Gun control

[tbonehntr]

For those people that are for gun control in the USA, please tell me in a level headed way, and for those against I see why because 99.9% of guns in the United States haven't been used and will not be used in violent crimes, as my friend said, cars kill more people in a year than guns do, so why don't we ban them?

[Naue]

I honestly think, being from the UK, they just need stricter regulation. They don't need a total ban at all.

[tbonehntr]

I honestly think, being from the UK, they just need stricter regulation. They don't need a total ban at all.

What do you mean by that? The 2nd amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms, and gun control is inhibiting that constitutional right, and the whole point of guns is to also keep the government in check, as the founding fathers didn't want the government to have too much power which is the point of the democracy, bill of rights, and the checks and balances system. The guns let the government know that we will not be squashed by their own selfish wants.

[Naue]

What do you mean by that? The 2nd amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms, and gun control is inhibiting that constitutional right, and the whole point of guns is to also keep the government in check, as the founding fathers didn't want the government to have too much power which is the point of the democracy, bill of rights, and the checks and balances system. The guns let the government know that we will not be squashed by their own selfish wants.

I mean, people should have background checks and similar.

Fine, it might be inhibiting your rights but if someone wants to deprive someone of the right to life surely that goes against human rights and the laws of the US?

[Harry Smith]

In my view the fact that the Constitution states that you have the right to bear arms doesn't mean that it is morally right for the general populace to have access for guns. If you look at when the US Constitution was signed it was a completely different world. The US had just gained Independence using the Militia's, it was the militia's who fought at Lexington and concord hence why the founding fathers fought that it was important. However now-days the average american isn't under attack from a foreign invader or the federal government trying to take away his land. Just because a piece of paper says you have the right to bear arms doesn't mean it's morally right.

[tbonehntr]

I mean, people should have background checks and similar.

Fine, it might be inhibiting your rights but if someone wants to deprive someone of the right to life surely that goes against human rights and the laws of the US?

In my view the fact that the Constitution states that you have the right to bear arms doesn't mean that it is morally right for the general populace to have access for guns. If you look at when the US Constitution was signed it was a completely different world. The US had just gained Independence using the Militia's, it was the militia's who fought at Lexington and concord hence why the founding fathers fought that it was important. However now-days the average american isn't under attack from a foreign invader or the federal government trying to take away his land. Just because a piece of paper says you have the right to bear arms doesn't mean it's morally right.

I understand where some of this is coming from. Yes I agree that we need to have background checks, and also mental checks, as the shootings happen are usually by mentally ill people, like the columbine and the Newport Connecticut shooting. These are necessary steps but it is not morally wrong to own a gun nowadays, in the south the gun culture is defiantly still in effect, and most everyone that is of the Caucasian race, that their family has been in the south for a while goes hunting, and is raised around guns. Guns also don't kill people, people kill people.

[Professional Russian]

Gun control is the eqaivialnt of giving the criminals the guns in america. It wouldn't work so why suggest it?

[tbonehntr]

Gun control is the eqaivialnt of giving the criminals the guns in america. It wouldn't work so why suggest it?

I'm not suggesting it, I'm wondering why some people do suggest it, I mean snow kills people as well as cars so ban them too I guess???

[Professional Russian]

I'm not suggesting it, I'm wondering why some people do suggest it, I mean snow kills people as well as cars so ban them too I guess???

I knwo it towards everyone else.

[Harry Smith]

Yes cars kill people, yes snow kills people. However I need a cars to travel around, but I do not need a gun in any situation. The purpose of a gun is to kill, that is why it is designed. You can hunt with a crossbow or air rifle, but for example an ar-15 semi automatic shooting 5.56 military grade rounds is only made for one purpose- to stop the person your looking at

[PinkFloyd]

Drunk driving accidents kill a shit ton more people than PEOPLE WITH GUNS do. WHy don't we start prohibition back up again? That was just an example. Starting prohibition back up would be horrible!

[Harry Smith]

A car has a primary purpose- to transport people around. If you look at my point above guns are designed to kill. It's simple as that, I'm not saying america should ban all guns, because I know congress would never pass that but there they need to limit them somehow. America has some of the weakest gun laws in the world, nearly every europeon country has some element of control over the problem. America is the only country where they are oblivious about any need for control right after a massarce.

[Professional Russian]

Yes cars kill people, yes snow kills people. However I need a cars to travel around, but I do not need a gun in any situation. The purpose of a gun is to kill, that is why it is designed. You can hunt with a crossbow or air rifle, but for example an ar-15 semi automatic shooting 5.56 military grade rounds is only made for one purpose- to stop the person your looking at

5.56 military grade rounds? good joke. a military grade round is ball ammunition which is just a full metal jacket that you can get for almost any caliber. i also know quite a few people that hunt with that same "military grade round" in a bolt action rifle.

[Harry Smith]

The 5.56 was actually designed specifically by Eugene stoner for the m-16, the 5.56 isn't really used in hunting over here. The reason the ful metal jacket is used is because under international law armies may only use bullets with full metal rather than hollow point due to the fact the the hollow point dosen't do clean damage meanings it's less humane

[PinkFloyd]

A car has a primary purpose- to transport people around. If you look at my point above guns are designed to kill. It's simple as that, I'm not saying america should ban all guns, because I know congress would never pass that but there they need to limit them somehow. America has some of the weakest gun laws in the world, nearly every europeon country has some element of control over the problem. America is the only country where they are oblivious about any need for control right after a massarce.

Maybe banning semi Auto would help. I mean I don't want to lose my Sig p229 very much, but I mean it would help, right?

[Professional Russian]

The 5.56 was actually designed specifically by Eugene stoner for the m-16, the 5.56 isn't really used in hunting over here. The reason the ful metal jacket is used is because under international law armies may only use bullets with full metal rather than hollow point due to the fact the the hollow point dosen't do clean damage meanings it's less humane

do you literally know what the 5.56 is? its a .223 Remington with a little bit less chamber pressure. there's no difference between them but chamber pressures. Full metal jackets were around way before the were used in war. you can get full metal jacket almost any caliber.

[Harry Smith]

do you literally know what the 5.56 is? its a .223 Remington with a little bit less chamber pressure. there's no difference between them but chamber pressures. Full metal jackets were around way before the were used in war. you can get full metal jacket almost any caliber.

I'm sorry mate but in this country we live in it's rather hard to get access to guns due to the fact we have this great thing called common sense. I have pretty basic knowledge of firearms, the fact about international law was purely something someone told me who lived up in scotland. Yes he owns a 2 guns, a .22 and .308 rifle. So excuse me if my knowledge isn't perfect.

I thought I would get together a nice list here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
I know yes wikipedia, I cbf to type that all out.

What will make you change your mind? How many more will have to die?

[The Mechanan]

Drunk driving accidents kill a shit ton more people than PEOPLE WITH GUNS do. WHy don't we start prohibition back up again? That was just an example. Starting prohibition back up would be horrible!

I must agree with Mr. Smith some. The use of Prohibition and Vehicular Deaths are besides the point for several reasons
-"A car has a primary purpose- to transport people around"
-Very few vehicular deaths are a result of direct acts, with the intent to kill. Most are a result of human ignorance and irresponsibility. That point is null in relation to guns
-Comparing the situation to the end result of Prohibition is a lazy excuse. "It's too hard, so we shouldn't bother trying" is how I interpret that.

I do believe that there should be thorough background and mental checks and exams before anyone is allowed to purchase any firearm. Make safety courses required. Because frankly the stereotype of "Gun Trotting Morons" that we as a country have been labeled with has too many accurate cases. (From personal experiences and observations of my cousin) A vast majority of Americans are not qualified, mature enough, responsible enough to possess a firearm of any type. I do not see a ban on firearm types. Allow automatic weapons, but have all of these measures in place so that only those qualified to handle them have them legally. Unfortunately there is no way to stop those who go about other ways to ascertain them. Which is another reason I do not see backing of bans of even classes of weapons, as despite that, those who want them will get them. And those who go to those lengths to get them illegally are the ones that will cause the problem. Last thing you want is only these types of people with the weapons.

My ideas may be impractical crosses of policies, and I probably rambled to hell and back, but it sums that I believe we do not need restriction on what can be owned, but a heavy regulation on whom owns them.

[Professional Russian]

I'm sorry mate but in this country we live in it's rather hard to get access to guns due to the fact we have this great thing called common sense. I have pretty basic knowledge of firearms, the fact about international law was purely something someone told me who lived up in scotland. Yes he owns a 2 guns, a .22 and .308 rifle. So excuse me if my knowledge isn't perfect.

I thought I would get together a nice list here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
I know yes wikipedia, I cbf to type that all out.

What will make you change your mind? How many more will have to die?

oh dont use the how many more have to die bullshit on me. im not light hearted it doesnt affect me. what cant you figure out. if you take guns from law abiding citizens you will basically be giveing them to criminals. alot more will die you take guns. 99.999999999% of guns in the us havent killed anybody.

By the way i love how you bring up school shootings. its funny becasue since most shootings are schools and schools are gun free zones. coincidence? i think not

[PinkFloyd]

I must agree with Mr. Smith some. The use of Prohibition and Vehicular Deaths are besides the point for several reasons
-"A car has a primary purpose- to transport people around"
-Very few vehicular deaths are a result of direct acts, with the intent to kill. Most are a result of human ignorance and irresponsibility. That point is null in relation to guns
-Comparing the situation to the end result of Prohibition is a lazy excuse. "It's too hard, so we shouldn't bother trying" is how I interpret that.

