Dont like guns?!?!

[mrmee]

In a previous thread, there were comments on not liking guns, wanting to put guns in military hands only, stuff like that. Why? Is it because of not killing animals? Is it for safety of the public?If President Obama really hates guns so much, why does he surround himself and his kids with them 24/7? Its not the gun that to blame for shootings, its the person who pulls the trigger. If there a car accident and 3 people die, is it automatically the cars fault? I personally see guns as a means of food by hunting, a means of showing skill and a means of making stuff blow sky high with ballistic tips in a shooting range. So the question is, why do you think guns should be outlawed; or why do you support the public having guns?

[AlexOnToast]

If there a car accident and 3 people die, is it automatically the cars fault?

The difference there is ridiculously clear. Cars were invented for transport. Gun's were invented to wound, maim and kill.

Call me strange but I like to stay away from things that are intended to wound, maim and kill.

[Nick M]

I think guns are a horrible thing and although we need them to protect ourselves, the laws should be WAY more strict. Pretty much anyone can buy a gun and who knows what they will do with it. And I hate how people go hunting. How can someone call it a "fun" hobby to go into the woods(where the animals are minding their own business not hurting anyone) and shoot and kill innocent animals? That's just disgusting. I could understand if it's a matter of survival but killing animals for fun is horrible.

[Miserabilia]

Not sure why this is in 'sports and fitness"but anyway,
it's better not to have guns in the first place.

Guns in the USA cause a vicious cycle.
Guns -> fear -> guns ->fear

Everyone is afraid of being shot so everyone buys guns to protect themselves...

Even if it is the shooter and not the gun that's bad, the gun gives the possibility for bad people to do bad things easily.
(Why d'you think there are so many school shootings in america?)

[mrmee]

I think guns are a horrible thing and although we need them to protect ourselves, the laws should be WAY more strict. Pretty much anyone can buy a gun and who knows what they will do with it. And I hate how people go hunting. How can someone call it a "fun" hobby to go into the woods(where the animals are minding their own business not hurting anyone) and shoot and kill innocent animals? That's just disgusting. I could understand if it's a matter of survival but killing animals for fun is horrible.
I understand where your coming from, but every animal ive ever seen killed, which is a lot because i live on a cattle farm, was for good reason, wether it was to put the old put of its misery, or to hunt the young for meat. I go hunting every year for whitetail, partially for the thrill of success, but mostly for the meat.
Not sure why this is in 'sports and fitness"but anyway,
it's better not to have guns in the first place.

Guns in the USA cause a vicious cycle.
Guns -> fear -> guns ->fear

Everyone is afraid of being shot so everyone buys guns to protect themselves...

Even if it is the shooter and not the gun that's bad, the gun gives the possibility for bad people to do bad things easily.
(Why d'you think there are so many school shootings in america?)

I think there are so many shootings in the US because there are too many people trying to take our guns away. Have you noticed that there were not near as many shootings reported until the government has tried to ban guns?

[AlexOnToast]

I think there are so many shootings in the US because there are too many people trying to take our guns away.

I'm sorry, but that doesnt even begin to make sense :/

[mrmee]

I'm sorry, but that doesnt even begin to make sense :/

It does if you read the rest of the comment

[JacobIN]

The difference there is ridiculously clear. Cars were invented for transport. Gun's were invented to wound, maim and kill.

Call me strange but I like to stay away from things that are intended to wound, maim and kill.

A gun is a tool. One needs to know how to use the tool correctly. If one does not, then the guns only use is to maim and kill. If one knows how to use it (and does not have mental stability issues) then the tool is a very fun and safe recreational activity.


I think guns are a horrible thing and although we need them to protect ourselves, the laws should be WAY more strict. Pretty much anyone can buy a gun and who knows what they will do with it. And I hate how people go hunting. How can someone call it a "fun" hobby to go into the woods(where the animals are minding their own business not hurting anyone) and shoot and kill innocent animals? That's just disgusting. I could understand if it's a matter of survival but killing animals for fun is horrible.

Allot of people don't just kill for sport, they also eat what they kill. It is way cheaper than buying it, taste better, and is fresher. Not to mention, the cows in the pasture are just siting there minding there own business when we slaughter them for our food.




Keep in mind, I'm not saying that there arn't issues with guns, but it is not the weapon's fault. I don't think any measure of gun control would ever be effective (in the U.S.) That being said, better background checks would be a good one, however, the only true way to stop gun violence is if everybody on earth were perfect and didn't want to hurt/steal. Feel free to PM me or post on my profile if you wish to discus this.

[AlexOnToast]

I think there are so many shootings in the US because there are too many people trying to take our guns away. Have you noticed that there were not near as many shootings reported until the government has tried to ban guns?

That still makes no sense.
Are you implying that the likes of Sandy Hook and Columbine were really, at the heart, actually people making a stance against gun control?

[Nick M]

Not sure why this is in 'sports and fitness"but anyway,
it's better not to have guns in the first place.

Guns in the USA cause a vicious cycle.
Guns -> fear -> guns ->fear

Everyone is afraid of being shot so everyone buys guns to protect themselves...

Even if it is the shooter and not the gun that's bad, the gun gives the possibility for bad people to do bad things easily.
(Why d'you think there are so many school shootings in america?)

Exactly! Well said.

[mrmee]

That still makes no sense.
Are you implying that the likes of Sandy Hook and Columbine were really, at the heart, actually people making a stance against gun control?

That is exactly what im trying to say. It was not good way of that crackpot to express his feelings, but i couldve been a motive

[Nick M]

It does if you read the rest of the comment

If guns were completely banned, then think about how much the rate of murders and shootings will drop.
Worried about people breaking into your house? They don't have a gun to shoot you.

[AlexOnToast]

That is exactly what im trying to say. It was not good way of that crackpot to express his feelings, but i couldve been a motive

I'm sorry Alex, but that is probably one of the most ridiculous claims I have ever heard made on this site.
I'm going to take the chance of being even more astounded and ask what in the world could possibly give you any sort of verification that that claim is anything more than, quite frankly, bizarre and irrational?

[Miserabilia]

Exactly! Well said.

THank you! :D

I understand where your coming from, but every animal ive ever seen killed, which is a lot because i live on a cattle farm, was for good reason, wether it was to put the old put of its misery, or to hunt the young for meat. I go hunting every year for whitetail, partially for the thrill of success, but mostly for the meat.


I think there are so many shootings in the US because there are too many people trying to take our guns away. Have you noticed that there were not near as many shootings reported until the government has tried to ban guns?

How does that even make sense?
You don't seem to get it.

I think there are so many shootings in the US because there are too many people trying to take our guns away. Have you noticed that there were not near as many shootings reported until the government has tried to ban guns?

Yes, that may have been why they were shooting.
But now think...
Use those brains...
I know you can do it! :yes:

What did the angry americans shoot with?
Ooh that's right! Guns!

[Bougainvillea]

It does if you read the rest of the comment

It really doesn't though.

Every "argument" you've used has been made into one of those like pictures on Facebook so I'm automatically going to flush them down my mental slop sink.


Also no one is trying to "take ur guns" or "ban guns" and you living on a cattle farm explains why you feel the need to defend guns by being against those "points" which aren't true.

Obviously there has to be more gun control. Because no, I don't believe everyone deserves the right to own one. Because some people are fucking crazy.

[Gamma Male]

I think we need to spend less time banning certain types of guns and more time addressing the issues directly. We already have laws that are meant to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and violent criminals, but they don't work. Like, at all. We should have more in-depth background checks and tighter restrictions on the borrowing, trading, and safekeeping of guns. Especially for people who live with or are known to associate with the mentally ill and criminals. Guns are so easy to get a hold of, it's ridiculous. Private gun shows where anyone can just pay cash for a gun should be banned outrtight.
Also, the idea that people who support tighter gun control laws are trying to take your guns away from you is ridiculous. If your a sane, good person, a 7 day waiting period and background check shouldn't phase you. And if your not, you shouldn't have access to guns.
And just so you know, I'm not "anti-gun". I plan on owning several. I also plan on submitting to background checks and buying a secure gunsafe, and not letting friends or family borrow them.

[mrmee]

If guns were completely banned, then think about how much the rate of murders and shootings will drop.
Worried about people breaking into your house? They don't have a gun to shoot you.

I'm sorry Alex, but that is probably one of the most ridiculous claims I have ever heard made on this site.
I'm going to take the chance of being even more astounded and ask what in the world could possibly give you any sort of verification that that claim is anything more than, quite frankly, bizarre and irrational?

THank you! :D



How does that even make sense?
You don't seem to get it.



Yes, that may have been why they were shooting.
But now think...
Use those brains...
I know you can do it! :yes:

What did the angry americans shoot with?
Ooh that's right! Guns!

It really doesn't though.

Every "argument" you've used has been made into one of those like pictures on Facebook so I'm automatically going to flush them down my mental slop sink.


Also no one is trying to "take ur guns" or "ban guns" and you living on a cattle farm explains why you feel the need to defend guns by being against those "points" which aren't true.

Obviously there has to be more gun control. Because no, I don't believe everyone deserves the right to own one. Because some people are fucking crazy.

What none of you seem to understand is that if someone is crazy enough to try and shoot somebody, they really wont care about gun restrictions and paperwork and laws. There are a lot of unregistered guns out there for them to get their fingers on and always will be. When they do get one, and try to come into your house and rob you, wont you want to have a gun to protect yourself?

I think we need to spend less time banning certain types of guns and more time addressing the issues directly. We already have laws that are meant to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and violent criminals, but they don't work. Like, at all. We should have more in-depth background checks and tighter restrictions on the borrowing, trading, and safekeeping of guns. Especially for people who live with or are known to associate with the mentally ill and criminals. Guns are so easy to get a hold of, it's ridiculous. Private gun shows where anyone can just pay cash for a gun should be banned outrtight.
Also, the idea that people who support tighter gun control laws are trying to take your guns away from you is ridiculous. If your a sane, good person, a 7 day waiting period and background check shouldn't phase you. And if your not, you shouldn't have access to guns.
And just so you know, I'm not "anti-gun". I plan on owning several. I also plan on submitting to background checks and buying a secure gunsafe, and not letting friends or family borrow them.

The law is now, if you have any criminal record whatsoever, you may not own a gun. It is a retarded law because, take my dad for example, he broke into a store when he was in his twenties. Now, thirty years later, he still isn't legally allowed to own guns. He has a lot of assets in his house, so what is he supposed to do when someone breaks in? Answer me that.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[Gamma Male]

I wasn't suggesting nobody with a criminal record should be allowed to own a gun. Just violent criminals with a history of aggression.

Also, if your dad really cared about "protecting his assets" he would buy a good alarm system. Owning guns is great, but most thieves aren't stupid enough to break into someones home when the homeowner is there.

[Nick M]

The law is now, if you have any criminal record whatsoever, you may not own a gun. It is a retarded law because, take my dad for example, he broke into a store when he was in his twenties. Now, thirty years later, he still isn't legally allowed to own guns. He has a lot of assets in his house, so what is he supposed to do when someone breaks in? Answer me that.

Don't break the law.

[Ethe14]

The law is now, if you have any criminal record whatsoever, you may not own a gun. It is a retarded law because, take my dad for example, he broke into a store when he was in his twenties. Now, thirty years later, he still isn't legally allowed to own guns. He has a lot of assets in his house, so what is he supposed to do when someone breaks in? Answer me that.

Stuff like that should be revised so that people who did crazy stuff when they were younger don't get punished. One of the main issue is that you can take away guns much easier than you can take away the crazy idiots who use them to kill people. If there were an easy way to just take the bad people out of this world than I'm sure guns would be accepted. It's unfortunate that they have a bad reputation of them, it's like motorcyclists. They have an awful reputation because of their riders not the bikes themselves.

What I suggest is that we have a better system for background checks and so on, also these gun shows where anyone can just buy a gun should be more restricted.

[mrmee]

Don't break the law.

Whether they got caught or not, almost everybody has broken the law at least once. Maybe if they would stop making new ones about ridiculous things, like this, and got rid of a few useless ones previously made, that wouldn't happen.

[Bougainvillea]

Whether they got caught or not, almost everybody has broken the law at least once. Maybe if they would stop making new ones about ridiculous things, like this, and got rid of a few useless ones previously made, that wouldn't happen.

Almost everyone has broken the law at least once, but not everyone's robbed a store.

You want them to stop making laws, and get rid of existing laws.


Wowee.

[mrmee]

Almost everyone has broken the law at least once, but not everyone's robbed a store.

You want them to stop making laws, and get rid of existing laws.


Wowee.

People do stupid stuff when they're young. Denying that is denying human nature. And I didn't say stop making new ones all together. Just about stuff that doesn't need a law, like gun control. I don't see what's so bad about that.

[Bougainvillea]

People do stupid stuff when they're young. Denying that is denying human nature. And I didn't say stop making new ones all together. Just about stuff that doesn't need a law, like gun control. I don't see what's so bad about that.

What's so bad about it is we need gun control.


Just because oh it doesn't always work all the time isn't an excuse to just not have it altogether.

[DarkHorse4eva]

i dislike guns, i always have, it should only be given to responsible military people.
i've always been against guns, and i think there are way to many people in USA and more or less the whole world who have guns.

[Miserabilia]

What none of you seem to understand is that if someone is crazy enough to try and shoot somebody, they really wont care about gun restrictions and paperwork and laws. There are a lot of unregistered guns out there for them to get their fingers on and always will be. When they do get one, and try to come into your house and rob you, wont you want to have a gun to protect yourself?

Listen, anyone can get anything eventually.
But if you make guns completely legal, and so easy to buy, then obviously everyone has one!
It's not about the crazy people that want to kill everyone,
gun related accidents happen all the time!

When you have loaded guns in every house, people are obviously going to die.

[mrmee]

Listen, anyone can get anything eventually.
But if you make guns completely legal, and so easy to buy, then obviously everyone has one!
It's not about the crazy people that want to kill everyone,
gun related accidents happen all the time!

