its a great tribute to the american pro gun lobby that you did.

But I'm saying that vehicular homicide is where someone goes out with the intention of killing someone. However this is not the case, in a car accident it is caused by accidents or distractions. However all those people were intented to be killed by something that is terribely effective at the job, those people were killed as result of someone picking up a gun and aiming it at them.

Vehicular homicide can also be the result of gross and negligent misuse of a vehicle. For instance, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Yes, I agree that the crimes these people have committed are heinous, however, I must maintain that it is immoral to legislate the many based upon the actions of a few.

[Harry Smith]

Look at 7/7 in this country, the police where then allowled to detain terror suspects for 40 days without trial. This was as a result of the actions of the few. A large amount of anti terror legislation was also brought in after 9/11 in america including congress allowing US air strikes on Afganistan. The actions of the few are most often the reasons that major legislation gets passed

[xmojox]

Look at 7/7 in this country, the police where then allowled to detain terror suspects for 40 days without trial. This was as a result of the actions of the few. A large amount of anti terror legislation was also brought in after 9/11 in america including congress allowing US air strikes on Afganistan. The actions of the few are most often the reasons that major legislation gets passed

Anti-terror legislation doesn't have any effect on law-abiding citizens, unless it's a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, in which case it becomes a matter of wrongful arrest. A blanket ban on an entire class of rifle would have an effect on any law-abiding citizen who wanted to own one legally. To obtain one illegally wouldn't be a difficult thing to do, but to own one legally would then be impossible.

While I don't have the Constitutional Right to be a terrorist, I DO have the Constitutional Right to own as many weapons as I care to own.

[Professional Russian]

Anti-terror legislation doesn't have any effect on law-abiding citizens, unless it's a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, in which case it becomes a matter of wrongful arrest. A blanket ban on an entire class of rifle would have an effect on any law-abiding citizen who wanted to own one legally. To obtain one illegally wouldn't be a difficult thing to do, but to own one legally would then be impossible.

While I don't have the Constitutional Right to be a terrorist, I DOhave the Constitutional Right to own S many weapons as I care to own.

But the second amendment is appearently outdated....

[xmojox]

But the second amendment is appearently outdated....
No, it isn't outdated. These issues aren't caused by gun ownership. A disturbed individual could cause just as much damage without ever touching a gun. I truly understand the horror and fear that prompt people to cry out for bans. When we are forced to face the depradations that man can inflict upon his fellow man there's a feeling of helplessness and the thought that we ought to do something. The problem is, nobody knows what to do, so then the feeling becomes, "wouldn't it be better to do this than to do nothing? At least if we do this then we have at least tried." These decisions are based on emotion rather than on fact or consideration of the possible consequences, and, therein lies the problem with them.

I would love to be able to guarantee that there would never be another Newton, however, these proposed bans simply can't accomplish that. When someone comes up with a workable and effective solution, I'll be right with them. Until then, the best we can do is to be reactive.

On a side note...to the OP...has this been at all helpful to your assignment?

[Professional Russian]

No, it isn't outdated. These issues aren't caused by gun ownership. A disturbed individual could cause just as much damage without ever touching a gun. I truly understand the horror and fear that prompt people to cry out for bans. When we are forced to face the depradations that man can inflict upon his fellow man there's a feeling of helplessness and the thought that we ought to do something. The problem is, nobody knows what to do, so then the feeling becomes, "wouldn't it be better to do this than to do nothing? At least if we do this then we have at least tried." These decisions are based on emotion rather than on fact or consideration of the possible consequences, and, therein lies the problem with them.

I would love to be able to guarantee that there would never be another Newton, however, these proposed bans simply can't accomplish that. When someone comes up with a workable and effective solution, I'll be right with them. Until then, the best we can do is to be reactive.

On a side note...to the OP...has this been at all helpful to your assignment?

wow i thought i laid the sarcasm on a bit too thick....appearently now. if you read the rest of my posts youll i highly support gun rights.

[Sir Suomi]

On a side note...to the OP...has this been at all helpful to your assignment?

In some ways, yes. I'll keep my opinion to myself for now, but I am still Pro-Gun Rights. Please continue to debate however, this is quite entertaining.

On a side note, I am very mad at Professional Russian. How DARE he say he hates Glocks! Maybe I'll just show him how effective those little bastards are :P

[Professional Russian]

On a side note, I am very mad at Professional Russian. How DARE he say he hates Glocks! Maybe I'll just show him how effective those little bastards are :P

look i dont like plastic guns. i like the all metal ones. when you have pistol whip someone plastic aint gonna do the job.

[TapDancer]

I didnt say it made you less free. I said too protect that freedom.



You are in Australia this america. We have a lot of guns and nice black market for them. If you ban guns you taking them away from the law abiding citizens and basically giving them too the criminals.

Uh, no. By taking away the guns, NO ONE has them. Not even the criminals. And law abiding citizens can have guns, so long as they apply and follow THE LAW about getting one. By making stricter gun laws, explain to me how we are "basically giving them to the criminals". Your argument makes itself invalid.