I do believe that there should be thorough background and mental checks and exams before anyone is allowed to purchase any firearm. Make safety courses required. Because frankly the stereotype of "Gun Trotting Morons" that we as a country have been labeled with has too many accurate cases. (From personal experiences and observations of my cousin) A vast majority of Americans are not qualified, mature enough, responsible enough to possess a firearm of any type. I do not see a ban on firearm types. Allow automatic weapons, but have all of these measures in place so that only those qualified to handle them have them legally. Unfortunately there is no way to stop those who go about other ways to ascertain them. Which is another reason I do not see backing of bans of even classes of weapons, as despite that, those who want them will get them. And those who go to those lengths to get them illegally are the ones that will cause the problem. Last thing you want is only these types of people with the weapons.

My ideas may be impractical crosses of policies, and I probably rambled to hell and back, but it sums that I believe we do not need restriction on what can be owned, but a heavy regulation on whom owns them.

I think taking semi auto away from the general public would be a good idea.

[Professional Russian]

I think taking semi auto away from the general public would be a good idea.

Does this include handguns aswell?

[Harry Smith]

oh dont use the how many more have to die bullshit on me. im not light hearted it doesnt affect me. what cant you figure out. if you take guns from law abiding citizens you will basically be giveing them to criminals. alot more will die you take guns. 99.999999999% of guns in the us havent killed anybody.

By the way i love how you bring up school shootings. its funny becasue since most shootings are schools and schools are gun free zones. coincidence? i think not

How would you stop school shootings then?

Your not light hearted? Your fine for people to die from guns then. I wish you could meet james brady

[Professional Russian]

How would you stop school shootings then?

Your not light hearted? Your fine for people to die from guns then. I wish you could meet james brady

I wouldnt stop someone. i cant theres no way i could help. im 15 against a guy with a gun. id get shot before i could do anything. no im not fine with people dieing. but alot less are dieing now then if you took guns.

[Sugaree]

How would you stop school shootings then?

School shootings will still happen in America even if we do have an outright ban or limitations on certain weaponry. We like our guns too much. A culture that embraces violence is violent; this is a simple truth.

[Professional Russian]

School shootings will still happen in America even if we do have an outright ban or limitations on certain weaponry. We like our guns too much. A culture that embraces violence is violent; this is a simple truth.

and dont forget that criminals will always get guns.......

[Sugaree]

and dont forget that criminals will always get guns.......

But you can't keep bringing that point up as to why you're against gun control. Everyone knows that. Again, simple truth. We can't keep using the same reasons as to why we're for or against gun control; we're going in circles.

[Harry Smith]

and dont forget that criminals will always get guns.......

Criminals will always get there hand on contraband. By your logic then all outlawed substances and contraband should be made legal. Yes I admit no matter what happens criminals will still get guns, but that can be limited through checking suppliers and by other methods. Just because criminals will still get them dosen't mean it's bad to outlaw them,that defeats the point of a justice system

[Professional Russian]

Criminals will always get there hand on contraband. By your logic then all outlawed substances and contraband should be made legal. Yes I admit no matter what happens criminals will still get guns, but that can be limited through checking suppliers and by other methods. Just because criminals will still get them dosen't mean it's bad to outlaw them,that defeats the point of a justice system

no if you ban guns it ill be alot worse. only criminals have guns. which means they can shot anything up and have little to no resistance of doing it. but if we keep our guns some law abiding citizens will have the balls and shoot at the motherfuker thats shooting the place up

[The Mechanan]

Criminals will always get there hand on contraband. By your logic then all outlawed substances and contraband should be made legal. Yes I admit no matter what happens criminals will still get guns, but that can be limited through checking suppliers and by other methods. Just because criminals will still get them dosen't mean it's bad to outlaw them,that defeats the point of a justice system

Now sir, you are using an irrelevant comparison. Drugs and Contraband are different from firearms. The idea is that, simply stated, a good guy with a gun can counter a bad guy with a gun. Your implied logic does not relate at all as, the same simplicity of statement, a good guy with drugs can................. I'm not even going to finish that, as I have no way to word it that makes the slightest sense. I'm sure my meaning is understood.

[Harry Smith]

no if you ban guns it ill be alot worse. only criminals have guns. which means they can shot anything up and have little to no resistance of doing it. but if we keep our guns some law abiding citizens will have the balls and shoot at the motherfuker thats shooting the place up

Ahh great another gun ho post, remember guys if we have our guns then no-one can defeat us. Even trained police officers, on average, hit their intended targets less than 20 percent of the time. (1)

[Professional Russian]

Ahh great another gun ho post, remember guys if we have our guns then no-one can defeat us. Even trained police officers, on average, hit their intended targets less than 20 percent of the time. (1)

Oh look another liberal that wants to take my guns because he thinks they are bad and that they only do harm and that they kill people

[Sugaree]

Ahh great another gun ho post, remember guys if we have our guns then no-one can defeat us. Even trained police officers, on average, hit their intended targets less than 20 percent of the time. (1)

Oh look another liberal that wants to take my guns because he thinks they are bad and that they only do harm and that they kill people

Both of you shut up for a minute and try to reason with each other. Obviously guns can be used for multiple purposes. Not all of those purposes are good, but not all of them are bad either. Guns kill people daily, sure, but they also protect people. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting a gun, nor is it wrong to have a healthy interest in them.

Bert, we all know you. You're the gun nut of this site, and that's fine. Hell, my father is an owner of multiple guns. Does that mean he's going to go out and face whatever the government throws at him? No. But he follows the laws as they are without complaint. He has no problem with a ban on semi-automatic firearms, and he owns an AR-15.

Again, there's nothing wrong with owning one of these weapons if you go through the necessary background checks and do all the paper work. But who really needs this type of fire power? A lot of people in the south, who live on huge amounts of land, defend their homestead from feral animals. The feral pigs of the heartland and deep south are monsters and people are obligated to protect their home from these beasts. But does my father, a suburban white guy making six figures, really need one? No, I don't think so. Other than collectors purposes, no one in my situation should own a gun like that. Maybe a shotgun or hand gun for home defense if I feel unsafe, but nothing large like a semi-automatic rifle.

Harry or whatever your name is, you need to realize that the UK gun culture and the US gun culture are massively different. After Dunblane, you guys banned all guns outright. And for the most part, it's worked for you. I'm happy for the UK being in such good light. But here in the US, guns have been part of our culture since our independence from Britain. We felt that, from our experience under the monarchy, that we can't put our total trust in government to stay within its limits. Would a modern militia stack up to the full force of the US military? Not at all. But back in the 18th and 19th centuries, it was all most of the United States had.

The modern day fascination with guns confuses me, as I don't see the need for people to stock up on weapons and ammo, but does that mean they really need to be outright banned? Everyone has an unalienable right to self defense, and in the UK, you've effectively taken something that can be used in self defense. You can't always rely on the police to come save you; sometimes matters have to be taken into the hands of non-professionals. Unfortunately, that's how it goes sometimes in the US. There's plenty of stories in my area where people have defended themselves with guns, but there's a lot that are about people being murdered with guns. You see, this is a topic that not many people get. You either see the good or the bad, and obviously you're trying to emphasize the bad. While, yes, guns can be used for bad reasons, they can be life savers at the same time.

Both of you, Bert and Harry, come from different cultures. One is a gun loving, violence glorifying culture, the other is a very strict no-guns policy culture. Both are equally terrible from my own libertarian point of view. You can't totally ban guns, but you can't just let anyone get a gun without proper procedure. Is there no way for both of you to meet in the middle without throwing around insults like "gun ho" and "liberal" (in this case, liberal being an insult) to each other? Obviously both of you are ignoring where each of you are coming from. Let's not get ahead of ourselves and either find a middle-way, or agree to disagree.

[Professional Russian]

I just wanted to keep my hunting rifles and 44. *Slowly caresess 44* do we need ARs? No, now I say that because in Pennsylvania you can't legally hunt with. semi autos. Now if I lived somewhere like Texas where they have a hog problem is be all over one(more specifically a knights armament MK11 in 308/7.62 NATO) because those hogs are nasty. But other than that you really don't need it except for sporting purposes like 3 gun matches. I'm surprised no ones said anything about handguns yet.(By the way I can get Glock drum mag that holds 50 rounds can I still have that?)

[PinkFloyd]

Does this include handguns aswell?

Yes it does.

[Professional Russian]

Yes it does.

Says the one with a SIG in his room

[PinkFloyd]

Says the one with a SIG in his room

Well it wouldn't affect people that already have them. Purchase would be discontinued.

[Prodigy17]

Ahh great another gun ho post, remember guys if we have our guns then no-one can defeat us. Even trained police officers, on average, hit their intended targets less than 20 percent of the time. (1)

Agreed. That's actually the best argument against guns - the fact that owning a gun does not make you safe. A law abiding person might think well I have a pistol so if somebody breaks into my house I'll shoot him, problem solved.

In reality one of 3 things would happen
1/ the guy would freeze/panic when confronted with a criminal. Killing somebody is not an easy thing to do
2/ he would shoot and miss
3/ realising he was in danger the criminal would shoot first. The homeowner ends up dead rather than just robbed.

I only know this because my cousin is in the (UK) army and has served several tours in Northern Ireland during the troubles, obviously a dangerous place. Despite having a very high level of training in firearms and carrying 2 pistols even when off duty he was trained to never engage unless there's absolutely no other option because the odds are always against you when the other guy has the element of surprise. Ie run away - or better yet don't be there in the first place :)

If a highly trained soldier who is mentally prepared to kill is trained that guns do not make you safe why would a regular guy be safe just because he has a gun?

[Professional Russian]

Well it wouldn't affect people that already have them. Purchase would be discontinued.

Does this apply to revolvers too?

[PinkFloyd]

Does this apply to revolvers too?

Single action - no because you obviously have to pul the hammer back every time
double action - yes because it's technically semi auto.

[Professional Russian]

Single action - no because you obviously have to pul the hammer back every time
double action - yes because it's technically semi auto.