When you have loaded guns in every house, people are obviously going to die.

Probably every house from here, to a 30 mile radius has loaded guns in the house. Never once in the hundreds of years my family has been here, has the been an accident like that.

[Miserabilia]

Probably every house from here, to a 30 mile radius has loaded guns in the house. Never once in the hundreds of years my family has been here, has the been an accident like that.

Doesn't matter, america still has gun incidents all the time, it's just statistics.
Just because your neighbourhood hasn't had them, doesn't mean people don't get shot all the time.

And you still can't deny that it's rather dangerous for everyone to own and have acces to a gun all the time.

[mrmee]

Doesn't matter, america still has gun incidents all the time, it's just statistics.
Just because your neighbourhood hasn't had them, doesn't mean people don't get shot all the time.

And you still can't deny that it's rather dangerous for everyone to own and have acces to a gun all the time.

Yes i can. As long as people arent retards with them, guns are safe.

[Miserabilia]

Yes i can. As long as people arent retards with them, guns are safe.

Well, the problem is that people are going to be retards with them, and accidents do and will happen.

It's dangerous.

[mrmee]

Well, the problem is that people are going to be retards with them, and accidents do and will happen.

It's dangerous.

Yea, but people are going to be retards with everything. Do you want to try to ban cars because drunk people wreck them? Do you want to ban electricity because retards are going to put their fingers in outlets? Do you want to ban computers because people are going to get their identity stolen? If you do, you need to realise that we are not amish for a reason.

[Nick M]

Yea, but people are going to be retards with everything. Do you want to try to ban cars because drunk people wreck them? Do you want to ban electricity because retards are going to put their fingers in outlets? Do you want to ban computers because people are going to get their identity stolen? If you do, you need to realise that we are not amish for a reason.

Guns are meant to hurt/kill someone. Cars, electricity, and computers are not. Case closed.

[mrmee]

Guns are meant to hurt/kill someone. Cars, electricity, and computers are not. Case closed.

People are killed with cars more often than they are with guns. Case re-opened.

[Nick M]

People are killed with cars more often than they are with guns. Case re-opened.

Ok so let's ban cars so no one can get anywhere and we will not ban guns so everyone can f*cking kill each other.

[mrmee]

Ok so let's ban cars so no one can get anywhere and we will not ban guns so everyone can f*cking kill each other.

Guns werent made just to kill people. Lets ban them so people loose their food sourse, have no good way to protect themselves, and possibly promote anarchy. Sounds like a great idea.

[Miserabilia]

Guns werent made just to kill people. Lets ban them so people loose their food sourse, have no good way to protect themselves, and possibly promote anarchy. Sounds like a great idea.

Gun = food source? :what: :what: :what:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ms3qvkHTz34/TLrewz_haEI/AAAAAAAABJ8/7eK9OAYzByY/s1600/IMG_2006.jpg
http://www.picturesnew.com/media/images/genius-photo.png
And they need to protect themselves because everyone has effing guns!

And I don't see how that would "promote anarchy".
West europe is doing fine without guns, I don't see why the usa would fall into anarchy. The only reason would be people like you that are desperate to cling on to them.

[Body odah Man]

In a previous thread, there were comments on not liking guns, wanting to put guns in military hands only, stuff like that. Why? Is it because of not killing animals? Is it for safety of the public?If President Obama really hates guns so much, why does he surround himself and his kids with them 24/7? Its not the gun that to blame for shootings, its the person who pulls the trigger. If there a car accident and 3 people die, is it automatically the cars fault? I personally see guns as a means of food by hunting, a means of showing skill and a means of making stuff blow sky high with ballistic tips in a shooting range. So the question is, why do you think guns should be outlawed; or why do you support the public having guns?

That is both true and yet untrue. It's true that a gun on its own is just an object and its the person that uses it that's at fault for killing with it However a gun seems to tempt people into using it to kill alot more than a car does for some reaosn. I don't know why but you're far more likely to start shooting random people with a gun than u are to run someone over with a car.

[Miserabilia]

That is both true and yet untrue. It's true that a gun on its own is just an object and its the person that uses it that's at fault for killing with it However a gun seems to tempt people into using it to kill alot more than a car does for some reaosn. I don't know why but you're far more likely to start shooting random people with a gun than u are to run someone over with a car.

Yea mainly becauses a car is meant for a transport, and a gun is ment for firing.

[Zenos]

To all the guns are bad cry babies read this the

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Ok that does not mean shall not be infringed on except in this case to that case it means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ON!

the reason we have the right to own guns is because our Founding Fathers saw wisdom in having guns to defend ourseleves and others form the criminal element,as well as to use to over throw an out of control government,and not just to merely put food on the plate.


Oh and bebop your statement that "It's true that a gun on its own is just an object and its the person that uses it that's at fault for killing with it However a gun seems to tempt people into using it to kill alot more than a car does for some reaosn." is the reasoning of a child who does not understand what they are talking about.

theres more guns in my house then you can shake a stick at and no one here is ever tempted to go out and shoot anyone with a single one of them.

If I have a problem with someone I don't act like a sissy and run and grab a gun and go to shooting I confront the person and try to reason the problem out if that doesn't work and they still want to jump on me then well I use my fists to stop the problem.

[mrmee]

To all the guns are bad cry babies read this the

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Ok that does not mean shall not be infringed on except in this case to that case it means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ON!

the reason we have the right to own guns is because our Founding Fathers saw wisdom in having guns to defend ourseleves and others form the criminal element,as well as to use to over throw an out of control government,and not just to merely put food on the plate.


Oh and bebop your statement that "It's true that a gun on its own is just an object and its the person that uses it that's at fault for killing with it However a gun seems to tempt people into using it to kill alot more than a car does for some reaosn." is the reasoning of a child who does not understand what they are talking about.

theres more guns in my house then you can shake a stick at and no one here is ever tempted to go out and shoot anyone with a single one of them.

If I have a problem with someone I don't act like a sissy and run and grab a gun and go to shooting I confront the person and try to reason the problem out if that doesn't work and they still want to jump on me then well I use my fists to stop the problem.

You are an absolute genius, if I might say so myself.

[Zenos]

You are an absolute genius, if I might say so myself.

Should I take that as sarcasm?

Seeing as sacasm doesn't read well on line.

[mrmee]

Should I take that as sarcasm?

Seeing as sacasm doesn't read well on line.

No, I'm serious. You actually have some common sense XD

[Zenos]

No, I'm serious. You actually have some common sense XD

Oh thanks =)

Its too many people wanting to shred our rights these days.

And not all of them are form here in the USA,you'd be surprised how many teens are listening to self important people from other nations who studied a bit about America and it's legal system and our rights and suddenly they have the right to tell us we need to prohibit this are that,and todays American teen( not all of them though) falls for that line hook and sinker,all because someone from someother nation claims we no longer have a need for firearms ownership here in America.

And I have had that confab with people for other parts of the globe before,never mind that we have tjose rights in part to over throw a out of control government that argue that down as well.

[mrmee]

Can I PM you? You seem like someone worth talking to. :lol:

[Zenos]

Can I PM you? You seem like someone worth talking to. :lol:

sure

[JacobIN]

i dislike guns, i always have, it should only be given to responsible military people.
i've always been against guns, and i think there are way to many people in USA and more or less the whole world who have guns.

This guy is ex military. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msPrOIAVUZo

Also, there are to many people who are irresponsible that have guns. I have 3 guns, and I have never shot nor threatened anybody. why take my guns away? So the guy with illegal black market weapons can just bust into my house and I can shout "STOP RIGHT THERE OR ILL CALL THE POLICE. NOW DON'T MOVE WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR THEM TO GET HERE. OH YEAH AND DEFINITELY DON'T GO INTO MY PARENTS ROOM, THAT'S WERE ALL THE GOOD STUFF IS. BECAUSE IF YOU DO, ILL MAKE SURE THE POLICE GET YOU. And he will be gone with our shit before I even get to the 911 operator.

Lets be honest. Maybe Gun control work in the UK and else ware, but especially in the UK, you don't have one of the biggest drug running counties directly bordering you to your south. Gun control will never work in America, and anybody who may try to take my guns, I will shot them as if they were tyrannical dictators. I don't care if it is police, SWAT, Military, or Obama himself, Ill go down fighting for my right to carry and own a firearm, that, might I remind you, our ancestors, from the revolutionary war to WW2 to modern times, defended, along with our other rights.

[Bougainvillea]

Oh thanks =)

Its too many people wanting to shred our rights these days.

And not all of them are form here in the USA,you'd be surprised how many teens are listening to self important people from other nations who studied a bit about America and it's legal system and our rights and suddenly they have the right to tell us we need to prohibit this are that,and todays American teen( not all of them though) falls for that line hook and sinker,all because someone from someother nation claims we no longer have a need for firearms ownership here in America.

And I have had that confab with people for other parts of the globe before,never mind that we have tjose rights in part to over throw a out of control government that argue that down as well.

You don't have to be from this country to have a legitimate grasp on our legal system, society, and opinions in general. They have the right to say whatever they want. How does them not being American make their opinion invalid?

This guy is ex military. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msPrOIAVUZo

Also, there are to many people who are irresponsible that have guns. I have 3 guns, and I have never shot nor threatened anybody. why take my guns away?


I will shot them as if they were tyrannical dictators. I don't care if it is police, SWAT, Military, or Obama himself, Ill go down fighting for my right to carry and own a firearm.

Sure you would.

And no, no one is trying to take your guns away. It's about making it harder for people with criminal records to obtain them, and make them less accessible to people with possible mental illness.

I don't understand what is so bad about that? How does that bring out so much stupidity and "I WILL KILL ANYONE WHO TRIES TO TAKE MUH GUNS FROM ME"

Because guess what? That's not fucking happening.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[Obsidian]

People hate guns because it's easier to blame guns for people getting hurt than to face the real problem... which is mental illness. You know, that issue that's rarely talked about and that nobody seems to give a damn about.

When someone goes and shoots up a school or something everyone jumps to the conclusions "They're evil" or "It's because they had access to guns." Nobody tries to identify the real source of the problem. There are people out there who are severely mentally ill and who victimize others because they are victims themselves.

Sure, guns make it easier for these people to hurt others and commit crimes. But the guns aren't the problem. The problem is the people behind them, and that they haven't received help for their problems. And I really believe the #1 reason these people don't get help is because they don't even know they need it. Because mental illnesses aren't common knowledge. Normal people who have never suffered from one can't identify the symptoms of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or different kinds of personality disorders. Because these things are unknown, people don't know how to recognize them. They don't know that how they are thinking or the way that they're behaving isn't right. And it's really sad.

I know that not all of the people who commit crimes are mentally ill. But I truly believe that the majority are. And I also believe that making mental illnesses and their symptoms public knowledge rather than making them things that are whispered about and surrounded by stigma would allow for a lot more people to get help and result in a lot less serious crimes being committed.

Or, you know, we could just ban guns. Take away people's ability to defend themselves, and not even completely solve the problem by doing so. Guns are not the source of the problem. And therefore not the issue. They're just the easiest thing to blame.

[JacobIN]

You don't have to be from this country to have a legitimate grasp on our legal system, society, and opinions in general. They have the right to say whatever they want. How does them not being American make their opinion invalid?



Sure you would.

And no, no one is trying to take your guns away. It's about making it harder for people with criminal records to obtain them, and make them less accessible to people with possible mental illness.

I don't understand what is so bad about that? How does that bring out so much stupidity and "I WILL KILL ANYONE WHO TRIES TO TAKE MUH GUNS FROM ME"

Because guess what? That's not fucking happening.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

My friend, I said IF. I understand some people don't want to take all guns away, I was talking about the ones who do. Please make a Intelligent and informed comment before you call me stupid.

And yes, I will die for my rights in this country. If you don't understand that, then you are the lowest level of scum on this earth.

[Bougainvillea]

My friend, I said IF. I understand some people don't want to take all guns away, I was talking about the ones who do. Please make a Intelligent and informed comment before you call me stupid.

And yes, I will die for my rights in this country. If you don't understand that, then you are the lowest level of scum on this earth.
I hardly hear anyone who says that all guns should just go away, and the ones who do aren't really worth listening to.

How exactly does me disagreeing on going out guns blazing for rights that are hardly being threatened make me scum? I never said I don't understand that.

[JacobIN]

People hate guns because it's easier to blame guns for people getting hurt than to face the real problem... which is mental illness. You know, that issue that's rarely talked about and that nobody seems to give a damn about.

When someone goes and shoots up a school or something everyone jumps to the conclusions "They're evil" or "It's because they had access to guns." Nobody tries to identify the real source of the problem. There are people out there who are severely mentally ill and who victimize others because they are victims themselves.

Sure, guns make it easier for these people to hurt others and commit crimes. But the guns aren't the problem. The problem is the people behind them, and that they haven't received help for their problems. And I really believe the #1 reason these people don't get help is because they don't even know they need it. Because mental illnesses aren't common knowledge. Normal people who have never suffered from one can't identify the symptoms of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or different kinds of personality disorders. Because these things are unknown, people don't know how to recognize them. They don't know that how they are thinking or the way that they're behaving isn't right. And it's really sad.

I know that not all of the people who commit crimes are mentally ill. But I truly believe that the majority are. And I also believe that making mental illnesses and their symptoms public knowledge rather than making them things that are whispered about and surrounded by stigma would allow for a lot more people to get help and result in a lot less serious crimes being committed.

Or, you know, we could just ban guns. Take away people's ability to defend themselves, and not even completely solve the problem by doing so. Guns are not the source of the problem. And therefore not the issue. They're just the easiest thing to blame.

Also, not to sound weird, but that made you sound very attractive and smart.

I hardly hear anyone who says that all guns should just go away, and the ones who do aren't really worth listening to.

How exactly does me disagreeing on going out guns blazing for rights that are hardly being threatened make me scum? I never said I don't understand that.