[xmojox]

Uh, no. By taking away the guns, NO ONE has them. Not even the criminals. And law abiding citizens can have guns, so long as they apply and follow THE LAW about getting one. By making stricter gun laws, explain to me how we are "basically giving them to the criminals". Your argument makes itself invalid.

There seems to be an assumption that criminals use legal weapons. They do not, at least not in the vast majority of instances. Even with a ban on all firearms, I promise you it'd still be possible to get one through extra-legal channels. The only people who can't own one are those who have no desire or inclination to break the law. This concept isn't rocket science.

Remember, we are talking about criminals, and they all seem to have a pesky disregard for the law. Maybe that's what made them criminals in the first place?

[TapDancer]

How fucking stupid are you? Its common knowledge that the bad guys will always get guns. You can't Deny that fact. Look at Chicago it has some of the hardest gun control in the country but has one of the highest crime rates. Care to explain?

Bad guys won't always get guns, actually. Not here. We had a shooting of someone here a couple year ago, all over the news, because no one has a gun. Yeah, the laws aren't infallible, but at least we aren't handing them out to people on platters. Also, how dare you. This is obviously a debate, but how dare you use profanity and derogatory comments. Who do you think you are?!

[xmojox]

Bad guys won't always get guns, actually. Not here. We had a shooting of someone here a couple year ago, all over the news, because no one has a gun. Yeah, the laws aren't infallible, but at least we aren't handing them out to people on platters. Also, how dare you. This is obviously a debate, but how dare you use profanity and derogatory comments. Who do you think you are?!

As the OP is from Nebraska, I assume that we're speaking of the United States, not Australia. We are culturally different, even though we do share a common language, so it's unfair to assume that what works there will work here. We are two entirely different peoples, and I assure you that it's easy to obtain an illegal firearm here.

[Professional Russian]

Bad guys won't always get guns, actually. Not here. We had a shooting of someone here a couple year ago, all over the news, because no one has a gun. Yeah, the laws aren't infallible, but at least we aren't handing them out to people on platters. Also, how dare you. This is obviously a debate, but how dare you use profanity and derogatory comments. Who do you think you are?!

Who do I think I am? I am myself. Also pertaining to what I said. There is nothing against the rules for what I said. Nearly every post I have has fuck shit damn it in it.

[TapDancer]

Who do I think I am? I am myself. Also pertaining to what I said. There is nothing against the rules for what I said. Nearly every post I have has fuck shit damn it in it.

Sorry, I'll be clearer, who do you think you are directing language AT SOMEONE. That is just not cool, and makes you look like an idiot.

[Professional Russian]

Sorry, I'll be clearer, who do you think you are directing language AT SOMEONE. That is just not cool, and makes you look like an idiot.

And do you think I actually care?

[TapDancer]

And do you think I actually care?

Fine then, don't. Goes to show just how far in life you are going to get if you treat regular people.

[xmojox]

Gentlemen, can we get back on topic by any chance?

[AbbaZabba]

Simply put, guns aren't the trouble, people are.

[Sir Suomi]

Simply put, guns aren't the trouble, people are.

That's kind of been the main point in my speech so far. Still need to finish it by Tuesday. I'll post my speech when it's done.

[AbbaZabba]

That's kind of been the main point in my speech so far. Still need to finish it by Tuesday. I'll post my speech when it's done.

I'd like to see it. Let me know when you post it. Have a great night.

[Sir Suomi]

Alright, just got it done. Excuse me if it sounds odd, but our teacher insisted on me adding certain parts. Please, if I make a mistake, inform me in a polite and courteous manner. Thanks! :D

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to keep the Security of the State, the right to the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment has been under fire lately. Today, I'm going to tell you why I support Gun Rights. I will back up my opinion with the legal definition of the Second Amendment, the Connecticut Shooting details, and ways we can stop gun violence without getting rid of guns.
First, the Second Amendment dates back to the creation of our nation. According to Legal-Dictionary.com, found on March 3rd, 2013, the definition of the Second Amendment is that citizens have the right to own firearms, whether it be for recreational uses such as hunting, or for self-defense. It also allows the formation of privately operated militias.
Next, during the Connecticut shooting, the shooter, Adam Lanza, guns laws were powerless against his determined goal of destruction. Adam was turned down from buying a high-powered rifle days before the shooting reports the LA Times, found on March 3rd, 2013. So instead, he murdered his own mother in cold blood, and stole her weapons, which included a Bushmaster AR-15, and ammunition. This shows that even if you legally deny people firearms, they can still obtain them through other means, while at the same time punishing the law-abiding citizens who enjoy owning such firearms.
Finally, the are many different alternatives we can take instead of banning firearms. We can eliminate the high capacity ammunition clips to limit the amount of bullets one can fire without reloading. We can also enforce better mental health and criminal background checks that can extend the close family members, such as brothers, sisters, or even parents. This would help keep firearms out of the hands of those who could otherwise bring harm with them.
As the Second Amendment says, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is our constitutional right to own firearms, whether it be for recreational use or self-defense. I've backed up my case with the legal definition of the Second Amendment, the Connecticut shooting details, and provided alternate ways on how to solve gun violence issues without punishing those who are responsible with their firearms.

So what do you think?