That's bullshit. Double action is no where near semiautomatic. What about the people that carry? You want my dad to start carrying his black hawk? And whats it matter anyways you can carry the same number of rounds in a double as in a single and a double takes about just as long with that long ass sucky long trigger pull

And for the rest of you i just happend to see this: B5ELyG9V1SY

[PinkFloyd]

That's bullshit. Double action is no where near semiautomatic. What about the people that carry? You want my dad to start carrying his black hawk? And whats it matter anyways you can carry the same number of rounds in a double as in a single and a double takes about just as long with that long ass sucky long trigger pull

And for the rest of you i just happend to see this: B5ELyG9V1SY

Alright, man. It was just an idea. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I know very little about revolvers. Plus, people don't really say single and double action where I'm from. I had to look it up. My point was that if you can pull the trigger more than once without needing to re cock the gun; then you probably buy it. I actually never though of trigger pull though. I know, I know. Super dumb of me.

[Professional Russian]

Alright, man. It was just an idea. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I know very little about revolvers. Plus, people don't really say single and double action where I'm from. I had to look it up. My point was that if you can pull the trigger more than once without needing to re cock the gun; then you probably buy it. I actually never though of trigger pull though. I know, I know. Super dumb of me.

Well theres semi automatics with the double action pull. if i remember i think your Sig may be one. im not sure whether it is or not becasue im not a fan of sigs but correct me if im wrong

[PinkFloyd]

Well theres semi automatics with the double action pull. if i remember i think your Sig may be one. im not sure whether it is or not becasue im not a fan of sigs but correct me if im wrong

Yes, it is. It's got about an 8 ot 9 pound pull. I am not sure if the gun was originally like that though. The guy I bought it from said he did some tinkering with it.

[Professional Russian]

Yes, it is. It's got about an 8 ot 9 pound pull. I am not sure if the gun was originally like that though. The guy I bought it from said he did some tinkering with it.

Let me see here its 10 LBS From Factory

[PinkFloyd]

Let me see here its 10 LBS From Factory

Ah, thank you.

[Professional Russian]

Ah, thank you.

I mean the difference between 9/10 lbs isnt much. what id do. i keep cocked and locked so its a nice light single action trigger pull

[PinkFloyd]

I mean the difference between 9/10 lbs isnt much. what id do. i keep cocked and locked so its a nice light single action trigger pull

Yeah, sounds like a good idea.

[Jess]

I'm sorta neutral on the gun debate. I'm not for putting a lot of restrictions or taking away people's nor am I for everyone being able to own guns....:/

[Twilly F. Sniper]

I mean, people should have background checks and similar.

Fine, it might be inhibiting your rights but if someone wants to deprive someone of the right to life surely that goes against human rights and the laws of the US?

I like the idea, even though to me every firearm that fires bullets or shells should be legal.

[xmojox]

The problem with making people meet certain criteria after undergoing extensive background and mental checks is that someone, somewhere, decides what those criteria are. Suppose that at some point someone, somewhere decides that those of certain political persuasions are dangerous and, therefore denied gun ownership. That rather defeats the whole intent of the Second Amendment.

[drew6]

I mean, people should have background checks and similar.

Fine, it might be inhibiting your rights but if someone wants to deprive someone of the right to life surely that goes against human rights and the laws of the US?

I don't think we need stricter regulation of gum. Just throw it away when you're done with it though so no one steps in it.

Oh GUNS. I don't think regulation would change anything other than make it more annoying for law abiding people to deal with getting and having one. Criminals will get them anyway and they don't care if they illegally have a weapon. That's nothing to them.

The sandy hook case is the reason for the big push on guns lately, but the guns used were legally obtained, so what happened that day, would have happened anyway.

[Taryn98]

That's bullshit. Double action is no where near semiautomatic. What about the people that carry? You want my dad to start carrying his black hawk? And whats it matter anyways you can carry the same number of rounds in a double as in a single and a double takes about just as long with that long ass sucky long trigger pull

And for the rest of you i just happend to see this: B5ELyG9V1SY

this is pretty much right on and perfectly stated

[baseballfan]

Pro gun

Its a right to bear arms


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Fanta_Lover44]

This one is a bit tricky however i do feel like the USA need to do something about their gun habits.... I do respect people have them for secuirty but 8/10 House holds would proberly have one.

Sorry if the post offended anyone, i dont mean to be offensive to anyone.


Skype me sometime, would love to chat!

[LuciferSam]

I can understand keeping handguns, rifles and shotguns.

There is absolutely no reason why the average person would need assault rifles or machine guns. You don't go hunting with them, and we don't live in a war zone.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

I can understand keeping handguns, rifles and shotguns.

There is absolutely no reason why the average person would need assault rifles or machine guns. You don't go hunting with them, and we don't live in a war zone.

The government has access to these weapons. One reason the second amendment was created was to protect against tyranny. If the government has access to these weapons so should we. I don't think the government is inherently evil, but power corrupts, it is human nature.


Yes cars kill people, yes snow kills people. However I need a cars to travel around, but I do not need a gun in any situation. The purpose of a gun is to kill, that is why it is designed. You can hunt with a crossbow or air rifle, but for example an ar-15 semi automatic shooting 5.56 military grade rounds is only made for one purpose- to stop the person your looking at

There is no difference between cars and guns in terms of whether or not they have a purpose. A gun's purpose is defense. If that involves killing so be it. Based on some of your earlier posts, I know you could care less if the government took complete control of your life, but others are not so submissive.

Also the difference between guns and other "contraband" is that guns have a purpose, whereas other contraband is not so noble.

[Lisa Monroe]

gun control is stupid. liberals will tell you the national number of gun deaths but wont tell you most come from areas with tough gun laws.

[Camazotz]

The Second Amendment was created in a time of almost imminent war with Britain and the threat of Native Americans on the frontier. The government was just created and could possibly fall. Most people think it was created in case of government violence against their people; it was more so for an emergency need for militia against the British.

The technology of those days for their firearms weren't nearly as dangerous as they are today. I would fully support every American having the right to own and carry a musket and flintlock pistol. I think if the Founding Fathers had modern firearms, there would be some form of gun control.

The government today has checks and balances, and there is no need to fear a tyrant coming to power. A president doesn't have unlimited power and it is not likely that anything corrupt (of a tyrannical nature) will ever occur in the spotlight of the rest of the world.

But then again, I'm not a gun enthusiast, so I would prefer that guns disappeared completely.

[Stephan]

Cars aren't banned because people nowadays only consider them as the norm. They can't imagine a society without cars. Thus, they take things for granted and lack to pay any attention to their safety, ie..texting, putting makeup on, making a phone call, etc, etc.. I'm sure back in the day before these contraptions roamed about everywhere on the road people were wary and uncertain of these things and cared much more of their own safety compared to nowadays.

And off that tangent..gun control..should be more of a privilege than a right that can be constituted to everyone and anyone. There is no discipline in free access and no pre-existent knowledge of the consequences a gun could cause/bring on others aside from a person dying.

[randomnessqueen]

it cant really be analogised to cars, because cars have accidents.
guns however, are made for violence.
if we completely got rid of guns, there would be not a single down side

[Professional Russian]

it cant really be analogised to cars, because cars have accidents.
guns however, are made for violence.
if we completely got rid of guns, there would be not a single down side

You are so full of shit it is not even funny. If we get rid of guns...well that's not possible. There are illegal guns. Criminals will always get guns. The average citizen will not have a way defend then selves. Since the last debates I have made changes to my ideas. I will gladly give the government my guns as long as they can prove criminals can't get them.

[Jean Poutine]

What do you mean by that? The 2nd amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms, and gun control is inhibiting that constitutional right, and the whole point of guns is to also keep the government in check, as the founding fathers didn't want the government to have too much power which is the point of the democracy, bill of rights, and the checks and balances system. The guns let the government know that we will not be squashed by their own selfish wants.

The Second Amendment gives you the right to carry a musket shooting a ball a minute around. Never did the Fathers think that one day, assault rifles would exist and would be so dangerous.

That is, if the American Supreme Court were sane.

[Kuurachan]

Well, with the amount of accidental shooting that's happening( my dad was shot once by a neighbor accidentally with a BB gun XD) I think there should be stricter security, but definitely no banning. A person with a gun should be trained and sign something first, not just buy one whenever he likes.

[Sir Suomi]

I think it's quite hilarious how these liberals actually think they could achieve a ban on firearms. It'd be political suicide. Although many Americans do support better background checks(Which I am in favor of), a great deal of Americans who own firearms, which is roughly 45% of the the total American population, would definitely not want their firearms taken away from them by the government, even if they were reimbursed. Even if it some how did get through the Senate, do you honestly think that citizens would not put up at least some resistance? Honestly, think people.

[Harry Smith]

You are so full of shit it is not even funny. If we get rid of guns...well that's not possible. There are illegal guns. Criminals will always get guns. The average citizen will not have a way defend then selves. Since the last debates I have made changes to my ideas. I will gladly give the government my guns as long as they can prove criminals can't get them.

so by that theory should all contraband become legal?

[Hunter_Steel]

By that theory, contraband stays contraband, guns however are different. I've always wanted a gun, but South Africa made it illegal for Whites to own guns, so there ya have it. If I have to immigrate to own a gun, so be it. I've always wanted to use a full-automatic rifle, but I don't want to join the US Military or any military just to be able to use it. Not for shooting people, but for sport shooting at a shooting range. (Shooting ranges exist for a few reasons, that is one of them.) If you wanna shoot something, go hunting or go to a shooting range if Hunting season is closed.

Don't ban guns just because a few people out of how many millions went on insane killing sprees.

Your basically banning a basic right to the American people which goes against the human rights acts because you cannot take away a person's rights unless they are in prison and condemned to death row.