The part where you said "sure you would" as if you didn't believe me/thought I was stupid. Really, for the person who started calling others stupid, you are not a bright person.

If you can't recognize when a person is very clearly serious about what they say, then you sir, are not intelligent.

[Bougainvillea]

The part where you said "sure you would" as if you didn't believe me/thought I was stupid. Really, for the person who started calling others stupid, you are not a bright person.

If you can't recognize when a person is very clearly serious about what they say, then you sir, are not intelligent.
Because I laugh at the whole guns-a-blazin attitude. I find it ridiculous, and over emotional. The whole badass routine gets old after a while. Especially when its always about a hypothetical situation.

By stupidity, I mean what you were expressing was stupid. But if that's what you're going to focus on, then fine.


I have had negative experiences with guns. I don't find the idea of dying over them very... fulfilling or worthy of my life. If I were to die over a right, it would be something personal, like if someone were legitimately trying to deny my right to happiness, or even freedom of speech (which is happening now and has been) but if it came down to me being silenced completely, then yes, I would be willing to join the fight against it, and possibly die. I understand fighting for my rights, just as much as you do. And I take my rights as an American very seriously. But that right isn't one I like to focus on.

For my own personal reasons, I am very much for the enforcement of gun control.

[Zenos]

You don't have to be from this country to have a legitimate grasp on our legal system, society, and opinions in general. They have the right to say whatever they want. How does them not being American make their opinion invalid?



[/COLOR]

But they do not have the right to tell us that we no longer have the need to have the right to own and bear arms,and then when you show them the second amendment,they start in on this tripe about how that was for back then and not now. That is pretty much showing their lack of understanding of our legal system, society,and government and such tripe being spouted by them is usually fostered off on them by the so-called professor that's teaching them about our legal system, society,and government and ingraining them with his view points to it.

[JacobIN]

Because I laugh at the whole guns-a-blazin attitude. I find it ridiculous, and over emotional. The whole badass routine gets old after a while. Especially when its always about a hypothetical situation.

By stupidity, I mean what you were expressing was stupid. But if that's what you're going to focus on, then fine.


I have had negative experiences with guns. I don't find the idea of dying over them very... fulfilling or worthy of my life. If I were to die over a right, it would be something personal, like if someone were legitimately trying to deny my right to happiness, or even freedom of speech (which is happening now and has been) but if it came down to me being silenced completely, then yes, I would be willing to join the fight against it, and possibly die. I understand fighting for my rights, just as much as you do. And I take my rights as an American very seriously. But that right isn't one I like to focus on.

For my own personal reasons, I am very much for the enforcement of gun control.

Gun control by definition is not letting the citizens of a country have any guns.

You should be damn glad that there is a second amendment. It is the main protector of the other amendments. In WW2, the Japaneses Army could have invaded mainland america. WE now estimate that we could not have stopped a army their size until the got to the Mississippi river. Their supreme commander said "If we invaded america, there would be a Rifle behind every blade of grass" and he was not talking about our army. It was our citizens.

I'm not saying it is anymore important than the first amendment, its just as important.

Also, people abusing the second amendment can kill people. But guess what? People abusing the first amendment also kill people! Ya know when people commit suicide and its because of bulling? Well, bullies generally say allot of mean things, abusing their right to the first amendment.

And yes, our first amendment rights are definitely not where they should be. But what are you gonna do when (not if) the US government goes fully corrupt and takes all your first amendment rights away? After you and your kind take our guns, we will be defenseless to the gov.

Also, my right to bear arms is a personal freedom. It is also a freedom that all Americans (excluding felons and mentally unstable) enjoy.

[Bougainvillea]

But they do not have the right to tell us that we no longer have the need to have the right to own and bear arms,and then when you show them the second amendment,they start in on this tripe about how that was for back then and not now. That is pretty much showing their lack of understanding of our legal system, society,and government and such tripe being spouted by them is usually fostered off on them by the so-called professor that's teaching them about our legal system, society,and government and ingraining them with his view points to it.
They have the right to tell us whatever they want. Just as much we do towards anyone else. Obviously some of them are wrong, if they say we don't need that right. But that doesn't make some of the points they make any less valid.

The whole beauty of history, and the present is that it can be interpreted in many different ways. And even used as an example, and if they have the knowledge, and know how to use it, it doesn't matter if they're American or not. Their influence isn't any less valid. And not all foreign experts on society and history foster the same opinion, so insulting their education and mental fortitude doesn't prove a point.

[Zenos]

They have the right to tell us whatever they want. Just as much we do towards anyone else. Obviously some of them are wrong, if they say we don't need that right. But that doesn't make some of the points they make any less valid.

The whole beauty of history, and the present is that it can be interpreted in many different ways. And even used as an example, and if they have the knowledge, and know how to use it, it doesn't matter if they're American or not. Their influence isn't any less valid. And not all foreign experts on society and history foster the same opinion, so insulting their education and mental fortitude doesn't prove a point.

I never said all of them!

[Bougainvillea]

And yes, our first amendment rights are definitely not where they should be. But what are you gonna do when (not if) the US government goes fully corrupt and takes all your first amendment rights away? After you and your kind take our guns, we will be defenseless to the gov.

Also, my right to bear arms is a personal freedom.

I know its a personal freedom. One that I enjoy as well. I still have my father's standard issue. And his personal firearm. And its not like I would just allow them to be taken from me without question.

No, that isn't the definition of gun control btw. Gun control is more of a term that is an umbrella over things such as laws or policies or proposed laws or policies that pertain to guns and whatever restrictions that lay within them.

I obviously believe that's our government going completely corrupt and stripping all of our freedoms away and becoming the next north korea is definitely an "if", not a "when".

And I don't know why you're throwing this me and my kind and me wanting to take away peoples guns away. I never said that I wanted anything of the sort. I'm very much for background checks, and stricter enforcement on registering guns, and the like. So stop with your little shit flinging attitude.

[Zenos]

I know its a personal freedom. One that I enjoy as well. I still have my father's standard issue. And his personal firearm. And its not like I would just allow them to be taken from me without question.

No, that isn't the definition of gun control btw. Gun control is more of a term that is an umbrella over things such as laws or policies or proposed laws or policies that pertain to guns and whatever restrictions that lay within them.

I obviously believe that's our government going completely corrupt and stripping all of our freedoms away and becoming the next north korea is definitely an "if", not a "when".

And I don't know why you're throwing this me and my kind and me wanting to take away peoples guns away. I never said that I wanted anything of the sort. I'm very much for background checks, and stricter enforcement on registering guns, and the like. So stop with your little shit flinging attitude.

The problem with laws is sadly they can be manipulated to very bad ends,

[Bougainvillea]

The problem with laws is sadly they can be manipulated to very bad ends,
Sure they can.

But thats not a reason to just not have them, or not encourage the enforcement of some that already exist. I acknowledge that people can slip through the cracks, and bad things still happen.

I just don't believe the second amendment should be a flat rule. There has to be regulation.

[Zenos]

Sure they can.

But thats not a reason to just not have them, or not encourage the enforcement of some that already exist. I acknowledge that people can slip through the cracks, and bad things still happen.

I just don't believe the second amendment should be a flat rule. There has to be regulation.

I'm for the second amendment being the flat rule. because if you regulate here or you regulate there you are in fact infringing even just a little on peoples rights to own guns.

But i do think that being said people should own guys and if some nutter desides to go a shooting people should have to right to put said nutter 6 feet under in defence of self and others.

[Bougainvillea]

I'm for the second amendment being the flat rule. because if you regulate here or you regulate there you are in fact infringing even just a little on peoples rights to own guns.

But i do think that being said people should own guys and if some nutter desides to go a shooting people should have to right to put said nutter 6 feet under in defence of self and others.
I can't think think that way at all. My life was changed by someone who believed that it should've been a flat rule.

i don't believe everyone deserves the rights to own guns. I don't believe criminals with a history committing gun related crimes deserve the right to own a gun. I don't believe people with serious mental illnesses have the right to own guns.

[Zenos]

I can't think think that way at all. My life was changed by someone who believed that it should've been a flat rule.

i don't believe everyone deserves the rights to own guns. I don't believe criminals with a history committing gun related crimes deserve the right to own a gun. I don't believe people with serious mental illnesses have the right to own guns.

lets agree to disagree.

[JollyToes]

Guns don't kill people...people kill people. If we ban guns it will just be something else...soon we'll have to ban toothpicks.

[CharlieHorse]

I think the laws and restrictions on guns should be made really strict.
There is no need for anyone to own a gun.

To all the guns are bad cry babies read this the

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Ok that does not mean shall not be infringed on except in this case to that case it means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ON!

the reason we have the right to own guns is because our Founding Fathers saw wisdom in having guns to defend ourseleves and others form the criminal element,as well as to use to over throw an out of control government, and not just to merely put food on the plate.


And more recently, guns in our country have been used not for self defense, or for overthrowing a corrupt government, but for sheer acts of terrorism. I doubt that your founding fathers had the wisdom to predict such a thing. This is why the constitution is amendable, so that as the country, society, and people develop over time, the issues that arise can be dealt with in the law.
Unless we do something about the current situation, it will remain. We'll be seeing headlines of school shootings, and street shootings, and innocent people's lives being ruined because guns are so easy to get.
Ask yourself, do you want to be known as an American who allows this in their country?

[Emerald Dream]

Sports and Fitness :arrow: Ramblings of the Wise

[Its Pretty]

I think the laws and restrictions on guns should be made really strict.
There is no need for anyone to own a gun.



And more recently, guns in our country have been used not for self defense, or for overthrowing a corrupt government, but for sheer acts of terrorism. I doubt that your founding fathers had the wisdom to predict such a thing. This is why the constitution is amendable, so that as the country, society, and people develop over time, the issues that arise can be dealt with in the law.
Unless we do something about the current situation, it will remain. We'll be seeing headlines of school shootings, and street shootings, and innocent people's lives being ruined because guns are so easy to get.
Ask yourself, do you want to be known as an American who allows this in their country?
A determined enough murderer could use anything as a weapon. In fact, a gun would not be the best choice as it is so traceable. Aren't many terrorist attacks done with explosives made out of chemicals you can buy cheap at the hardware store? Aren't a whole lot of terrorist attacks in foreign countries done by truly heartless people who strap bombs to children and get them to run and blow up in people's faces? Yes, I must agree that disaster results when an evil or stupid person has a simple and deadly weapon in their hands, and guns frequently become that simple and deadly weapon.

About the headlines, the majority of mass murders featured in those are done by devious individuals who are very determined to make an impact. Guns are the weapon of choice due to their lethality and simplicity, but of course, any determined massacrist would have little trouble designing a weapon of near-equal efficiency, hell, I could design one much deadlier then a gun for use in an urban environment for you in 10 seconds!

In short, Guns do not kill people, people kill people! The best way to remove murders from society is to remove the murderers!

[Body odah Man]

To all the guns are bad cry babies read this the

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Ok that does not mean shall not be infringed on except in this case to that case it means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ON!

the reason we have the right to own guns is because our Founding Fathers saw wisdom in having guns to defend ourseleves and others form the criminal element,as well as to use to over throw an out of control government,and not just to merely put food on the plate.


Oh and bebop your statement that "It's true that a gun on its own is just an object and its the person that uses it that's at fault for killing with it However a gun seems to tempt people into using it to kill alot more than a car does for some reaosn." is the reasoning of a child who does not understand what they are talking about.

theres more guns in my house then you can shake a stick at and no one here is ever tempted to go out and shoot anyone with a single one of them.

If I have a problem with someone I don't act like a sissy and run and grab a gun and go to shooting I confront the person and try to reason the problem out if that doesn't work and they still want to jump on me then well I use my fists to stop the problem.

Gun lover

[Harry Smith]

A determined enough murderer could use anything as a weapon. In fact, a gun would not be the best choice as it is so traceable. Aren't many terrorist attacks done with explosives made out of chemicals you can buy cheap at the hardware store? Aren't a whole lot of terrorist attacks in foreign countries done by truly heartless people who strap bombs to children and get them to run and blow up in people's faces? Yes, I must agree that disaster results when an evil or stupid person has a simple and deadly weapon in their hands, and guns frequently become that simple and deadly weapon.

About the headlines, the majority of mass murders featured in those are done by devious individuals who are very determined to make an impact. Guns are the weapon of choice due to their lethality and simplicity, but of course, any determined massacrist would have little trouble designing a weapon of near-equal efficiency, hell, I could design one much deadlier then a gun for use in an urban environment for you in 10 seconds!

In short, Guns do not kill people, people kill people! The best way to remove murders from society is to remove the murderers!

The problem is terrorist attacks aren't the biggest risk to US schools. Look at the Boston Bombing-that killed 3 people. Compare that to Sandy Hill were one gunman was able to kill over 20 people. A firearm really is the best weapon for a terrorist to use-that's why it was used in Fort Hood.

An Ak-47 is brutally effective at killing, it's designed to kill compared to a car or baseball bat (common examples) which yes can cause damage to you but they're not made to end a life.

A determined enough murderer could use anything as a weapon

Yes that's correct-doesn't mean that guns are least effective means. I could use a gluestick as a weapon but I'd much rather walk down to a shop and buy an AR 15

[Miserabilia]

Guns don't kill people...people kill people. If we ban guns it will just be something else...soon we'll have to ban toothpicks.

Bullcrap.
Guns are meant to kill people.
Guns make it easy to kill people.
Guns are extremely dangerous.

In america school shootings happen all the time, which is a terrible thing,
but I don't see any school toothpickings here in europe.

[JacobIN]

I think the laws and restrictions on guns should be made really strict.
There is no need for anyone to own a gun.



And more recently, guns in our country have been used not for self defense, or for overthrowing a corrupt government, but for sheer acts of terrorism. I doubt that your founding fathers had the wisdom to predict such a thing. This is why the constitution is amendable, so that as the country, society, and people develop over time, the issues that arise can be dealt with in the law.
Unless we do something about the current situation, it will remain. We'll be seeing headlines of school shootings, and street shootings, and innocent people's lives being ruined because guns are so easy to get.
Ask yourself, do you want to be known as an American who allows this in their country?

If we let them have our guns...what stops them from becoming corrupt and kill us? Nothing. My right is plain and simple: I own my firearms as a self defense weapon. I own my firearms to, hopefully never, have to over through a corrupt government. I own my guns, because the idea of somebody breaking into my house and harming my family is to horrible to imagine. I own my guns because a government who persecutes entire generations of a family, if just one member is a Christian, is somewhere where I would die fighting to prevent. Maybe you don't feel the same way...but don't try to get the "government" to take MY RIGHT to own a firearm, or any of my rights, away. Why don't we stop the US Military from using depleted Uranium? Its damn sure killed more people than registered guns have killed american citizens. Ban nukes too? So our government is defenseless? We will never use a nuke if we don't have to, and that is the same way with my guns. I don't want to have to use them, but if I do, it's because I was faced with that or death/injury. So just because you don't like guns, and are intimidated by them does not mean you have the right to strip away the rights of other Americans.

Bullcrap.
Guns are meant to kill people.
Guns make it easy to kill people.
Guns are extremely dangerous.

In america school shootings happen all the time, which is a terrible thing,
but I don't see any school toothpickings here in europe.

I was going to post a lengthy reply, but I cannot find words to describe this part "Guns are extremely dangerous." It is clear that you are uneducated about guns. Cars are in the same boat. If the person using a car wants to kill someone, then a car is extremely dangerous. So don't pull there dangerous on me, because only the uneducated and mental insane are "deadly" with guns. And in my book, anybody who would willing take anthers life is mental insane.

As for the other parts, you are correct.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[CharlieHorse]

If we let them have our guns...what stops them from becoming corrupt and kill us? Nothing. My right is plain and simple: I own my firearms as a self defense weapon. I own my firearms to, hopefully never, have to over through a corrupt government. I own my guns, because the idea of somebody breaking into my house and harming my family is to horrible to imagine. I own my guns because a government who persecutes entire generations of a family, if just one member is a Christian, is somewhere where I would die fighting to prevent. Maybe you don't feel the same way...but don't try to get the "government" to take MY RIGHT to own a firearm, or any of my rights, away. Why don't we stop the US Military from using depleted Uranium? Its damn sure killed more people than registered guns have killed american citizens. Ban nukes too? So our government is defenseless? We will never use a nuke if we don't have to, and that is the same way with my guns. I don't want to have to use them, but if I do, it's because I was faced with that or death/injury. So just because you don't like guns, and are intimidated by them does not mean you have the right to strip away the rights of other Americans.


First of all. I like guns. I think they're interesting works of mechanical and engineering genius and they are a very important tool of human history.

Think about this.
You're a good person. You go through background checks that are done and you are tested on your gun safety knowledge and registered as a good, mentally stable person who owns a gun.
What's the problem with that?

You get to hold your big stick.

and non-mentally-stable, dumb people don't get them, thus reducing the amount of psychopaths with ranged killing tools.

[JacobIN]

First of all. I like guns. I think they're interesting works of mechanical and engineering genius and they are a very important tool of human history.

Think about this.
You're a good person. You go through background checks that are done and you are tested on your gun safety knowledge and registered as a good, mentally stable person who owns a gun.
What's the problem with that?

You get to hold your big stick.

and non-mentally-stable, dumb people don't get them, thus reducing the amount of psychopaths with ranged killing tools.

You said there, quote "There is no need for anyone to own a gun"

[CharlieHorse]

You said there, quote "There is no need for anyone to own a gun"

truly there isn't, but all the kids want a big stick.

[Lovelife090994]

truly there isn't, but all the kids want a big stick.

Owning a gun isn't a crime. Owning a gun is up to the person. Guns don't kill alone, someone must pull the trigger.

[Miserabilia]

Owning a gun isn't a crime. Owning a gun is up to the person. Guns don't kill alone, someone must pull the trigger.

Guns are made with the intention to kill or injure.
Guns are pure danger.
If you give a bunch of people a bunch of people, people will die and get hurt.
Simple logic and statistics.

[Harry Smith]

Owning a gun isn't a crime. Owning a gun is up to the person. Guns don't kill alone, someone must pull the trigger.

So why do we disallow people owning nuclear bombs?

I think that should be the new catchphrase of this thread-nukes don't kill, people do

[Zenos]

Bullcrap.
Guns are meant to kill people.

(to protect youtself and your family and others and to hunt)

Guns make it easy to kill people.

( same can be said for swords,bows and arrows,cross bows,axes,machetes,,martial arts,etc tec and whose running to ban those)


Guns are extremely dangerous.

( so is driving a car and a host other other stuff.
If people take to time to take proper precautions there would be no danger)

In america school shootings happen all the time, which is a terrible thing,
but I don't see any school toothpickings here in europe.

( you make it sound like school shootings happen everyother day..thats just not so! )



Do you know the reasons why we have Gun rights here in America?

1) protection of the ones family and self,as well as protection of others.

2)To be able in case we have to to rise up over throw and oppressive government if ours gets to that point

3) to hunt,yes people do hunt here in the USA


In short your reasons are bull crap,plus just because your citizens don't have guns does not mean we the American people should just go tune ours in,but then in Europe there is a history of disarming the people for "their own Good",to the point that in englad there is no self defence law meaning you get attacked and defend yourself you can go to jail.

Look when have to rely on the law to defend you because if you fight back you go to jail you'd living in a "nanny state".

That's not how it works here in the states,so while you have the right to your opinion please stop trying to convince us American teens we don't need goes and that we are inherently wrong for wanting guns for home defence and hunting and stuff.

[Miserabilia]

Do you know the reasons why we have Gun rights here in America?

1) protection of the ones family and self,as well as protection of others.

2)To be able in case we have to to rise up over throw and oppressive government if ours gets to that point

3) to hunt,yes people do hunt here in the USA


In short your reasons are bull crap,plus just because your citizens don't have guns does not mean we the American people should just go tune ours in,but then in Europe there is a history of disarming the people for "their own Good",to the point that in englad there is no self defence law meaning you get attacked and defend yourself you can go to jail.

Look when have to rely on the law to defend you because if you fight back you go to jail you'd living in a "nanny state".

That's not how it works here in the states,so while you have the right to your opinion please stop trying to convince us American teens we don't need goes and that we are inherently wrong for wanting guns for home defence and hunting and stuff.

(to protect youtself and your family and others and to hunt)

Yea, protection from stuff like, I don't know, people with guns?


( same can be said for swords,bows and arrows,cross bows,axes,machetes,,martial arts,etc tec and whose running to ban those)

Except that guns are about 20 times more dangerous than any of those.

( so is driving a car and a host other other stuff.
If people take to time to take proper precautions there would be no danger)

A car has a purpose of transportation.
A car driving the right way can not hurt anybody.
A gun is meant to hurt, injure or kill.

( you make it sound like school shootings happen everyother day..thats just not so! )

No I don't, they just happen much more often in america.
They actually happen quite often, maybe your just used to it, but it's really not normal you know.

1) protection of the ones family and self,as well as protection of others.

You need protection because everyone has an effing gun.
There would be much less need for proetection if people weren't all running around with loaded guns.

2)To be able in case we have to to rise up over throw and oppressive government if ours gets to that point


That's just plain far fetched.

3) to hunt,yes people do hunt here in the USA

Right, it should be completely legal for everyone to have loaded guns in their house with kids,
"for hunting".
Makes perfect sense.


In short your reasons are bull crap,plus just because your citizens don't have guns does not mean we the American people should just go tune ours in,but then in Europe there is a history of disarming the people for "their own Good",to the point that in englad there is no self defence law meaning you get attacked and defend yourself you can go to jail.
to the point that in englad there is no self defence law meaning you get attacked and defend yourself you can go to jail.

Lol, are you honestly claiming that there is no self defense law in all of europe?
Can you confirm that?
Because, obiously, there is.
Just because we don't all have loaded guns, doesn't mean self defense isn't allowed.

It's just that people don't shoot on sight.

That's not how it works here in the states,so while you have the right to your opinion please stop trying to convince us American teens we don't need goes and that we are inherently wrong for wanting guns for home defence and hunting and stuff.
home defence and hunting and stuff.

How is that enough reason for every family to own a loaded gun.
Your just causing a huge risk all across the country.
There's no point.
The least they could do is be stricter with rules for who gets to use them, licences, etc.

[Harry Smith]

Do you know the reasons why we have Gun rights here in America?

1) protection of the ones family and self,as well as protection of others.

2)To be able in case we have to to rise up over throw and oppressive government if ours gets to that point

3) to hunt,yes people do hunt here in the USA


In short your reasons are bull crap,plus just because your citizens don't have guns does not mean we the American people should just go tune ours in,but then in Europe there is a history of disarming the people for "their own Good",to the point that in englad there is no self defence law meaning you get attacked and defend yourself you can go to jail.

Look when have to rely on the law to defend you because if you fight back you go to jail you'd living in a "nanny state".

That's not how it works here in the states,so while you have the right to your opinion please stop trying to convince us American teens we don't need goes and that we are inherently wrong for wanting guns for home defence and hunting and stuff.

Why didn't the US people rise up and overthrow the government when Bush fixed the election in 2000?

Your also making up lies about England (which isn't even a country in the eyes of the law)

in englad there is no self defence law

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#rachel

[Lovelife090994]

Guns are made with the intention to kill or injure.
Guns are pure danger.
If you give a bunch of people a bunch of people, people will die and get hurt.
Simple logic and statistics.

Many things are weapons but you can't ban everything. What are you going to do? Ban guns? It's be something else killing people next. If you give a bunch of people, people will die? I fail to see the meaning here. Just become you own a gun that does not make you a killer. It is one's right to own a gun. Look at hunters, they own guns and do not fire at humans.

So why do we disallow people owning nuclear bombs?

I think that should be the new catchphrase of this thread-nukes don't kill, people do

Nuke's kill but by the person who released them. Guns kill but only when one aims and shoots. We disallow nukes because those who want them have made it clear they will use them. What is so bad about guns? Guns do not kill alone. And what, are all gun owners killers?

[Harry Smith]

Nuke's kill but by the person who released them. Guns kill but only when one aims and shoots. We disallow nukes because those who want them have made it clear they will use them. What is so bad about guns? Guns do not kill alone. And what, are all gun owners killers?

You have to aim a nuke you know-you have to enter the GPS codes and place the special key in it.

I simply want a nuke to defend my family-I need to defend my family from the big bad federal government with their liberal laws.

So you don't support me having a nuclear weapon? I just want to be a peaceful owner, are all nuke owners killers?

[Lovelife090994]

You have to aim a nuke you know-you have to enter the GPS codes and place the special key in it.

I simply want a nuke to defend my family-I need to defend my family from the big bad federal government with their liberal laws.

So you don't support me having a nuclear weapon? I just want to be a peaceful owner, are all nuke owners killers?

Oh wow, you have taken two subjects, both with risque histories, and compared an item that can kill billions in seconds to an item that kills one to 100 in a second. I hate killing, but what is so bad about guns? Nukes are another thing, because nukes if set off cause global changs and such.

If someone wants a gun for personal use then fine. Now guns should have some restrictions but to outlaw them violates to US Constitution. If someone has a gun what do I do? Argue at them how the gun will fire on it's own or blame all gun violence on them? No. I think, "ok as long as they do not kill anyone in cold blood, and if they do then punish them not all gun owners."

[Harry Smith]

Oh wow, you have taken two subjects, both with risque histories, and compared an item that can kill billions in seconds to an item that kills one to 100 in a second. I hate killing, but what is so bad about guns? Nukes are another thing, because nukes if set off cause global changs and such.

If someone wants a gun for personal use then fine. Now guns should have some restrictions but to outlaw them violates to US Constitution. If someone has a gun what do I do? Argue at them how the gun will fire on it's own or blame all gun violence on them? No. I think, "ok as long as they do not kill anyone in cold blood, and if they do then punish them not all gun owners."

A gun caused the first world war-a single gun. A single rifle killed Kennedy and prolonged the cold war by 25 years. So yes one nut with a gun can make global changes.

But your idea is fucking stupid, you can't just ask someone if they're going to be violent and then give them a gun when they say no.

I'll ask you again- why can't I have a nuclear warhead to defend my family? What if someone tries to break in, I have a right to defend myself

[Lovelife090994]

A gun caused the first world war-a single gun. A single rifle killed Kennedy and prolonged the cold war by 25 years. So yes one nut with a gun can make global changes.

But your idea is fucking stupid, you can't just ask someone if they're going to be violent and then give them a gun when they say no.

I'll ask you again- why can't I have a nuclear warhead to defend my family? What if someone tries to break in, I have a right to defend myself

The bad thing about the nuke is that if you use it then it'll kill you, your family, the intruder, the neighborhood, and half the city! Now you are insulting me? Wow, very mature. Guns have caused a lot but so have swords, knives, water, people. You must have a line somewhere. Guns are a tool some use to protect or destroy. Why is it so bad to own a gun? Because it was used in war?

[Harry Smith]

The bad thing about the nuke is that if you use it then it'll kill you, your family, the intruder, the neighborhood, and half the city! Now you are insulting me? Wow, very mature. Guns have caused a lot but so have swords, knives, water, people. You must have a line somewhere. Guns are a tool some use to protect or destroy. Why is it so bad to own a gun? Because it was used in war?

I didn't insult you, I insulted your ideas. There's a very big difference.

Guns are a tool some use to protect or destroy

So is my nuke. Why are you denying me my right to self defense

It's bad to own a gun because in this world you can't trust humans with such a dangerous tool that is solely used to kill. America clearly has a problem, can you accept that?

In Britain we had one school shooting-after that we banned pistols. Since then we banned pistols-we haven't had a massacre since. Do you agree that's worked? Yes or No?

[Lovelife090994]

I didn't insult you, I insulted your ideas. There's a very big difference.