~Hunter

[britishboy]

By that theory, contraband stays contraband, guns however are different. I've always wanted a gun, but South Africa made it illegal for Whites to own guns, so there ya have it. If I have to immigrate to own a gun, so be it. I've always wanted to use a full-automatic rifle, but I don't want to join the US Military or any military just to be able to use it. Not for shooting people, but for sport shooting at a shooting range. (Shooting ranges exist for a few reasons, that is one of them.) If you wanna shoot something, go hunting or go to a shooting range if Hunting season is closed.

Don't ban guns just because a few people out of how many millions went on insane killing sprees.

Your basically banning a basic right to the American people which goes against the human rights acts because you cannot take away a person's rights unless they are in prison and condemned to death row.

~Hunter

WHITES ARE BANNED FROM HAVING GUNS?! thats so fucking racist! if I seen that law maker I would kick his ass so hard my food will break the sound barrier.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Yes cars kill people, yes snow kills people. However I need a cars to travel around, but I do not need a gun in any situation. The purpose of a gun is to kill, that is why it is designed. You can hunt with a crossbow or air rifle, but for example an ar-15 semi automatic shooting 5.56 military grade rounds is only made for one purpose- to stop the person your looking at

But... there is a thing called the black market? If you did what I'm 100 percent positive is being suggested, people will not be able to defen themselves against idiots with guns and booze and fast cars.

[Taryn98]

it cant really be analogised to cars, because cars have accidents.
guns however, are made for violence.
if we completely got rid of guns, there would be not a single down side

if we got rid of cars, there would be no more accidents though and thus 30000 lives saved

the premise of gun control is to save lives so in this case it would be to everyone's benefit to ban cars as well

The Second Amendment gives you the right to carry a musket shooting a ball a minute around. Never did the Fathers think that one day, assault rifles would exist and would be so dangerous.

That is, if the American Supreme Court were sane.

this has been addressed by the Supreme Court already in a case arguing the use of GPS and satellites to monitor peoples movement and it being a violation of the 4th ammendment

just because the Founding father's didn't know about the internet, GPS, or satellites, didn't mean that law enforcement can violate the 4th ammendment rights against unlawful search and seizure

this premise was ruled to hold true for all other Constitutional Rights

the Constitution was found to not be written so that only things that existed in the time of it's writing are covered by law, it applies to all things in all times regardless of advances in technology.

[britishboy]

if we got rid of cars, there would be no more accidents though and thus 30000 lives saved

the premise of gun control is to save lives so in this case it would be to everyone's benefit to ban cars as well



this has been addressed by the Supreme Court already in a case arguing the use of GPS and satellites to monitor peoples movement and it being a violation of the 4th ammendment

just because the Founding father's didn't know about the internet, GPS, or satellites, didn't mean that law enforcement can violate the 4th ammendment rights against unlawful search and seizure

this premise was ruled to hold true for all other Constitutional Rights

the Constitution was found to not be written so that only things that existed in the time of it's writing are covered by law, it applies to all things in all times regardless of advances in technology.

but we need cars?...

[Taryn98]

but we need cars?...

we don't need cars, people like cars and they are useful to make lives easier
we don't need the internet, cellphones, tv, modern medicine, honestly we don't need electricity

all these things are WANTS, not NEEDS

the world existed just fine before cars were invented

people commonly misunderstand wants and needs

[LouBerry]

Well, I don't think that any one is arguing the right things. Are guns the problem? No, psychopaths that use them to kill people are. So, if banning guns is going to get rid of those people, I'll give mine up in a heartbeat. But no, if someone can't get a hold of a gun, are they really going to say, "Nevermind, I guess I'll just go to work and be a law-abiding citizen instead". Not likely. They'll make a bomb or get a knife or run someone down in a car. Taking away guns isn't going to help anything. We need to be putting this energy into finding out how to understand the mental illnesses that cause people to do these things. How to fix the real problem.

[Harry Smith]

if we got rid of cars, there would be no more accidents though and thus 30000 lives saved

the premise of gun control is to save lives so in this case it would be to everyone's benefit to ban cars as well



this has been addressed by the Supreme Court already in a case arguing the use of GPS and satellites to monitor peoples movement and it being a violation of the 4th ammendment

just because the Founding father's didn't know about the internet, GPS, or satellites, didn't mean that law enforcement can violate the 4th ammendment rights against unlawful search and seizure

this premise was ruled to hold true for all other Constitutional Rights

the Constitution was found to not be written so that only things that existed in the time of it's writing are covered by law, it applies to all things in all times regardless of advances in technology.

Do you really think that the Founding Fathers thought 200 years ago that there set of rules would still be used today, there is a reason countries have updated most of there Draconian rules

[Taryn98]

Do you really think that the Founding Fathers thought 200 years ago that there set of rules would still be used today, there is a reason countries have updated most of there Draconian rules

That's a fair thing to say. There is a way to ammend the Constitution for that very reason. You need 2/3 majority of both the House and Senate and ratification from 3/4 of the states.

If you can't obtain a super majority to change the founding document of our country, then what you're proposing probably shouldn't be ammended in the first place.

[Professional Russian]

but we need cars?...

Lazy america and British need cars. I can get anywhere on my bike....but I'm a lazy american.

[Ace of Spades]

Instead of legislating gun control, how about we legislate ammo control. Nothing higher than an airsoft pellet. It would't violate the 2nd amendment therefore gun owners couldn't whine about their rights being "violated", gun owners could keep their stupid weapons, nobody could buy ammo an therefore nobody could use their guns which would lead to an inconceivable decrease in gun-related injuries/deaths. Everybody wins.

P.s. this is just a vague idea, but I think it would be pretty neat.

EDIT:

I'd like to add that it still would be physically possible to obtain ammo, but it would be illegal and therefore make it much harder to acquire ammunition.

[LouBerry]

Instead of legislating gun control, how about we legislate ammo control. Nothing higher than an airsoft pellet. It would't violate the 2nd amendment therefore gun owners couldn't whine about their rights being "violated", gun owners could keep their stupid weapons, nobody could buy ammo an therefore nobody could use their guns which would lead to an inconceivable decrease in gun-related injuries/deaths. Everybody wins.

P.s. this is just a vague idea, but I think it would be pretty neat.

EDIT:

I'd like to add that it still would be physically possible to obtain ammo, but it would be illegal and therefore make it much harder to acquire ammunition.

I didn't really want to debate on this anymore, but just for the record, we country folk know how to make our own bullets. Hell, I don't even hunt and I can do it.

[Professional Russian]

I didn't really want to debate on this anymore, but just for the record, we country folk know how to make our own bullets. Hell, I don't even hunt and I can do it.

As long as you have the machinery and the lead your good to go. All you need after that is brass powder and primers

[randomnessqueen]

if we got rid of cars, there would be no more accidents though and thus 30000 lives saved

the premise of gun control is to save lives so in this case it would be to everyone's benefit to ban cars as well


but loosing cars would also loose many benefits.
loosing guns would loose no benefits.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

but loosing cars would also loose many benefits.
loosing guns would loose no benefits.

Not true. Losing guns would lose one's ability to defend themselves. Criminals have alternatives to getting weapons, illegally.

[randomnessqueen]

You are so full of shit it is not even funny. If we get rid of guns...well that's not possible. There are illegal guns. Criminals will always get guns. The average citizen will not have a way defend then selves. Since the last debates I have made changes to my ideas. I will gladly give the government my guns as long as they can prove criminals can't get them.

if there are no guns, then only few people will be able to get them. and not all of those people are going to be violent.
with guns available to anyone, then not only will those people commit violence, but so will anyone who has a moments urge. even those who may not have much urge for violence, but just think they are defending themselves, but with so many anxious and often prejudiced, this kills many innocent people just because of where they were and how they looked.
and i still dont see any apparently wonderful benefits that come with freedom to use guns.

[randomnessqueen]

Not true. Losing guns would lose one's ability to defend themselves. Criminals have alternatives to getting weapons, illegally.

misjudged 'defenses' kill no less innocent people, than those with violent intent.
also, those who would have such a strong need for weapons, are almost solely those who are dealing with other such people. noone is going to put so much effort to get a weapon just to hold up a gas station.

[Taryn98]

Not true. Losing guns would lose one's ability to defend themselves. Criminals have alternatives to getting weapons, illegally.

Exactly! And losing guns means not being able to hunt or many people compete in shooting sports or just use it as a hobby for fun.
Some people just don't understand that guns provide a lot of different uses and aren't just for killing.
If you don't grow up around guns, you just don't understand. To many people guns are just another part of life, like a car, or the tv or internet. Many people just don't want to accept it.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

misjudged 'defenses' kill no less innocent people, than those with violent intent.
also, those who would have such a strong need for weapons, are almost solely those who are dealing with other such people. noone is going to put so much effort to get a weapon just to hold up a gas station.

Not at all. Aparently you don't know of the existence of the Black market. Selling illegal things.

[Ace of Spades]

I didn't really want to debate on this anymore, but just for the record, we country folk know how to make our own bullets. Hell, I don't even hunt and I can do it.

And? What of it? It still doesn't change the fact that it would be harder to obtain bullets. Also, given that producing your own bullets would be illegal, how can you be confident that all of you "country folk" would be willing to break federal law for some bullets? Not all of you know how to make bullets, and even if all of you did, you would have a much more difficult time obtaining the materials to make the bullets. Those materials would be monitored more closely and there wouldn't be much market for those materials.

[Sir Suomi]

And? What of it? It still doesn't change the fact that it would be harder to obtain bullets. Also, given that producing your own bullets would be illegal, how can you be confident that all of you "country folk" would be willing to break federal law for some bullets? Not all of you know how to make bullets, and even if all of you did, you would have a much more difficult time obtaining the materials to make the bullets. Those materials would be monitored more closely and there wouldn't be much market for those materials.

And how are you going to explain this to all those employees who produce this ammunition? "Sorry, but you're all fired. We're too retarded to think of a sensible solution, so we're just banning all ammunition, to save some lives, even though the wrong people are still going to get this ammunition. But don't worry, it's constitutional."

You see how the prohibition went? Now want to see this on a much more violent scale? Ha, that's funny.

[LouBerry]

And? What of it? It still doesn't change the fact that it would be harder to obtain bullets. Also, given that producing your own bullets would be illegal, how can you be confident that all of you "country folk" would be willing to break federal law for some bullets? Not all of you know how to make bullets, and even if all of you did, you would have a much more difficult time obtaining the materials to make the bullets. Those materials would be monitored more closely and there wouldn't be much market for those materials.

Hey now, I'm just saying that your plan wouldn't work, because the Arkansas government would be right there shooting innocent rabbits and shit with us, so, I mean, you can't force people into doing something they don't believe it. I mean, don't we have this debate like every day about abortion and gay rights and all that? You can't stop a gay couple from being in love, you can't stop a scared 16 year old from having an abortion, and you can't take a gun away from a crazed hillbilly.

[Ace of Spades]

And how are you going to explain this to all those employees who produce this ammunition? "Sorry, but you're all fired. We're too retarded to think of a sensible solution, so we're just banning all ammunition, to save some lives, even though the wrong people are still going to get this ammunition. But don't worry, it's constitutional."

You see how the prohibition went? Now want to see this on a much more violent scale? Ha, that's funny.

Haha, funny, 'cause the only thing I ever hear coming over from the right side of the aisle is giving everybody more guns and fewer to no background checks. Yup. That'll definitely work out well.

[Ace of Spades]

Hey now, I'm just saying that your plan wouldn't work, because the Arkansas government would be right there shooting innocent rabbits and shit with us, so, I mean, you can't force people into doing something they don't believe it. I mean, don't we have this debate like every day about abortion and gay rights and all that? You can't stop a gay couple from being in love, you can't stop a scared 16 year old from having an abortion, and you can't take a gun away from a crazed hillbilly.

It wouldn't force people to do anything. Ex post facto rules apply.
Nobody would take any guns away from anybody. You just wouldn't be able to buy ammo for your weapon. You wouldn't have anything taken from you.

I don't see your logic with the entire Arkansas government shooting chickens with you. What does that have to do with anything?

You can't stop a gay couple from being in love, you can't stop a scared 16 year old from having an abortion, and you can't take a gun away from a crazed hillbilly.
The last part has nothing to do with the first two.

[LouBerry]

Okay, I'm not sure if you know how this whole hunting thing works, but you take a bullet, load it in your gun, then you shoot. Take away the ammo, you take away our guns. We don't just sit there and stroke 'em.

And it means, who will enforce this "Do not sell ammo" thing? Government, 'eh? Well, it's going to be like the Hunger Games, and our local government isn't going to give a shit about what the Federal Government says. We'll do what we want.

Plus, hunting is needed environmentally. There really isn't another effective, or humane-ish way to do it. Sure we could revert to traps, but those are so cruel. Or some kind of poison to keep forest population under control, but what if it back fired?

I know families that make their living off of hunting or factors associated with it. It isn't right to take something like that away from these people. Being able to have our guns and shoot them and hunt, all those things aren't just stupid red-neck past times, it's tradition. It's our heritage. It's our way of life, how we survived.

You know the expression, "It makes a lot more sense to un-load the gun than to fire at a bullet-proof vest"? It this situation, what needs to be "unloaded" are the people who take lives with guns.

[britishboy]

Lazy america and British need cars. I can get anywhere on my bike....but I'm a lazy american.

haha:D

[britishboy]

in britian we have no guns our regular police are unarmed and we dont have school massacres

[NzForever]

They just need to ban weapons that have a bit of range, Machine Guns, Assault Rifles, Sniper Rifles. I think people should still be allowed to keep shotguns/pistols in there house for protection.

[Professional Russian]

They just need to ban weapons that have a bit of range, Machine Guns, Assault Rifles, Sniper Rifles. I think people should still be allowed to keep shotguns/pistols in there house for protection.

Machine guns are banned under NFA along with assault rifles. Define sniper rifle. Is my 7mm which I've taken countless deer with a sniper rifle because it have an effective range 800+ yards?

[Harry Smith]

And how are you going to explain this to all those employees who produce this ammunition? "Sorry, but you're all fired. We're too retarded to think of a sensible solution, so we're just banning all ammunition, to save some lives, even though the wrong people are still going to get this ammunition. But don't worry, it's constitutional."

You see how the prohibition went? Now want to see this on a much more violent scale? Ha, that's funny.

so by that theory should all contraband be made illegal to stop the black market? Do you want them to legalise child porn because the wrong people still get access to it, or allow people to have nerve gas because wrong people still have access to it? That is the premise of your argument

[randomnessqueen]

Not at all. Aparently you don't know of the existence of the Black market. Selling illegal things.

i know about it.

[Professional Russian]

i know about it.

Then if you know about you know they sell guns. Thus leading too you can totally ban guns. Its not possible. Even in england and Australia they have guns. Some legal some not.

[randomnessqueen]

Then if you know about you know they sell guns. Thus leading too you can totally ban guns. Its not possible. Even in england and Australia they have guns. Some legal some not.

im just saying legally ban them. i know there will still be some, but less.
thats like saying, people will always find hard drugs, so we might as well legalise them all.

[Professional Russian]

im just saying legally ban them. i know there will still be some, but less.
thats like saying, people will always find hard drugs, so we might as well legalise them all.

But you see the problem here? Of you take guns away from average citizens they won't to get guns again in fear of being arrested. Criminals obviously don't think like that. They want it. They get it. They commit a mass murder and no one else had a gun to defend themselves.

[randomnessqueen]

But you see the problem here? Of you take guns away from average citizens they won't to get guns again in fear of being arrested. Criminals obviously don't think like that. They want it. They get it. They commit a mass murder and no one else had a gun to defend themselves.

but people who think theyre protecting themselves kill innocent people all the time. and when compared to how few times mass murders are actually made any better by a citizen with a gun, i think it more than evens out.

[Professional Russian]

but people who think theyre protecting themselves kill innocent people all the time. and when compared to how few times mass murders are actually made any better by a citizen with a gun, i think it more than evens out.

Even you do ban them those mass murders will still happen. You can't stop that by banning guns. Guns do save lives too.

[randomnessqueen]

Even you do ban them those mass murders will still happen. You can't stop that by banning guns. Guns do save lives too.

reread my post, i dont think you got what i was saying.
also, mass murders dont happen that often.
but small time murders by average people happen constantly
without guns, those murders will drop drastically
im not trying to stop every murder ever, if i can stop just one murder from happening, then ive succeeded.

[britishboy]

in britian firearms are illegal and we have never had a school massacre also I can understand having small guns, pistols and shotguns but do you really need fully automatic rifles with 60 round capacity? I think these should be banned nothing more

[Professional Russian]

in britian firearms are illegal and we have never had a school massacre also I can understand having small guns, pistols and shotguns but do you really need fully automatic rifles with 60 round capacity? I think these should be banned nothing more

Semi auto* 30*

[britishboy]

Semi auto* 30*
these are worse
http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actually-legal.html
and read this
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check#13691497765781&action=collapse_widget&id=3825711

[Professional Russian]

these are worse
http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actually-legal.html
and read this
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check#13691497765781&action=collapse_widget&id=3825711

How many crimes happen with fucking flame throwers? Come on now. Tannerite. The stuff I love. The legal explosive. It is 100% safe if used properly. It is not reactive till both chemicals are mixed. In the box they come seperated. It will not explode without a certain pressure which only a bullet can achieve. Guns don't kill people. It is physically impossible for a gun to kill people. They are an inanimate object. It is not living it cannot so anything without human intervention. It is the users choice to pull the trigger. The gun can't do it itself.

[Harry Smith]

How many crimes happen with fucking flame throwers? Come on now. Tannerite. The stuff I love. The legal explosive. It is 100% safe if used properly. It is not reactive till both chemicals are mixed. In the box they come seperated. It will not explode without a certain pressure which only a bullet can achieve. Guns don't kill people. It is physically impossible for a gun to kill people. They are an inanimate object. It is not living it cannot so anything without human intervention. It is the users choice to pull the trigger. The gun can't do it itself.

By that Theory should I be able to keep a Dirty Bomb in my house since the chunk of nuclear waste isn't evil?

[britishboy]

How many crimes happen with fucking flame throwers? Come on now. Tannerite. The stuff I love. The legal explosive. It is 100% safe if used properly. It is not reactive till both chemicals are mixed. In the box they come seperated. It will not explode without a certain pressure which only a bullet can achieve. Guns don't kill people. It is physically impossible for a gun to kill people. They are an inanimate object. It is not living it cannot so anything without human intervention. It is the users choice to pull the trigger. The gun can't do it itself.

guns dont kill people? im gonnq tell you a story about that I head online, lets think of a guy called bob, bob was walking down a high street when someone tripped him over and this made bob they angry, unarmed he would of beaten the guy up but both would live, armed he eould shoot the man as he is so angry. I personally would like to see more guns ib the UK as I agree self-defense, but I think in America you should have similar gun laws to the UK for example you must have a license (in the uk the gun and its ammo must be in separate safes, this is a bit over the top but I think the us should do licences) as a license will prevent bad people from getting guns or at least fix the failing system you have now allowing the mmentaly ill to acsess firearms

[Sir Suomi]

so by that theory should all contraband be made illegal to stop the black market? Do you want them to legalise child porn because the wrong people still get access to it, or allow people to have nerve gas because wrong people still have access to it? That is the premise of your argument

And your premise is that since you can't find any reasonable solution to stop Gun Violence, you propose we should just ban firearms, which is absolutely the most absurd idea I've heard of. Do you know of the repercussions if such a thing were to happen? You'd take a very effective hunting tool away from those who may actually need it for survival. You'll be completely wiping out a major part of the American Economy, which definitely can effect you. A great deal of money would be lost for those who have purchased firearms(And mind you, that a firearm is not cheap). And worst of all: It won't do a fucking thing except put guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens for no damn reason! Why don't you think ahead, and consider maybe it's not the firearms that are the problem, but the people that are the real threat. You can cause a lot more deaths will an IED in a crowded place, such as what happened at Boston, than you can with a firearm!