So is my nuke. Why are you denying me my right to self defense

It's bad to own a gun because in this world you can't trust humans with such a dangerous tool that is solely used to kill. America clearly has a problem, can you accept that?

In Britain we had one school shooting-after that we banned pistols. Since then we banned pistols-we haven't had a massacre since. Do you agree that's worked? Yes or No?

You ignored my key point. One nuke can kill millions! Guns are dangerous but who are you to take all guns away? In America we have a right to guns if desired. You need a liscence to have one. Nothing is wrong with guns. The problem is in those who abuse guns and use them for violence. The school shooting was by a person who was murderous. He could use any weapon but used a gun. If a county bans guns, fine, but if it isn't guns it's knives. Some states have strict gun laws yet have more gun problems than those without. Chicago is rife with gun violence despite their laws. Not everything American is stupid not everything British superior.

[Harry Smith]

You ignored my key point. One nuke can kill millions! Guns are dangerous but who are you to take all guns away? In America we have a right to guns if desired. You need a liscence to have one. Nothing is wrong with guns. The problem is in those who abuse guns and use them for violence. The school shooting was by a person who was murderous. He could use any weapon but used a gun. If a county bans guns, fine, but if it isn't guns it's knives. Some states have strict gun laws yet have more gun problems than those without. Chicago is rife with gun violence despite their laws. Not everything American is stupid not everything British superior.

Okay-you have a piece of paper from 200 years ago. As a reader of the Bible I'm sure you know what happens if you stick to one document with a very narrow mind. America's one of the only countries in the world that governs itself with such an out of date law book. I could go on a rant about the Constitution but I'll save that for another day .

Yep I admit that-I'd much rather someone bring a knife into a school. Your a smart guy-you know that a knife is no-way as effective as a gun, in the same way that a gun isn't as effective as a nuke.

If you hadn't realized yet-the nuke point was actually a reductio ad absurdum designed to show the weaknesses in your whole argument.

In regards to gun crime I'd say Britain is much superior to the US.

Per 100,000 of the population you've got 2.97 gun homicides
Per 100,000 of the population we've got 0.007 gun homicides

California has had three school shootings in the last 4 years
Britain has had none.

I know I'm just the mean tyrannical British guy but look at the Data, you've got a problem with your guns

[Lovelife090994]

Okay-you have a piece of paper from 200 years ago. As a reader of the Bible I'm sure you know what happens if you stick to one document with a very narrow mind. America's one of the only countries in the world that governs itself with such an out of date law book. I could go on a rant about the Constitution but I'll save that for another day .

Yep I admit that-I'd much rather someone bring a knife into a school. Your a smart guy-you know that a knife is no-way as effective as a gun, in the same way that a gun isn't as effective as a nuke.

If you hadn't realized yet-the nuke point was actually a reductio ad absurdum designed to show the weaknesses in your whole argument.

In regards to gun crime I'd say Britain is much superior to the US.

Per 100,000 of the population you've got 2.97 gun homicides
Per 100,000 of the population we've got 0.007 gun homicides

California has had three school shootings in the last 4 years
Britain has had none.

I know I'm just the mean tyrannical British guy but look at the Data, you've got a problem with your guns

Our guns themselves are lifeless. The people ae the problem. The US has far more people of more diversity than the UK and the UK is not superior nor is the US to the UK. Ad absurdum? What's absurd is your attitude. Me being a Biblical Christian ties to this how? The Constituion includes the The Bill of Rights and things in the Constitution spell out the laws and leave some left to the states. It is more than paper. A knife can cause damage, true not as much. I have a narrow mind? Look at your attitude and how you think your view is superior to mine when neither of us are.

[Harry Smith]

Our guns themselves are lifeless. The people ae the problem. The US has far more people of more diversity than the UK and the UK is not superior nor is the US to the UK. Ad absurdum? What's absurd is your attitude. Me being a Biblical Christian ties to this how? The Constituion includes the The Bill of Rights and things in the Constitution spell out the laws and leave some left to the states. It is more than paper. A knife can cause damage, true not as much. I have a narrow mind? Look at your attitude and how you think your view is superior to mine when neither of us are.

Because if Biblical Christians followed the Bible as closely as 90% of America followed the constitution then we'd have a very interesting sunday at church.

Our guns themselves are lifeless. The people ae the problem.

My nuke is lifeless, why can't I have it?

[Lovelife090994]

Because if Biblical Christians followed the Bible as closely as 90% of America followed the constitution then we'd have a very interesting sunday at church.

That is very biases as every Christian even Biblical Christians interpret and act differently. Some things done by Christians are efficacious, some are not. 90%? Not even that much of the Philippines is Christian. Sunday church is different everywhere you go.


My nuke is lifeless, why can't I have it?

Because once a nuke is released it can't be stopped and because it is a weapon of MASS destruction. You'll kill the whole neighborhood.

[Zenos]

Our guns themselves are lifeless. The people ae the problem. The US has far more people of more diversity than the UK and the UK is not superior nor is the US to the UK. Ad absurdum? What's absurd is your attitude. Me being a Biblical Christian ties to this how? The Constituion includes the The Bill of Rights and things in the Constitution spell out the laws and leave some left to the states. It is more than paper. A knife can cause damage, true not as much. I have a narrow mind? Look at your attitude and how you think your view is superior to mine when neither of us are.


it's no used arguing he thinks because he takes a course in our legal system in a UK university that he suddenly understands our rights and our system 100%

[Lovelife090994]

it's no used arguing he thinks because he takes a course in our legal system in a UK university that he suddenly understands our rights and our system 100%

Maybe, but that is no right to say all gun owners are murderers.

[Harry Smith]

Because once a nuke is released it can't be stopped and because it is a weapon of MASS destruction. You'll kill the whole neighborhood.

I could do that with an Ar-15 and a box mag. You've got about 50-100 rounds of 5.56-that cuts threw houses like an axe through cheese


it's no used arguing he thinks because he takes a course in our legal system in a UK university that he suddenly understands our rights and our system 100%

I'm calling the Racism card there. The UK has some of the best universities in the world, so yeah I'd argue that if someone got a law degree from oxford they have every right to understand a legal system. In the same way I'll happily debate with you about the situation in the UK. We live in a global world, if you want right wing wank go and visit stormfront.com. And please if your going to counter my argument get your facts right-I don't go to uni.

It doesn't matter what country someone is born in-everyone is created equal you know, there's no need to be zenophobic is there?

Maybe, but that is no right to say all gun owners are murderers.

Please provide a quote where I said this-I beg you. Provide evidence for once in your argument rather than useless rhetoric

[Lovelife090994]

I could do that with an Ar-15 and a box mag. You've got about 50-100 rounds of 5.56-that cuts threw houses like an axe through cheese




I'm calling the Racism card there. The UK has some of the best universities in the world, so yeah I'd argue that if someone got a law degree from oxford they have every right to understand a legal system. In the same way I'll happily debate with you about the situation in the UK. We live in a global world, if you want right wing wank go and visit stormfront.com

It doesn't matter what country someone is born in-everyone is created equal you know, there's no need to be zenophobic is there?



Please provide a quote where I said this-I beg you. Provide evidence for once in your argument rather than useless rhetoric

If the UK is so perfect why does the US have more people coming to it every year for a better life an college education? Xenophobia? I call attitude on your part. And before your fingers fall off and your ears pop off smoke please stop, Harry. You are smarter than this I hope. Useless rhetoric? Most do not even own machine guns. Again I said we should have some laws but not a flat out ban. That would be unconstitutional

[Harry Smith]

If the UK is so perfect why does the US have more people coming to it every year for a better life an college education? Xenophobia? I call attitude on your part. And before your fingers fall off and your ears pop off smoke please stop, Harry. You are smarter than this I hope. Useless rhetoric? Most do not even own machine guns. Again I said we should have some laws but not a flat out ban. That would be unconstitutional

1)Have I ever said the UK is perfect? Please quote me saying that.
2)You call my attitude? No matter what political views I hold the country that I was born in should have no relevance. I've never said your view was worthless solely because your American have I. I don't appreciate people dismissing my views just because I'm from another country. That's not acceptable.
3)There needs to be federal action, the first step is reintroducing the assault weapon ban that ended in 2004. Something needs to be done, I'm sure we can agree on that.

( no ones being zenophobic just saying you don't fully understand our system our you'd stop agitating for the American citizen to not have guns.

Also seeing as you are not an American citizen why are you so concerned about our gun ownership rights? why are you so keen un us just turning in our guns.

Can you please give me one example where I've displayed information which backs up the claim 'I've not understood your system'. I've provided facts and date about the gun situation in america.

Several reasons- 1)This is a debating forum, a topic about guns in america arose. I debated said topic
2)It's very much a global issue and it's one that greatly interests me as the US is so different to other western countries.
3)Because school children are dying every year from gun attacks and the Republican party do fuck all

[Zenos]

I could do that with an Ar-15 and a box mag. You've got about 50-100 rounds of 5.56-that cuts threw houses like an axe through cheese




I'm calling the Racism card there. The UK has some of the best universities in the world, so yeah I'd argue that if someone got a law degree from oxford they have every right to understand a legal system. In the same way I'll happily debate with you about the situation in the UK. We live in a global world, if you want right wing wank go and visit stormfront.com


( Lol the racism card omg lol chuckle snort!! look you want a global world go live in it bro but im a citizen of one nation and one nation only the USA!

And just because someone has a law degree from oxford does not mean they fully understand OUR legal system,if you did then you would understand why we have gun rights here and stop trying to convince us that we don't need guns )

It doesn't matter what country someone is born in-everyone is created equal you know, there's no need to be zenophobic is there?


( no ones being zenophobic just saying you don't fully understand our system our you'd stop agitating for the American citizen to not have guns.

Also seeing as you are not an American citizen why are you so concerned about our gun ownership rights? why are you so keen un us just turning in our guns.

[Lovelife090994]

1)Have I ever said the UK is perfect? Please quote me saying that.
2)You call my attitude? No matter what political views I hold the country that I was born in should have no relevance. I've never said your view was worthless solely because your American have I. I don't appreciate people dismissing my views just because I'm from another country. That's not acceptable.
3)There needs to be federal action, the first step is reintroducing the assault weapon ban that ended in 2004. Something needs to be done, I'm sure we can agree on that

The UK has some of the best universities in the world, so yeah I'd argue that if someone got a law degree from oxford they have every right to understand a legal system. In the same way I'll happily debate with you about the situation in the UK. We live in a global world, if you want right wing wank go and visit stormfront.com. And please if your going to counter my argument get your facts right-I don't go to uni.

This is opinion. And a degree in US law does not equal full or better US law comprehension. You never really get a country's laws unless you live in the country.

[Mastretta]

I can't,I can't.... Places like south korea,canada, and Australia, barely have citizens with guns who aren't in law enforcement or the military. Your point that cars kill too and it's not the car fault is ludicrous, cars are meant for transportation, guns are used to kill.

[Harry Smith]

This is opinion. And a degree in US law does not equal full or better US law comprehension. You never really get a country's laws unless you live in the country.

Exactly, we shouldn't just bash each other depending on what piece of rock we were born on.

I'd heavily argue against the second point- I could quite easily read if I wanted the entire constitution along withe every single gun law passed thanks to the internet.

[Lovelife090994]

Exactly, we shouldn't just bash each other depending on what piece of rock we were born on.

I'd heavily argue against the second point- I could quite easily read if I wanted the entire constitution along withe every single gun law passed thanks to the internet.

Yes but even knowing the law isn't to say you know the full story behind it.

[Mastretta]

People do stupid stuff when they're young. Denying that is denying human nature. And I didn't say stop making new ones all together. Just about stuff doesn't need a law, like gun control. I don't see what's so bad about that.

When you do something illegal like robbing a store you had time to think while you made the plan,you got your buddy,you drove to the place,went inside, you had 4x to think about what you're doing. Why should I have remorse for you?

[Zenos]

This is opinion. And a degree in US law does not equal full or better US law comprehension. You never really get a country's laws unless you live in the country.

Big thumbs up there!

[Mastretta]

Oh thanks =)

Its too many people wanting to shred our rights these days.

And not all of them are form here in the USA,you'd be surprised how many teens are listening to self important people from other nations who studied a bit about America and it's legal system and our rights and suddenly they have the right to tell us we need to prohibit this are that,and todays American teen( not all of them though) falls for that line hook and sinker,all because someone from someother nation claims we no longer have a need for firearms ownership here in America.

And I have had that confab with people for other parts of the globe before,never mind that we have tjose rights in part to over throw a out of control government that argue that down as well.

I'm sure you're white, you're a teen, you're white, you're white, from Europe not the US not even native Americans are from the US but thought of from Parts of Asia. You're white from Europe you ain't American you're a naturalized citizen to be honest. But was lucky to be born in the US, rights are things that everyone should have regardless of race,gender, and sexuality, guns are not a right.

[Harry Smith]

Yes but even knowing the law isn't to say you know the full story behind it.

It actually is.

The law is written in the fact that any judge/legal professor should be able to pick it up and read it. The law doesn't care what colour your skin is or where your from.

I'm still yet to be given an example of how I've failed to understand US law, I've debated but please quote me and show where I've been legally wrong.

[Zenos]

I'm sure you're white, you're a teen, you're white, you're white, from Europe not the US not even native Americans are from the US but thought of from Parts of Asia. You're white from Europe you ain't American you're a naturalized citizen to be honest. But was lucky to be born in the US, rights are things that everyone should have regardless of race,gender, and sexuality, guns are not a right.

LOl what a load of rot. If your family has been here for at least 100 years or more you can only claim to be one thing and one thing only...an America!

[Zenos]

It actually is.

The law is written in the fact that any judge/legal professor should be able to pick it up and read it. The law doesn't care what colour your skin is or where your from.

I'm still yet to be given an example of how I've failed to understand US law, I've debated but please quote me and show where I've been legally wrong.

heres an example of why you fail to understand OUR LAWS and legal system bruder!