[Harry Smith]

And your premise is that since you can't find any reasonable solution to stop Gun Violence, you propose we should just ban firearms, which is absolutely the most absurd idea I've heard of. Do you know of the repercussions if such a thing were to happen? You'd take a very effective hunting tool away from those who may actually need it for survival. You'll be completely wiping out a major part of the American Economy, which definitely can effect you. A great deal of money would be lost for those who have purchased firearms(And mind you, that a firearm is not cheap). And worst of all: It won't do a fucking thing except put guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens for no damn reason! Why don't you think ahead, and consider maybe it's not the firearms that are the problem, but the people that are the real threat. You can cause a lot more deaths will an IED in a crowded place, such as what happened at Boston, than you can with a firearm!

The right Honorable gentleman only gets angry when they're losing.

1) Australia which has a very large hunting based community have some of the strictest firearm laws in the world, I respect that people need to hunt but I think that if they do they should either do it with a crossbow or an air rifle. Yes they can both harm but they won't do as much damage as an 10 round .30 rifle. I think a very strong license system should be introduced to allow people to get guns if they need them like in Britain, a very strong system.

2) I believe Britain had a very good slavery trade back in the 1700's which made us a lot of money, along with opium in the 1800's. Morals and laws should come above the economy.

3)Wasn't Adam Lanza mum a law abiding citizen? And note the boston IED killed 3 people, adam lanza killed 27 children. There has been what two or three bomb attacks on american soil which resulted in deaths, god knows how many shooting.

So if the people are the problem shall we commit genocide so we can keep your beloved guns?

Also I had a reason for taking away the guns, you may not agree with it but I had a 'god damn reason' you need to touch up your grammar, because these grand words make your argument look as strong as the french army

[Sir Suomi]

The right Honorable gentleman only gets angry when they're losing.

1) Australia which has a very large hunting based community have some of the strictest firearm laws in the world, I respect that people need to hunt but I think that if they do they should either do it with a crossbow or an air rifle. Yes they can both harm but they won't do as much damage as an 10 round .30 rifle. I think a very strong license system should be introduced to allow people to get guns if they need them like in Britain, a very strong system.

2) I believe Britain had a very good slavery trade back in the 1700's which made us a lot of money, along with opium in the 1800's. Morals and laws should come above the economy.

3)Wasn't Adam Lanza mum a law abiding citizen? And note the boston IED killed 3 people, adam lanza killed 27 children. There has been what two or three bomb attacks on american soil which resulted in deaths, god knows how many shooting.

So if the people are the problem shall we commit genocide so we can keep your beloved guns?

Also I had a reason for taking away the guns, you may not agree with it but I had a 'god damn reason' you need to touch up your grammar, because these grand words make your argument look as strong as the french army

Yeah and the Ass kisses the Queen's ass and sips on his tea.

Have you honestly ever gone hunting with a crossbow/bow? Do you know how difficult it is to get an animal in range? And how it's much harder to hit an animal with one instead of a rifle? Jesus, maybe you should take a trip down here and I'll take you hunting, just for you to see.

Fine. Go ahead. Go tell all those who work in the firearm industry, tell them that they now need to go look for another job, due to the fact that you couldn't find a sensible solution to the problem. Also, while you're at it, go and knock on the door of the people, tell them you need all of their firearms, ammunition, etc, and tell them they're not going to be reimbursed. Ha, that'll be fun to watch.

Yes, his mother was. But did she go out and commit these acts? No. Her mentally unstable son came in, murdered her, and stole her weapons. The only thing she could have done was to lock her guns in a gun safe, with trigger guards on the firearms, and ammunition in a secure place. This is what a responsible firearm owner should do. Adam could have killed those children in an infinite amount of ways. He just used the firearms as a tool of his destruction. He could have easily used an IED, a knife, hell, a baseball bat. The fact is that those who are like that mentally, are not going to say, "Well, dang. I can't get a gun. I suppose I'll just go back home and leave everyone alone." No. If you're honestly thinking that will happen, you're extremely ignorant.

And I will use any fucking word I want to. I'm proud of the fact that I can say whatever the hell I want, and when it's needed, I'm not going to hesitate to use it.

[Harry Smith]

Yeah and the Ass kisses the Queen's ass and sips on his tea.

Have you honestly ever gone hunting with a crossbow/bow? Do you know how difficult it is to get an animal in range? And how it's much harder to hit an animal with one instead of a rifle? Jesus, maybe you should take a trip down here and I'll take you hunting, just for you to see.

Fine. Go ahead. Go tell all those who work in the firearm industry, tell them that they now need to go look for another job, due to the fact that you couldn't find a sensible solution to the problem. Also, while you're at it, go and knock on the door of the people, tell them you need all of their firearms, ammunition, etc, and tell them they're not going to be reimbursed. Ha, that'll be fun to watch.

Yes, his mother was. But did she go out and commit these acts? No. Her mentally unstable son came in, murdered her, and stole her weapons. The only thing she could have done was to lock her guns in a gun safe, with trigger guards on the firearms, and ammunition in a secure place. This is what a responsible firearm owner should do. Adam could have killed those children in an infinite amount of ways. He just used the firearms as a tool of his destruction. He could have easily used an IED, a knife, hell, a baseball bat. The fact is that those who are like that mentally, are not going to say, "Well, dang. I can't get a gun. I suppose I'll just go back home and leave everyone alone." No. If you're honestly thinking that will happen, you're extremely ignorant.

And I will use any fucking word I want to. I'm proud of the fact that I can say whatever the hell I want, and when it's needed, I'm not going to hesitate to use it.

I know yanks love to forget that we used to own your country but I wish to point out that I used a saying from the British Parliament, something detached from the Queen, I'm actually against the Monarchy in this country. If your going to insult me at least do it properly. Haven't you got a war to turn up 3 years late to?

1) I've been rabbit and Dear hunting in Scotland, I know how hunting works. A well tuned crossbow with a scope was actually quite good if you want to eat it, leaves less of a mark compared to a .22 slug.

2) Going back to Lanza, the gun helped him a lot. I doubt he could have done that with a baseball bat, yes maybe he could have killed 2 or 3 at tops but I doubt 27 is near that. You know we had a school shooting in Britain, a scout master killed 12 children with a pair of pistols, he had over 15000 rounds of ammo as well, after the massacre he banned all pistols. I'm happy to say we haven't had a school massacre since It worked for us. America has the most relaxed gun laws in the western world yet you just can't accept any form of change.

3) Also I never said you didn't have a right to say it, I merely said you sounded stupid saying it. I respect your right to sound like a prat very much.


Also please include this in the overall response but how would you personally make sure something like Newtown, Virginia tech, etc doesn't happen again?

[Sir Suomi]

I know yanks love to forget that we used to own your country but I wish to point out that I used a saying from the British Parliament, something detached from the Queen, I'm actually against the Monarchy in this country. If your going to insult me at least do it properly. Haven't you got a war to turn up 3 years late to?

1) I've been rabbit and Dear hunting in Scotland, I know how hunting works. A well tuned crossbow with a scope was actually quite good if you want to eat it, leaves less of a mark compared to a .22 slug.

2) Going back to Lanza, the gun helped him a lot. I doubt he could have done that with a baseball bat, yes maybe he could have killed 2 or 3 at tops but I doubt 27 is near that. You know we had a school shooting in Britain, a scout master killed 12 children with a pair of pistols, he had over 15000 rounds of ammo as well, after the massacre he banned all pistols. I'm happy to say we haven't had a school massacre since It worked for us. America has the most relaxed gun laws in the western world yet you just can't accept any form of change.

3) Also I never said you didn't have a right to say it, I merely said you sounded stupid saying it. I respect your right to sound like a prat very much.


Also please include this in the overall response but how would you personally make sure something like Newtown, Virginia tech, etc doesn't happen again?

Ha, that's funny, because it seems to me that America seems to either be kicking your asses or saving it.

Oh, you go hunting for rabbits? That's cute. Maybe come down here to Nebraska, and let's go stalk and spot some muleys, why don't we?

Oh, you honestly don't think someone intent on murdering 6 and 7 years old easily couldn't crack open any more than 2 or 3 skulls? You know, I'm actually talking about an aluminum bat, not a foam one. And besides, what would have stopped him from planting a few IED's around the school? In a closed area like that, I suppose there wouldn't be too much left of them.

Thanks. I just love that my founding father's had things called balls to force your powder wigged lobster-backs to turn tail and run.

[Harry Smith]

Ha, that's funny, because it seems to me that America seems to either be kicking your asses or saving it.

Oh, you go hunting for rabbits? That's cute. Maybe come down here to Nebraska, and let's go stalk and spot some muleys, why don't we?

Oh, you honestly don't think someone intent on murdering 6 and 7 years old easily couldn't crack open any more than 2 or 3 skulls? You know, I'm actually talking about an aluminum bat, not a foam one. And besides, what would have stopped him from planting a few IED's around the school? In a closed area like that, I suppose there wouldn't be too much left of them.

Thanks. I just love that my founding father's had things called balls to force your powder wigged lobster-backs to turn tail and run.

Uhm what was that country called again in South Asia, oh yes Vietnam. Didn't you go in there to protect the south, oh but the south became communist didn't they? That sounds like a good moral victory. You didn't save us in ww1 or ww2, by the time Pershing showed up the German army was on it's last legs.

I said rabbit and Deer, rabbit was purely pest control because the Lab was in the Vet. I would like to avoid Nebraska, I value my gay life to much.

And No I can't see him killing more than 6-7, even with a metal one. Yes he would cause a great deal of harm but no where as near as somebody with a ar-16. An EID requires a lot more skill, look at the boston one's. They were complete and utter shit compared to the Taliban one's.

Didn't those powdered wigged lobsters burn down your capital?

One last question, Yes or No answer please

If America had European style gun laws would the Adam Lanza of been able to kill 27 children with a bushmaster, a glock 10 and a 9mm pistol?

[Left Now]

America,under command of Britain----->A cultural country and the greatest vassal of UK but had idiot people and coward ones.
America,under command of US--------->(?)

[Sir Suomi]

Uhm what was that country called again in South Asia, oh yes Vietnam. Didn't you go in there to protect the south, oh but the south became communist didn't they? That sounds like a good moral victory. You didn't save us in ww1 or ww2, by the time Pershing showed up the German army was on it's last legs.

I said rabbit and Deer, rabbit was purely pest control because the Lab was in the Vet. I would like to avoid Nebraska, I value my gay life to much.

And No I can't see him killing more than 6-7, even with a metal one. Yes he would cause a great deal of harm but no where as near as somebody with a ar-16. An EID requires a lot more skill, look at the boston one's. They were complete and utter shit compared to the Taliban one's.

Didn't those powdered wigged lobsters burn down your capital?

One last question, Yes or No answer please

If America had European style gun laws would the Adam Lanza of been able to kill 27 children with a bushmaster, a glock 10 and a 9mm pistol?

Oh, by the way, how was Singapore, where although you vastly outnumbered the Japanese, yet you surrendered within a week, almost putting up no resistance? Or Dunkirk, where your soldiers were running from their lives, even though you were all stating that, "The war would be over by Christmas", like you always do. And yes, we did save your asses in both wars. You guys along with the Germans were both on the ropes, and you even had us sending millions of dollars in aid to you guys. After our soldiers came in, the Germans quickly gave up, knowing it was the end for you guys. And I'm quite sure without either the United States of America or the Soviet Union, I'm quite sure you would not have reclaimed Europe by yourselves. Hitler would have either started up Operation Sea Lion for a second time, or he would have just kept almost all of Europe to himself. If not for the Japanese, us Americans would have been quite content on seeing Britain crumble.

Anyways, so you should know the difficulties of hunting bigger game with a crossbow(Which I still hate it when non-handicapped persons use it :mad:) or a bow. So I'll ask you this question: Let's say in order to feed your family, you need to hunt for food. Would you rather carry a bow, with a maximum range of roughly 30-80 yards, depending on the bow and game you are hunting, or a rifle that can shoot well beyond a 100 yards with precision accuracy 100% of the time.

And also, didn't we send your asses packing after New Orleans?

And you are correct, he would not have been able to kill those children with a firearm, but as I've said, he still could have killed those children, or even more, with other various ways.

[britishboy]

Oh, by the way, how was Singapore, where although you vastly outnumbered the Japanese, yet you surrendered within a week, almost putting up no resistance? Or Dunkirk, where your soldiers were running from their lives, even though you were all stating that, "The war would be over by Christmas", like you always do. And yes, we did save your asses in both wars. You guys along with the Germans were both on the ropes, and you even had us sending millions of dollars in aid to you guys. After our soldiers came in, the Germans quickly gave up, knowing it was the end for you guys. And I'm quite sure without either the United States of America or the Soviet Union, I'm quite sure you would not have reclaimed Europe by yourselves. Hitler would have either started up Operation Sea Lion for a second time, or he would have just kept almost all of Europe to himself. If not for the Japanese, us Americans would have been quite content on seeing Britain crumble.

Anyways, so you should know the difficulties of hunting bigger game with a crossbow(Which I still hate it when non-handicapped persons use it :mad:) or a bow. So I'll ask you this question: Let's say in order to feed your family, you need to hunt for food. Would you rather carry a bow, with a maximum range of roughly 30-80 yards, depending on the bow and game you are hunting, or a rifle that can shoot well beyond a 100 yards with precision accuracy 100% of the time.

And also, didn't we send your asses packing after New Orleans?

And you are correct, he would not have been able to kill those children with a firearm, but as I've said, he still could have killed those children, or even more, with other various ways.

wtf? I thought you was a good guy? but you are right we did need the USA on d day the USA took 2 beaches, Britain took 2 and canada taken 1, but Britain wasnt doing fuck all, we was bombing germany, we made the spitfire and won the battle of britian. anyway the USA and UK are the closest and most powerful allies in the world. and if your gonna be a bitch I can be just a big bitch, after all who got obliterated at pearl harbor and who was the coward that needed to be attacked themselves to help out the allies? britian stood up for poland. I really thought you were a good guy Austin you were the guy that sticked up for nato and our Western world, we are stronger together thats the point of nato.

[Left Now]

What the f... was the topic and why we are going to forget about it?

[Harry Smith]

Oh, by the way, how was Singapore, where although you vastly outnumbered the Japanese, yet you surrendered within a week, almost putting up no resistance? Or Dunkirk, where your soldiers were running from their lives, even though you were all stating that, "The war would be over by Christmas", like you always do. And yes, we did save your asses in both wars. You guys along with the Germans were both on the ropes, and you even had us sending millions of dollars in aid to you guys. After our soldiers came in, the Germans quickly gave up, knowing it was the end for you guys. And I'm quite sure without either the United States of America or the Soviet Union, I'm quite sure you would not have reclaimed Europe by yourselves. Hitler would have either started up Operation Sea Lion for a second time, or he would have just kept almost all of Europe to himself. If not for the Japanese, us Americans would have been quite content on seeing Britain crumble.

Anyways, so you should know the difficulties of hunting bigger game with a crossbow(Which I still hate it when non-handicapped persons use it :mad:) or a bow. So I'll ask you this question: Let's say in order to feed your family, you need to hunt for food. Would you rather carry a bow, with a maximum range of roughly 30-80 yards, depending on the bow and game you are hunting, or a rifle that can shoot well beyond a 100 yards with precision accuracy 100% of the time.

And also, didn't we send your asses packing after New Orleans?

And you are correct, he would not have been able to kill those children with a firearm, but as I've said, he still could have killed those children, or even more, with other various ways.

1) A second sea lion would not have worked, anyone with a grain of military knowledge would know that. The RN would have blown those landing ships to pieces, the Germans were using canal boats on the English channel, half of them sank in the Rhine beforehand. The Germans would not have landed on these Islands, we would have used Mustard gas to push them back. My great grand dad had a lee enfield under the stairs from the trenches, he would have taken one with him before they subdued our island. Don't think for a fucking second that we didn't fight hard in the war, we fought for 6 fucking years. we fought for our very life.

Singapore, yes we fucked up. Just like you did in the Philippines?

Yes we didn't win the war by ourself, neither did the states or the soviet Union. Stop being a stupid arrogant yank who thinks that america is perfect, because quite frankly no-one is. We worked together in ww2, do you accept that?

Your B-27's took off from Britain, the ships to Normandy took off from Britain, your troops got to North Africa through the straits of Gibraltar. You turned up late for two wars, don't claim that you won them single handedly

Don't simply overlook History so that it favors you, we fought together luckily, what's the saying again Oversexed, Overpaid and Over here

And anyone who is stupid enought to hunt for a living deserves to go hungry, go to shop and buy your food. We live in the 21st Century not the 18th

[Trenton_]

1) A second sea lion would not have worked, anyone with a grain of military knowledge would know that. The RN would have blown those landing ships to pieces, the Germans were using canal boats on the English channel, half of them sank in the Rhine beforehand. The Germans would not have landed on these Islands, we would have used Mustard gas to push them back. My great grand dad had a lee enfield under the stairs from the trenches, he would have taken one with him before they subdued our island. Don't think for a fucking second that we didn't fight hard in the war, we fought for 6 fucking years. we fought for our very life.

Singapore, yes we fucked up. Just like you did in the Philippines?

Yes we didn't win the war by ourself, neither did the states or the soviet Union. Stop being a stupid arrogant yank who thinks that america is perfect, because quite frankly no-one is. We worked together in ww2, do you accept that?

Your B-27's took off from Britain, the ships to Normandy took off from Britain, your troops got to North Africa through the straits of Gibraltar. You turned up late for two wars, don't claim that you won them single handedly

Don't simply overlook History so that it favors you, we fought together luckily, what's the saying again Oversexed, Overpaid and Over here

And anyone who is stupid enought to hunt for a living deserves to go hungry, go to shop and buy your food. We live in the 21st Century not the 18th

Wow! I thought the Brittish kinda liked us, but I guess not. I'm a little surprised tbh.

[Professional Russian]

Anyways, so you should know the difficulties of hunting bigger game with a crossbow(Which I still hate it when non-handicapped persons use it :mad:) or a bow. So I'll ask you this question: Let's say in order to feed your family, you need to hunt for food. Would you rather carry a bow, with a maximum range of roughly 30-80 yards, depending on the bow and game you are hunting, or a rifle that can shoot well beyond a 100 yards with precision accuracy 100% of the time.

And also, didn't we send your asses packing after New Orleans?

And you are correct, he would not have been able to kill those children with a firearm, but as I've said, he still could have killed those children, or even more, with other various ways.

Uh there's no rifle that can 100% accuracy at 100 yards over and over. You get make holes touch but you never get through same holes. And you can only make holes touch with practice. Lots and lots of practice. Also the rifle aint worth dick without good glass. I prefer Leopold or Nightforce since that's what the military uses.

[Sir Suomi]

Uh there's no rifle that can 100% accuracy at 100 yards over and over. You get make holes touch but you never get through same holes. And you can only make holes touch with practice. Lots and lots of practice. Also the rifle aint worth dick without good glass. I prefer Leopold or Nightforce since that's what the military uses.