The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



In June 1776, one month before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Virginia became the first colony to adopt a state constitution. In this document, the state of Virginia pronounced that "a well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State." After the colonies declared their independence from England, other states began to include the right to bear arms in their constitution. Pennsylvania, for example, declared that


the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The wording of clauses about bearing arms in late-eighteenth-century state constitutions varied. Some states asserted that bearing arms was a "right" of the people, whereas others called it a "duty" of every able-bodied man in the defense of society.


See many of us still see it as a right while others se it as a duty.

I see it as both

[Lovelife090994]

It actually is.

The law is written in the fact that any judge/legal professor should be able to pick it up and read it. The law doesn't care what colour your skin is or where your from.

I'm still yet to be given an example of how I've failed to understand US law, I've debated but please quote me and show where I've been legally wrong.

Well, for starters is you think one course equals understanding then you lack understanding.

[Lovelife090994]

heres an example of why you fail to understand OUR LAWS and legal system bruder!


The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



In June 1776, one month before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Virginia became the first colony to adopt a state constitution. In this document, the state of Virginia pronounced that "a well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State." After the colonies declared their independence from England, other states began to include the right to bear arms in their constitution. Pennsylvania, for example, declared that


the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The wording of clauses about bearing arms in late-eighteenth-century state constitutions varied. Some states asserted that bearing arms was a "right" of the people, whereas others called it a "duty" of every able-bodied man in the defense of society.


See many of us still see it as a right while others se it as a duty.

I see it as both

And you can't argue the history of the law or the law unless you wish to break it. Thanks for this post.

[Mastretta]

LOl what a load of rot. If your family has been here for at least 100 years or more you can only claim to be one thing and one thing only...an America!

:yeah: No, no, no, you're white and from the northern eastern hemisphere. OK you're white shut up you have everything handed to you and know ya'll claiming a country you evaded, it doesn't work like that. "I shall claim this land because I'm a African American, who family was once slaves." See how stupid that sounds? Were all visitors and we should help natives repopulate.

[Zenos]

And you can't argue the history of the law or the law unless you wish to break it. Thanks for this post.

You are most welcome=)

[Lovelife090994]

:yeah: No, no, no, you're white and from the northern eastern hemisphere. OK you're white shut up you have everything handed to you and know ya'll claiming a country you evaded, it doesn't work like that. "I shall claim this land because I'm a African American, who family was once slaves." See how stupid that sounds? Were all visitors and we should help natives repopulate.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I am African American and know of the history wrongs done of the white race but quit playing the race card! He's white? So what? Is he responsible for it all? No. If we were all to go back to the land of our true origins we'd all be in Europe and Africa.

[Zenos]

:yeah: No, no, no, you're white and from the northern eastern hemisphere. OK you're white shut up you have everything handed to you and know ya'll claiming a country you evaded, it doesn't work like that. "I shall claim this land because I'm a African American, who family was once slaves." See how stupid that sounds? Were all visitors and we should help natives repopulate.

By your own admission the natives are not even from here so,therefore they are American by Self definition same as you and same as me,and i'm Celtic American!

So please don't..no im gona do it,i'm going to give you info on the first LEGAL slave owner in what was to become the USA:

Anthony Johnson

Anthony Johnson (c1600 — 1670) was an Angolan who achieved freedom and became a property owner and slaveholder in the Colony of Virginia in the early 17th century. Held as an indentured servant in 1621, he earned his freedom after several years, which was accompanied by a grant of land. He later became a successful tobacco farmer. Notably, he is recognized for attaining great wealth after having been an indentured servant and for being one of the first legally recognized black slaveowners in the English colonies.


Early life

Johnson was captured in his native Angola by an enemy tribe and sold to Arab slave traders. He was eventually sold as a indentured servant to a merchant working for the Virginia Company.

The Virginia Muster (census) of 1624 lists his name as "Antonio not given," with "a Negro" written in the notes column, and records that he had arrived in Virginia in 1621 aboard the James. There is some dispute among historians as to whether this was the Antonio who became Anthony Johnson, as the census lists several "Antonios," with this one being considered the most likely. Johnson was sold to a white planter named Bennet as an indentured servant to work on his Virginia tobacco farm. Servants typically worked four to seven years to pay off their passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. In the early colonial years, most Africans in the Thirteen Colonies were held under contracts of indentured servitude. With the exception of those indentured for life, they were released after a contracted period with many of the indentured receiving land and equipment after their contracts expired or were bought out. Johnson took ownership of a large plot of farmland after he paid off his indentured contract.

Johnson almost lost his life in the Indian massacre of 1622 when his master's plantation was attacked. The Powhatan, who were the Native Americans dominant in the Tidewater of Virginia, were upset at the encroachment of the colonists into their land. They attacked the settlement on Good Friday and killed 52 of the 57 men where Johnson worked.

The following year (1623) "Mary, a Negro" arrived from England aboard the ship Margaret and was brought to work on the plantation, where she was the only woman. Johnson and Mary married and lived together for over forty years.
When Johnson was released from servitude, he was legally recognized as a "free Negro" and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he owned 250 acres, and the services of four white and one black indentured servant. In 1653, John Casor, a black indentured servant Johnson had apparently bought in the early 1640s, approached Captain Goldsmith, claiming his indenture had expired seven years earlier and that he was being held illegally. A neighbor, Robert Parker, intervened, and Johnson was persuaded to set Casor free.

Parker offered Casor work, and he signed a term of indenture to the planter. Johnson sued Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654 for the return of Casor. The court initially found in favor of Parker, but Johnson appealed. In 1655, the court reversed its ruling. Finding that Anthony Johnson still "owned" John Casor, the court ordered that he be returned with the court dues paid by Robert Parker. This was the first instance of a judicial determination in the thirteen colonies holding that a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life.

Though Casor was the first person declared a slave in a civil case, there were both black and white indentured servants sentenced to lifetime servitude before him. Many historians describe indentured servant John Punch as the first documented slave when he was sentenced to life in servitude as punishment for escaping in 1640. The Punch case was significant because it established the disparity between his sentence as a negro and that of the two European servants who escaped with him (one described as Dutch and one as a Scotchman). It is the first documented case of an African sentenced to lifetime servitude in Virginia and is considered one of the first legal cases to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants

[Mastretta]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I am African American and know of the history wrongs done of the white race but quit playing the race card! He's white? So what? Is he responsible for it all? No. If we were all to go back to the land of our true origins we'd all be in Europe and Africa.
I never played a race card for one, second I never said he was responsible, third you forgot Asia. I said I'm not gonna let him say that People aren't even from here shouldn't say we shouldn't have guns for the public, when he isn't really even American he's white (I'm sure of it). So please don't come for me when you didn't even read it:yeah:.

Not trying to be rude:rolleyes:

[Harry Smith]

heres an example of why you fail to understand OUR LAWS and legal system bruder!


The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



In June 1776, one month before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Virginia became the first colony to adopt a state constitution. In this document, the state of Virginia pronounced that "a well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State." After the colonies declared their independence from England, other states began to include the right to bear arms in their constitution. Pennsylvania, for example, declared that


the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The wording of clauses about bearing arms in late-eighteenth-century state constitutions varied. Some states asserted that bearing arms was a "right" of the people, whereas others called it a "duty" of every able-bodied man in the defense of society.


See many of us still see it as a right while others se it as a duty.

I see it as both

I had heard of the second amendment before you introduced it...

Funnily enough it states the US shouldn't have a standing army during peace-the US has had a standing army for the last 100 years. So by according to the second amendment the United States government has broken the Constitution. Looks like someone's getting impeached.

I see the above as saying the US needs a militia-something I'd argue that this ended with the Militia act of 1903.

I also hate to tell you but your coming across a bit racist in this thread

. If your family has been here for at least 100 years or more you can only claim to be one thing and one thing only...an America!

You also made a clear mistake-at least read the stuff you copy and paste.

What you said- So please don't..no im gona do it,i'm going to give you info on the first LEGAL slave owner in what was to become the USA:

What Wikipedia said or being one of the first legally recognized black slaveowners in the English colonies.


Well, for starters is you think one course equals understanding then you lack understanding.

I haven't taken one course in Americanism. I've managed to build up a knowledge of American politics through a very wide range of sources. You both seem to be attacking me for not being American-as much as I'd love to I can't change what country I was born in so please forget the fact that I'm British for 10 seconds

[Mastretta]

By your own admission the natives are not even from here so,therefore they are American by Self definition same as you and same as me,and i'm Celtic American!

So please don't..no im gona do it,i'm going to give you info on the first LEGAL slave owner in what was to become the USA:

Anthony Johnson

Anthony Johnson (c1600 — 1670) was an Angolan who achieved freedom and became a property owner and slaveholder in the Colony of Virginia in the early 17th century. Held as an indentured servant in 1621, he earned his freedom after several years, which was accompanied by a grant of land. He later became a successful tobacco farmer. Notably, he is recognized for attaining great wealth after having been an indentured servant and for being one of the first legally recognized black slaveowners in the English colonies.


Early life

Johnson was captured in his native Angola by an enemy tribe and sold to Arab slave traders. He was eventually sold as a indentured servant to a merchant working for the Virginia Company.

The Virginia Muster (census) of 1624 lists his name as "Antonio not given," with "a Negro" written in the notes column, and records that he had arrived in Virginia in 1621 aboard the James. There is some dispute among historians as to whether this was the Antonio who became Anthony Johnson, as the census lists several "Antonios," with this one being considered the most likely. Johnson was sold to a white planter named Bennet as an indentured servant to work on his Virginia tobacco farm. Servants typically worked four to seven years to pay off their passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. In the early colonial years, most Africans in the Thirteen Colonies were held under contracts of indentured servitude. With the exception of those indentured for life, they were released after a contracted period with many of the indentured receiving land and equipment after their contracts expired or were bought out. Johnson took ownership of a large plot of farmland after he paid off his indentured contract.

Johnson almost lost his life in the Indian massacre of 1622 when his master's plantation was attacked. The Powhatan, who were the Native Americans dominant in the Tidewater of Virginia, were upset at the encroachment of the colonists into their land. They attacked the settlement on Good Friday and killed 52 of the 57 men where Johnson worked.

The following year (1623) "Mary, a Negro" arrived from England aboard the ship Margaret and was brought to work on the plantation, where she was the only woman. Johnson and Mary married and lived together for over forty years.
When Johnson was released from servitude, he was legally recognized as a "free Negro" and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he owned 250 acres, and the services of four white and one black indentured servant. In 1653, John Casor, a black indentured servant Johnson had apparently bought in the early 1640s, approached Captain Goldsmith, claiming his indenture had expired seven years earlier and that he was being held illegally. A neighbor, Robert Parker, intervened, and Johnson was persuaded to set Casor free.

Parker offered Casor work, and he signed a term of indenture to the planter. Johnson sued Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654 for the return of Casor. The court initially found in favor of Parker, but Johnson appealed. In 1655, the court reversed its ruling. Finding that Anthony Johnson still "owned" John Casor, the court ordered that he be returned with the court dues paid by Robert Parker. This was the first instance of a judicial determination in the thirteen colonies holding that a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life.

Though Casor was the first person declared a slave in a civil case, there were both black and white indentured servants sentenced to lifetime servitude before him. Many historians describe indentured servant John Punch as the first documented slave when he was sentenced to life in servitude as punishment for escaping in 1640. The Punch case was significant because it established the disparity between his sentence as a negro and that of the two European servants who escaped with him (one described as Dutch and one as a Scotchman). It is the first documented case of an African sentenced to lifetime servitude in Virginia and is considered one of the first legal cases to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants

Don't copy from Wikipedia and think I'll take you serious. It doesn't even support your argument. Who claimed the land first though? Yeah Native Americans, not whites,blacks or Asians. Native Americans owned land then you know how a certain race loves to invade places or take ideas then say it was theirs and then say something like what you would say to back up their false arguments.

[Lovelife090994]

I had heard of the second amendment before you introduced it...

Funnily enough it states the US shouldn't have a standing army during peace-the US has had a standing army for the last 100 years. So by according to the second amendment the United States government has broken the Constitution. Looks like someone's getting impeached.

I see the above as saying the US needs a militia-something I'd argue that this ended with the Militia act of 1903.

I also hate to tell you but your coming across a bit racist in this thread





I haven't taken one course in Americanism. I've managed to build up a knowledge of American politics through a very wide range of sources. You both seem to be attacking me for not being American-as much as I'd love to I can't change what country I was born in so please forget the fact that I'm British for 10 seconds

No,no,no,no, do not play victim with me. You are being met with points but don't to admit. Racist? Wow, you really fail to see where we are coming from. Americanism? I'd bet your sources are biases. I care not that you are British, I care that you seem to equate being British with being superior. I can't change that I'm a Black American Ohioan Male either.

[Harry Smith]

No,no,no,no, do not play victim with me. You are being met with points but don't to admit. Racist? Wow, you really fail to see where we are coming from. Americanism? I'd bet your sources are biases. I care not that you are British, I care that you seem to equate being British with being superior. I can't change that I'm a Black American Ohioan Male either.

The lines said by Zenos quite clearly advocate removing the culutral and racial history of immigrants along with some how blaming blacks for slavery, considering the fact he's also a Holocaust denier I'd be very careful in believing everything he says.

When have I ever said that Britain is superior? Britain has good and bad points, so does America. That's what I've said all along.

[Zenos]

I had heard of the second amendment before you introduced it...

Funnily enough it states the US shouldn't have a standing army during peace-the US has had a standing army for the last 100 years. So by according to the second amendment the United States government has broken the Constitution. Looks like someone's getting impeached.

I see the above as saying the US needs a militia-something I'd argue that this ended with the Militia act of 1903.

I also hate to tell you but your coming across a bit racist in this thread


(lol your just getting pissed off because people are calling you on this.

Actually yeh according to the Constitution we are not supposed to have apermanet army but then since the civil war lots of things are happening that are not right according to the Constitution)



I haven't taken one course in Americanism. I've managed to build up a knowledge of American politics through a very wide range of sources. You both seem to be attacking me for not being American-as much as I'd love to I can't change what country I was born in so please forget the fact that I'm British for 10 seconds.