I was exaggerating, but with most rifles, if you've had some practice beforehand, you can group very tight. Scope wise, I prefer the Swarovskis when I hunt, and Schmidt and Bender for recreational shooting.

[Professional Russian]

I was exaggerating, but with most rifles, if you've had some practice beforehand, you can group very tight. Scope wise, I prefer the Swarovskis when I hunt, and Schmidt and Bender for recreational shooting.

I've never had a problem with Leopold or nightforce (although I paid out the ass for that damn nightforce...should have never sold that rifle.)

[Sir Suomi]

I've never had a problem with Leopold or nightforce (although I paid out the ass for that damn nightforce...should have never sold that rifle.)

I've heard those Nightforces were actually pretty good scopes. Would you agree? I've been thinking about asking for one.

[Professional Russian]

I've heard those Nightforces were actually pretty good scopes. Would you agree? I've been thinking about asking for one.

They are the best of the best. I personally had the B.E.A.S.T but it cost out the ass. I don't think they make a scope under $1000.

[Jean Poutine]

just because the Founding father's didn't know about the internet, GPS, or satellites, didn't mean that law enforcement can violate the 4th ammendment rights against unlawful search and seizure

this premise was ruled to hold true for all other Constitutional Rights

the Constitution was found to not be written so that only things that existed in the time of it's writing are covered by law, it applies to all things in all times regardless of advances in technology.

Um, why?

Allowing the judiciary to extend constitutional rights to things that the Fathers did not or could not foresee is a breach on democracy and a violation of the separations of powers. Constitutions are meant to be rigid and inflexible, not interpreted liberally by reading in things that aren't meant to be there. If you want to extend constitutional protection to situations that aren't plainly explicited, then amend it or legislate. That was the argument that you completely dodged, what the Supreme Court has to say is irrelevant. It is really not my fault that your Supreme Court took your Constitution and wiped its ass with it.

Besides, it's apples and oranges. The 4th amendment is about a broad protection against unlawful search and seizure, nowhere in the text are methods detailed. It is broad enough in its wording to include video surveillance, GPS, etc even if it didn't exist. The 2nd amendment includes the term "Arms" and this word has to be interpreted as it was meant at the time. This is an originalist stance, not whatever Scalia thinks passes for an originalist interpretation. For people who claim to respect and adore the Constitution, you Conservatives sure shit on it a lot.

[Taryn98]

Um, why?

Allowing the judiciary to extend constitutional rights to things that the Fathers did not or could not foresee is a breach on democracy and a violation of the separations of powers. Constitutions are meant to be rigid and inflexible, not interpreted liberally by reading in things that aren't meant to be there. If you want to extend constitutional protection to situations that aren't plainly explicited, then amend it or legislate. That was the argument that you completely dodged, what the Supreme Court has to say is irrelevant. It is really not my fault that your Supreme Court took your Constitution and wiped its ass with it.

Besides, it's apples and oranges. The 4th amendment is about a broad protection against unlawful search and seizure, nowhere in the text are methods detailed. It is broad enough in its wording to include video surveillance, GPS, etc even if it didn't exist. The 2nd amendment includes the term "Arms" and this word has to be interpreted as it was meant at the time. This is an originalist stance, not whatever Scalia thinks passes for an originalist interpretation. For people who claim to respect and adore the Constitution, you Conservatives sure shit on it a lot.

The Supreme Court interprets what's constitutional or not. You are free to disagree with it or not like it as is anyone else, but that is the way the government works with seperation of powers. I didn't write their briefings in any of these cases or vote on any of them. I'm simply pointing out what their determinations are and how they applied them for not just the 2nd or 4th but for all Constitutional amendments. If you don't like their findings, you have the right to pursue litigation against the US if you so choose.

Your point of, "a breach of democracy" is moot. We live in a Constituional Republic not a democracy. In a democracy 51% of the people decide what happens. A Constituional Republic uses a set of laws to determine what is allowed and not and The People elect representatives to write those laws. A simple majority favoring a view does not make that view the law.

And based on your reasoning, "Constitutions are meant to be rigid and inflexible, not interpreted liberally by reading in things that aren't meant to be there" the 2nd amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Based on your logic ANY gun law would be unconsitutional.

Furthermore, if you want to argue that the 2nd ammendment applies only to militia members, this was addressed in the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in 1787 which clearly outlines the meanings and interpretations of the first ten amendments and argues in favor of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

Additionally, the 2nd amendment being a right of the people and not just the militia was guaranteed in the US vs. Emerson in 1999 and again clearly supported in the DC vs Heller in 2008.

You can hate these arguements all you want, but until the Supreme Court rules differently, this is the law of the US. This is exactly why we have separation of powers and co-equal branches of government.

[Jean Poutine]

The Supreme Court interprets what's constitutional or not. You are free to disagree with it or not like it as is anyone else, but that is the way the government works with seperation of powers. I didn't write their briefings in any of these cases or vote on any of them. I'm simply pointing out what their determinations are and how they applied them for not just the 2nd or 4th but for all Constitutional amendments. If you don't like their findings, you have the right to pursue litigation against the US if you so choose.

I don't care about what the Supreme Court of Scalia says because it's besides the point. The point is allowing judge-made law is lame. Why do you insist on building strawmen to beat on?

Your point of, "a breach of democracy" is moot. We live in a Constituional Republic not a democracy. In a democracy 51% of the people decide what happens. A Constituional Republic uses a set of laws to determine what is allowed and not and The People elect representatives to write those laws. A simple majority favoring a view does not make that view the law.


= a democracy, you have a faulty description of democracy. A constitutional republic is a democratic system as are constitutional monarchies like my own country.

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

The rule of majority is not necessary, even if it says especially.

And based on your reasoning, "Constitutions are meant to be rigid and inflexible, not interpreted liberally by reading in things that aren't meant to be there" the 2nd amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Based on your logic ANY gun law would be unconsitutional.

Nope based on my logic, "infringed" in the 1700s meant "to cancel" or "to restrict completely". Look it up in any old dictionary. It was not "to trespass" like today. The Fathers accepted that the right be restricted but not outright cancelled.

Furthermore, if you want to argue that the 2nd ammendment applies only to militia members, this was addressed in the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in 1787 which clearly outlines the meanings and interpretations of the first ten amendments and argues in favor of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

More strawmen.

[Taryn98]

I don't have anything else to say here. I respect your right to a different opinion, that's what makes America great. That being said, you seem to be arguing for your opinion based on YOUR interpretation of definitions and your thoughts on the matter. Both of which are fair for you to do.

I'm not even arguing MY opinion, it's the effective law of the land based on legal precedent (for better or worse). You say you don't care what the Supreme Court says, but what they say is was goes. Obviously if they came to conclusions based on your logic, they would have ruled differently, but that's not the case.

[ollyollyoxenfree]

I'll start this with stating that I am a firearms enthusiast. I own rifles and so do many of my friends.
Personally, I believe that limiting actual firearms are not the answer(within reason, more in a second). Background checks on firearms purchases to prevent them from being purchased by suspected gang members or mentally ill persons is a good idea, but will need enforcement. On regulating weapons, I do not believe that there is any justifiable reason for the average citizen to need a full size magazine. Semi-automatic weapons are justifiable, but not fully automatic or with outrageously large magazines.

[britishboy]

I'll start this with stating that I am a firearms enthusiast. I own rifles and so do many of my friends.
Personally, I believe that limiting actual firearms are not the answer(within reason, more in a second). Background checks on firearms purchases to prevent them from being purchased by suspected gang members or mentally ill persons is a good idea, but will need enforcement. On regulating weapons, I do not believe that there is any justifiable reason for the average citizen to need a full size magazine. Semi-automatic weapons are justifiable, but not fully automatic or with outrageously large magazines.

thats what I was thinking, glad an american agrees:)

[Professional Russian]

I'll start this with stating that I am a firearms enthusiast. I own rifles and so do many of my friends.
Personally, I believe that limiting actual firearms are not the answer(within reason, more in a second). Background checks on firearms purchases to prevent them from being purchased by suspected gang members or mentally ill persons is a good idea, but will need enforcement. On regulating weapons, I do not believe that there is any justifiable reason for the average citizen to need a full size magazine. Semi-automatic weapons are justifiable, but not fully automatic or with outrageously large magazines.

Automatics were banned under NFA. If you consider 30 rounds an outragious number of rounds let me tell you. If the gun is semi it ain't that much. But alas you live in the commie state of California so you really don't 30 rounders over there.

[ollyollyoxenfree]

Automatics were banned under NFA. If you consider 30 rounds an outragious number of rounds let me tell you. If the gun is semi it ain't that much. But alas you live in the commie state of California so you really don't 30 rounders over there.

I don't consider it outrageous. I consider it unnecessary. I would like to own 30rd mags, just I will admit there is not a need for them. The assault weapons ban is annoying for things like bulletbuttons(in regards to detachable magazines) but the magazine limiting capacity for rifles is not. Pistols it is annoying though. Commiefornia is nice for anyone who isn't a gun owner.

[Professional Russian]

I don't consider it outrageous. I consider it unnecessary. I would like to own 30rd mags, just I will admit there is not a need for them. The assault weapons ban is annoying for things like bulletbuttons(in regards to detachable magazines) but the magazine limiting capacity for rifles is not. Pistols it is annoying though. Commiefornia is nice for anyone who isn't a gun owner.

And that is why I will never go to California. I've had so many guns that would get.me.arrested there. Mostly being Glocks and ARs but still I would never live there.

[ollyollyoxenfree]

The glocks themselves are fine.. just can't bring the mags.
The AR ban I think is a horrid excuse for legislation but there are ways to get around it, my friend just bought a Smith and Wesson M&P Sport which worked because it technically wasn't on the list of ARs that they consider evil.