( whats erking us dude it you have a degree in our legal system and are british and assume you know such and such,when your knowledge is theoretical,and you clearly show you do not fully understand why we have the right to own guns a sAmericans and you don't seem to understand this part of the 2nd amendment or seek to ignore it:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

. as to the Militia thing..well bro any American today can start a private militia..people still do it)

[Lovelife090994]

The lines said by Zenos quite clearly advocate removing the culutral and racial history of immigrants along with some how blaming blacks for slavery, considering the fact he's also a Holocaust denier I'd be very careful in believing everything he says.

When have I ever said that Britain is superior? Britain has good and bad points, so does America. That's what I've said all along.

The slavery points were made by another poster actually. And really? Wow, you are lacking in knowledge. Holocaust denier? Where did he? Do you two know each other personally or no? Is that a threat? Careful of what your talking? Who said I'm believing "everything he says"? You, but you are not me.

[Zenos]

The lines said by Zenos quite clearly advocate removing the culutral and racial history of immigrants along with some how blaming blacks for slavery, considering the fact he's also a Holocaust denier I'd be very careful in believing everything he says.

When have I ever said that Britain is superior? Britain has good and bad points, so does America. That's what I've said all along.

LOl I never denied the holocaust,thats a lie you are spouting

[Zenos]

Don't copy from Wikipedia and think I'll take you serious. It doesn't even support your argument. Who claimed the land first though? Yeah Native Americans, not whites,blacks or Asians. Native Americans owned land then you know how a certain race loves to invade places or take ideas then say it was theirs and then say something like what you would say to back up their false arguments.

Lol I have family that are native American they didn't claim the land they view land as something that can't truly be owned by anyone person.

[Harry Smith]

The slavery points were made by another poster actually. And really? Wow, you are lacking in knowledge. Holocaust denier? Where did he? Do you two know each other personally or no? Is that a threat? Careful of what your talking? Who said I'm believing "everything he says"? You, but you are not me.

They weren't, he made some strawman about how the first slave owner was a Black person and how that someone means that white people weren't at fault.

What threat? I asked you to provide a quote where I've said the whole of Britain is superior to the US, do you have that?

LOl I never denied the holocaust,thats a lie you are spouting

I believe you posted a link saying about how the 'Jewish' media have used the number 6 million a lot in the past 100 years and how the number of Jewish fatalities have been exaggerated. I'll happily link you back to the post if you want

[Mastretta]

Lol I have family that are native American they didn't claim the land they view land as something that can't truly be owned by anyone person.

Forgot to add a certain race raped native American women. OMG I CAN'T WITH YOU, YOU JUST SAID AMERICA IS YOUR LAND BECAUSE YOUR FAMILY HAS BEEN HERE FOR 100 YEARS!!!

[Zenos]

They weren't, he made some strawman about how the first slave owner was a Black person and how that someone means that white people weren't at fault.

What threat? I asked you to provide a quote where I've said the whole of Britain is superior to the US, do you have that?

( nice putting words in my mouth,i said the first legal slave owner in what was to be the USA was in fat a black man,i NEVER said whites where not at fault,as a matter of fack whites arabs and blacks where at fault for the slave trade..please don't put words in my mouth that I never said because your being a bigot)

I believe you posted a link saying about how the 'Jewish' media have used the number 6 million a lot in the past 100 years and how the number of Jewish fatalities have been exaggerated. I'll happily link you back to the post if you want


That does not mean I don't think it happened,just that I feel the numbers in the rush to punish people back then are not accurate. Two different things ,how about getting to know what I think or believe before you run to put words in my mouth ?

[Lovelife090994]

Forgot to add a certain race raped native American women. OMG I CAN'T WITH YOU, YOU JUST SAID AMERICA IS YOUR LAND BECAUSE YOUR FAMILY HAS BEEN HERE FOR 100 YEARS!!!

You misread. The idea of land cannot truly be owned is a popular Native American idea that the land is of the Earth.

Lol I have family that are native American they didn't claim the land they view land as something that can't truly be owned by anyone person.

Yes I know, many Native Americans do not see land as something to claim.

[Zenos]

Forgot to add a certain race raped native American women. OMG I CAN'T WITH YOU, YOU JUST SAID AMERICA IS YOUR LAND BECAUSE YOUR FAMILY HAS BEEN HERE FOR 100 YEARS!!!

No I did not so stop being a racist.

OMG a certain race hiuh?

Like Africans where no raping women of defeated tribes?

U for get the fact Africans where also selling members of defeated tribes to the arabs and then eventually to whites as well. So if your wanting to pont the finger how about spreading the guilt to Africa and the middle east as well stop letting hate aim bs at whites only plus you forget no probably over look the fact that whites did help blacks escape north before and during the civil war because not all whites believed in slavery.

And I can asure you there was never a slave owner in my family

[Harry Smith]

That does not mean I don't think it happened,just that I feel the numbers in the rush to punish people back then are not accurate. Two different things ,how about getting to know what I think or believe before you run to put words in my mouth ?

Ah right-there's two different strands of holocaust denial then. I'd just appreciate it if you used sources that weren't from anti-Semitic right wing websites. Just like quoting long passages of Wikipedia won't help.

But back on to the topic-you keep talking about it being your constitutional right. But surely the Constitution was written to be adapted and changed, like the 25th Amendment. The bear arms clause was written 200 years ago back when slavery was still legal. The constitution was designed to be changed.

[Mastretta]

No I did not so stop being a racist.

OMG a certain race hiuh?

Like Africans where no raping women of defeated tribes?

U for get the fact Africans where also selling members of defeated tribes to the arabs and then eventually to whites as well. So if your wanting to pont the finger how about spreading the guilt to Africa and the middle east as well stop letting hate aim bs at whites only plus you forget no probably over look the fact that whites did help blacks escape north before and during the civil war because not all whites believed in slavery.

And I can asure you there was never a slave owner in my family

We're arguing on Natives Americans not Africans.... You use the wrong tense of words and spell them wrong, without punctuation; you can't tell try to tell me nothing if you spell "You" as "U"

[Zenos]

Ah right-there's two different strands of holocaust denial then. I'd just appreciate it if you used sources that weren't from anti-Semitic right wing websites. Just like quoting long passages of Wikipedia won't help.


(Oh wow I used some videos off of youtube that I didn't know had to do with nutters and you are off to try when your getting nailed to the wall over America and it's laws to try to discredit me. hmm just who is the racist now?? YOU.


But back on to the topic-you keep talking about it being your constitutional right. But surely the Constitution was written to be adapted and changed, like the 25th Amendment. The bear arms clause was written 200 years ago back when slavery was still legal. The constitution was designed to be changed.

What part of " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." do you not understand or have problems with?

That means so long as these UNITE STATES exist that that right CANNOT be infringed upon! Menaing while other things can be changed that can not for among other reasons if our government became a tyranny we could have the means to rise up and replace it.

Do you not see where that is important.

I have a question for you.

If you ended up with a modern day Adolf Hitler taking over your government,seeing as the populace is unarmed,and the military was taking his orders what could you and your people do to get him out of power other then throwing leaflets at him?

[Mastretta]

You misread. The idea of land cannot truly be owned is a popular Native American idea that the land is of the Earth.



Yes I know, many Native Americans do not see land as something to claim.
Here you go again, let me show you why you shouldn't jump into stuff that you're not involved in. 1st I know that Natives believe the idea of that land is not a possession of a person but of the earth, 2nd I didn't misread anything, I know what I meant.

[Zenos]

We're arguing on Natives Americans not Africans.... You use the wrong tense of words and spell them wrong, without punctuation; you can't tell try to tell me nothing if you spell "You" as "U"

misspelling a word does not invalidate what is being said,to think so is ignorance plus you kept bring up blacks being enslaved.Your like some of my friends they try to bounce a subject around to something else when they get nailed then when they get nailed on the new subject try to bounce it back to something else. nice try though.

[Harry Smith]

What part of " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." do you not understand or have problems with?

That means so long as these UNITE STATES exist that that right CANNOT be infringed upon! Menaing while other things can be changed that can not for among other reasons if our government became a tyranny we could have the means to rise up and replace it.

Do you not see where that is important.

I have a question for you.

If you ended up with a modern day Adolf Hitler taking over your government,seeing as the populace is unarmed,and the military was taking his orders what could you and your people do to get him out of power other then throwing leaflets at him?

But the right can be changed by a constitutional amendment passed by congress. That's a legal fact.

A modern day Hitler would be very popular-if you knew anything about Hitler you'd know that he was loved in Germany during the 1930's, they saw him a true national hero.

Why didn't all these US gun owners rise up when the Bush family fixed the 2000 election? You keep saying how guns will help you stop a 'modern day Hitler' but it didn't stop George Bush stealing an election did it?

These gun owners didn't do anything when the tyrannical CIA shot their own president in 1963.

It's really cute you think that you can take on the US government

[Mastretta]

What part of " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." do you not understand or have problems with?

That means so long as these UNITE STATES exist that that right CANNOT be infringed upon! Menaing while other things can be changed that can not for among other reasons if our government became a tyranny we could have the means to rise up and replace it.

Do you not see where that is important.

I have a question for you.

If you ended up with a modern day Adolf Hitler taking over your government,seeing as the populace is unarmed,and the military was taking his orders what could you and your people do to get him out of power other then throwing leaflets at him?

Bear arms... Humans have bear arms?

[Harry Smith]

Bear arms... Humans have bear arms?

gHJWofb5M_k

[Lovelife090994]

Here you go again, let me show you why you shouldn't jump into stuff that you're not involved in. 1st I know that Natives believe the idea of that land is not a possession of a person but of the earth, 2nd I didn't misread anything, I know what I meant.

Um quit being rude. I was reinforcing the idea here. The question was do you agree with guns or not.

Bear arms... Humans have bear arms?

Right to "bear" arms (arms meaning amunition).

gHJWofb5M_k

Family guy is hardly reputable.

[Zenos]

But the right can be changed by a constitutional amendment passed by congress. That's a legal fact.

( Um sorry our supreme court ruled basd on the wisdom of the founding fathers as to that,and the fact that Shall not be Infringed means that that's one thing the US government regardless of branch does not have the authority given to it to do.Again while you have a degree in our legal system you do not fully understand it. when the founding fathers came up with that amendment they where saying that THAT RIGHT no branch of the government has legal right to do away with)

A modern day Hitler would be very popular-if you knew anything about Hitler you'd know that he was loved in Germany during the 1930's, they saw him a true national hero.


( yeh and that's a shame that a nutter would probably be popular)

Why didn't all these US gun owners rise up when the Bush family fixed the 2000 election? You keep saying how guns will help you stop a 'modern day Hitler' but it didn't stop George Bush stealing an election did it?


(Theres no proof he did such)

These gun owners didn't do anything when the tyrannical CIA shot their own president in 1963.


( Again theres no proof of that ,that's strawboss speculation on your part to prop up your argument)

It's really cute you think that you can take on the US government


Ha ha! you'd be surprised what can be done if people are determined enough to achieve it! Read some more on history,look at Ireland they fought til they got what they wanted.

[Harry Smith]

Ha ha! you'd be surprised what can be done if people are determined enough to achieve it! Read some more on history,look at Ireland they fought til they got what they wanted.

You ignored my point about George bush and Kennedy didn't you? If the whole 'guns for people' idea worked than why didn't people rise up when these governments did form without the popular support. You don't need AR-15's to take down a country

If you knew your history you'd know that not all of Ireland is independent,and that parts of the north fought for 30 years and in fact they didn't get what they wanted-Northern Ireland remained British

[Synyster Shadows]

I think we need to spend less time banning certain types of guns and more time addressing the issues directly. We already have laws that are meant to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and violent criminals, but they don't work. Like, at all. We should have more in-depth background checks and tighter restrictions on the borrowing, trading, and safekeeping of guns. Especially for people who live with or are known to associate with the mentally ill and criminals. Guns are so easy to get a hold of, it's ridiculous. Private gun shows where anyone can just pay cash for a gun should be banned outrtight.
Also, the idea that people who support tighter gun control laws are trying to take your guns away from you is ridiculous. If your a sane, good person, a 7 day waiting period and background check shouldn't phase you. And if your not, you shouldn't have access to guns.
And just so you know, I'm not "anti-gun". I plan on owning several. I also plan on submitting to background checks and buying a secure gunsafe, and not letting friends or family borrow them.

Well said. The USA's background checks need to be stricter. And about your second paragraph, I completely agree. A sane person shouldn't be bothered by a week of waiting, and if so, they shouldn't have access to guns.

[Zenos]

You ignored my point about George bush and Kennedy didn't you?

If you knew your history you'd know that not all of Ireland is independent,and that parts of the north fought for 30 years and in fact they didn't get what they wanted-Northern Ireland remained British

yeh I know part if Ireland isn't independent,and if you'd read the () within your post you'd se where I said theres no proof to anything you said just speculation.

Plus you are mocking what I had said,which is about the citizen having the right to over throw a government that has turned into a tyranny.
I'm going to make it real simple for you think of a nation that uses death squads to keep the citizenry in check,violates peoples rights to the point you discent and you and your family could end up gunned down or worse.

That kinda thing is why we still have the right to own guns and why it can not legally be infringed up on by any branch of our elected government!

[Camazotz]

Right to "bear" arms (arms meaning amunition)... Family guy is hardly reputable.

Pretty sure it was a joke, mate.

Ha ha! you'd be surprised what can be done if people are determined enough to achieve it! Read some more on history,look at Ireland they fought til they got what they wanted.

Umm... I think you're the one that needs to brush up on history. See Harry's post.

You ignored my point about George bush and Kennedy didn't you?

If you knew your history you'd know that not all of Ireland is independent,and that parts of the north fought for 30 years and in fact they didn't get what they wanted-Northern Ireland remained British

Plus you are mocking what I had said,which is about the citizen having the right to over throw a government that has turned into a tyranny.
I'm going to make it real simple for you think of a nation that uses death squads to keep the citizenry in check,violates peoples rights to the point you discent and you and your family could end up gunned down or worse.

That kinda thing is why we still have the right to own guns and why it can not legally be infringed up on by any branch of our elected government!

That's not why we have the right to own guns, we have that right today because people are too stubborn to realize that guns back then weren't weapons that could kill dozens of people at a time. Your explanation should be the reason why private citizens can own guns, but there's absolutely no threat of that. It's more of a symbolic "government ruled by the people, for the people" than an actual "give guns to every American." And like Harry said before, we have every right to Amend the Constitution/Bill of Rights; heck, it's in the Constitution! Arms in the 1780's do not compare to today's weapons, and therefore, an argument to limit the regulation of guns should not be ignored.

[Harry Smith]

yeh I know part if Ireland isn't independent,and if you'd read the () within your post you'd se where I said theres no proof to anything you said just speculation.

Plus you are mocking what I had said,which is about the citizen having the right to over throw a government that has turned into a tyranny.
I'm going to make it real simple for you think of a nation that uses death squads to keep the citizenry in check,violates peoples rights to the point you discent and you and your family could end up gunned down or worse.

That kinda thing is why we still have the right to own guns and why it can not legally be infringed up on by any branch of our elected government!

But surely what good would your ar-15 be against a drone? Or a tank?

The big bad federal government already have death squads-they're called the CIA. Have you tried shooting at shadows? Your trying to scare people into having guns, why don't you just make nuclear bombs legal? That would really help protect people wouldn't it. I demand every US citizen has a nuclear device to protect his home

You don't seem to understand your own countries gun laws-you seem to think you have the legal right to any type of firearm-there are several limits placed on it you know? It's not as simple as everyone has the right to guns because it hasn't been like that since the 1930's

[Zenos]

Pretty sure it was a joke, mate.



Umm... I think you're the one that needs to brush up on history. See Harry's post.

No I mistyped what I was said because I was in the process of telling my nephew where he was messing up on his fouetté ( whip) Kick seeing as he recently started studying savate as the gym I train at,so it's kind a hard to trying and tell someone you need to do this or that to improve your fouetté.

[Camazotz]

No I mistyped what I was said because I was in the process of telling my nephew where he was messing up on his fouetté ( whip) Kick seeing as he recently started studying savate as the gym I train at,so it's kind a hard to trying and tell someone you need to do this or that to improve your fouetté.

Wait, what?

[Zenos]

But surely what good would your ar-15 be against a drone? Or a tank?

The big bad federal government already have death squads-they're called the CIA. Have you tried shooting at shadows? Your trying to scare people into having guns, why don't you just make nuclear bombs legal? That would really help protect people wouldn't it. I demand every US citizen has a nuclear device to protect his home

You don't seem to understand your own countries gun laws-you seem to think you have the legal right to any type of firearm-there are several limits placed on it you know? It's not as simple as everyone has the right to guns because it hasn't been like that since the 1930's

And you are speaking in ignorance thinking I think we have the right to run around with fully auto guns.


In the 1930s, in reaction to gun violence by organized crime groups during Prohibition, the National Firearms Act and the Federal Firearms Act were passed banning machine guns, imposing taxes on gun sales, and regulating certain kinds of sales and shipments of guns.

Again stop putting words in my mouth and actling like I know nothing about my nations gun laws.You have a degree in our legal system from OXFORD a British university not a American Collage of law oh say like American University Washington College of Law,so while you have a theoretical understanding of OUR system,that understanding is tainted with with views on gun ownership held by the citzens of your nation plus the views of the professors that taught you about our legal system.

Wait, what?

what can't read?
I just told you why I had mistyped what I had typed.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[JacobIN]

Yea, protection from stuff like, I don't know, people with guns?

Except that guns are about 20 times more dangerous than any of those.

A car has a purpose of transportation.
A car driving the right way can not hurt anybody.
A gun is meant to hurt, injure or kill.

No I don't, they just happen much more often in america.
They actually happen quite often, maybe your just used to it, but it's really not normal you know.

You need protection because everyone has an effing gun.
There would be much less need for proetection if people weren't all running around with loaded guns.

That's just plain far fetched.

Right, it should be completely legal for everyone to have loaded guns in their house with kids,
"for hunting".
Makes perfect sense.

Lol, are you honestly claiming that there is no self defense law in all of europe?
Can you confirm that?
Because, obiously, there is.
Just because we don't all have loaded guns, doesn't mean self defense isn't allowed.

It's just that people don't shoot on sight.

How is that enough reason for every family to own a loaded gun.
Your just causing a huge risk all across the country.
There's no point.
The least they could do is be stricter with rules for who gets to use them, licences, etc.

Understand this; Banning guns in america WILL DO NOTHING. The criminals will just get their guns from mexico. Like they are now. And how will you stop that? Have a complete car and body inspection every time you cross the border? Station guard towers every 200 ft to stop border jumpers? This sounds like a certain place called East Germany...Maybe you've heard of it? You know, from the history books.

Your version of "safety" comes with a damn powerful government that could do whatever it wanted...So you can have fun in your fairy-tell world were banning guns works, because in the real world, where it counts, it never will.


Why didn't the US people rise up and overthrow the government when Bush fixed the election in 2000?

Your also making up lies about England (which isn't even a country in the eyes of the law)

Throwing off oppression is not killing a president for alleged rigging, that has no decent prof, unless you can provide some. We would over throw a government that was actually oppressive. Like North Korea.

Okay-you have a piece of paper from 200 years ago. As a reader of the Bible I'm sure you know what happens if you stick to one document with a very narrow mind. America's one of the only countries in the world that governs itself with such an out of date law book. I could go on a rant about the Constitution but I'll save that for another day .

Yep I admit that-I'd much rather someone bring a knife into a school. Your a smart guy-you know that a knife is no-way as effective as a gun, in the same way that a gun isn't as effective as a nuke.

If you hadn't realized yet-the nuke point was actually a reductio ad absurdum designed to show the weaknesses in your whole argument.

In regards to gun crime I'd say Britain is much superior to the US.

Per 100,000 of the population you've got 2.97 gun homicides
Per 100,000 of the population we've got 0.007 gun homicides

California has had three school shootings in the last 4 years
Britain has had none.

I know I'm just the mean tyrannical British guy but look at the Data, you've got a problem with your guns

Fun fact, in all crimes combined, The UK has a higher percentage per capita of crimes than the USA has. Food for Thought

I could do that with an Ar-15 and a box mag. You've got about 50-100 rounds of 5.56-that cuts threw houses like an axe through cheese

Sorry for the triple post, I dont know how to edit post in my preexisting comment.

This shows your stupidity of weapons. First off, unless all those shots are chest/heart shot, then no, no really necessarily fatal. And a box mag generally describes a 30 round 5.56 NATO STANAG magazine. You are referring to a drum magazine. There is a huge difference. Also, a nuke can kill millions in a second. An AR15 can only shoot about 10000 bullets through the barrel before it fails. If you are going to dis something, make sure you know what your talking about first.

Merged triple post. Next time use the "multi-quote" function. -Cygnus David

[Miserabilia]

Many things are weapons but you can't ban everything. What are you going to do? Ban guns? It's be something else killing people next. If you give a bunch of people, people will die? I fail to see the meaning here. Just become you own a gun that does not make you a killer. It is one's right to own a gun. Look at hunters, they own guns and do not fire at humans.



Nuke's kill but by the person who released them. Guns kill but only when one aims and shoots. We disallow nukes because those who want them have made it clear they will use them. What is so bad about guns? Guns do not kill alone. And what, are all gun owners killers?

Many things are weapons but you can't ban everything.
So, you're just going to make the most dangerous weapon legal to anyone, easy to buy? Theoreticaly, you are going to let children be able to get up, get a gun, and shoot everyone they see.
Great idea, bud.

If you give a bunch of people, people will die? I fail to see the meaning here.

If you actually took the time to read, you would see we have been over this many times.
It's called "Statistics".

Just become you own a gun that does not make you a killer. It is one's right to own a gun.

Are you honestly still going to use this as argument?
Once again, take the time to read and you see this is not what I mean.

Like in every thread I see you in, your argument is (over and over again...) "Not all x are y!"

But nobody said they were.
NOt everyone that owns a gun is a killer.
But if you are going to give every damn family a gun, have a loaded gun in each house, and give guns out to everyone easily,
you can expect somebody to get hurt.

Look at hunters, they own guns and do not fire at humans.

hunters can own guns here, too.
You just need to get an official license, that you are a hunter.
Why wouldn't the USA do that, if huntings so important?

Why does everyone need aces to a gun?
All that "protection" is only required because it's so f*king dangerous for everyone to own a gun!
USA is the only country not seeing this! It's pure denial.

Nuke's kill but by the person who released them. Guns kill but only when one aims and shoots. We disallow nukes because those who want them have made it clear they will use them.

Your argument: Everyone should own guns, because I don't expect them to fire them anyway.
That's not a legitimate argument.
Your expectations don't matter, statisticly people are going to fire and kill.
Without the guns, less people die.

Guns do not kill alone. And what, are all gun owners killers?

I think I've been over this 7 times already.



Understand this; Banning guns in america WILL DO NOTHING. The criminals will just get their guns from mexico. Like they are now. And how will you stop that? Have a complete car and body inspection every time you cross the border? Station guard towers every 200 ft to stop border jumpers? This sounds like a certain place called East Germany...Maybe you've heard of it? You know, from the history books.

Your version of "safety" comes with a damn powerful government that could do whatever it wanted...So you can have fun in your fairy-tell world were banning guns works, because in the real world, where it counts, it never will.




Throwing off oppression is not killing a president for alleged rigging, that has no decent prof, unless you can provide some. We would over throw a government that was actually oppressive. Like North Korea.



Fun fact, in all crimes combined, The UK has a higher percentage per capita of crimes than the USA has. Food for Thought



Sorry for the triple post, I dont know how to edit post in my preexisting comment.

This shows your stupidity of weapons. First off, unless all those shots are chest/heart shot, then no, no really necessarily fatal. And a box mag generally describes a 30 round 5.56 NATO STANAG magazine. You are referring to a drum magazine. There is a huge difference. Also, a nuke can kill millions in a second. An AR15 can only shoot about 10000 bullets through the barrel before it fails. If you are going to dis something, make sure you know what your talking about first.

Merged triple post. Next time use the "multi-quote" function. -Cygnus David
The criminals will just get their guns from mexico. Like they are now. And how will you stop that? Have a complete car and body inspection every time you cross the border? Station guard towers every 200 ft to stop border jumpers?

Well, america could easily do that kind of protetion.
They are already doing overly suspecting inspections to anyone crossing the border, especially foreigners.
If they just use their phobia of anyone foreign being a terrorist to actualt stop people smuggling guns in, they could easily do that.

Also, if the only source for people to get guns is illegaly in mexico, there will still be much less guns.
The problem is not that criminals get weapons.
They get them here too, where guns are not legal.

The problem is that the USA is not only making it very easy for criminals to get guns, they are also practicly handing out guns to everyone that asks for it; everyone owns a loaded gun.
That's why so many shootings and gun accidents happen.


Your version of "safety" comes with a damn powerful government that could do whatever it wanted...So you can have fun in your fairy-tell world were banning guns works, because in the real world, where it counts, it never will.

I'm sorry, but of all the "damn powerful government"'s in the world right now, I'm pretty sure the united states are on the top.

This is not a compliment.
USA spends the most money they have on military, developing new weapons, and in short, ultimate controll, for the sake of "defense".

And why would they be so different from countries in europe?
They have made guns illegal, and things are great here!
Why would that not work in america!

We would over throw a government that was actually oppressive. Like North Korea.

Well, have fun about fantasizing about people standing up to the usa government, but I wouldn't call that a reason to have guns legal for everyone.
After all ,the goverment is the one that makes guns legal :yeah:

Fun fact, in all crimes combined, The UK has a higher percentage per capita of crimes than the USA has. Food for Thought

"crimes" don't matter.
If you know anything about the police in the UK and the police in the USA you'd see what really matters.

NOt only do almost all criminals in the USA carry a gun with them,
the police also shoot in sight whenever they feel like it.
The UK police don't even use guns, unless it's a special dangerous occasion!

[radsniper]

every person from middle school up should be taught to use a gun and your highschool graduation gift should be a gun (i think i should be a gun safety and handling teacher)

[Miserabilia]

every person from middle school up should be taught to use a gun and your highschool graduation gift should be a gun (i think i should be a gun safety and handling teacher)

what.
.
.
.
.
.
.


why?...

[Harry Smith]

Understand this; Banning guns in america WILL DO NOTHING. The criminals will just get their guns from mexico. Like they are now. And how will you stop that? Have a complete car and body inspection every time you cross the border? Station guard towers every 200 ft to stop border jumpers? This sounds like a certain place called East Germany...Maybe you've heard of it? You know, from the history books.

Your version of "safety" comes with a damn powerful government that could do whatever it wanted...So you can have fun in your fairy-tell world were banning guns works, because in the real world, where it counts, it never will.




Throwing off oppression is not killing a president for alleged rigging, that has no decent prof, unless you can provide some. We would over throw a government that was actually oppressive. Like North Korea.



Fun fact, in all crimes combined, The UK has a higher percentage per capita of crimes than the USA has. Food for Thought



Sorry for the triple post, I dont know how to edit post in my preexisting comment.

This shows your stupidity of weapons. First off, unless all those shots are chest/heart shot, then no, no really necessarily fatal. And a box mag generally describes a 30 round 5.56 NATO STANAG magazine. You are referring to a drum magazine. There is a huge difference. Also, a nuke can kill millions in a second. An AR15 can only shoot about 10000 bullets through the barrel before it fails. If you are going to dis something, make sure you know what your talking about first.

Merged triple post. Next time use the "multi-quote" function. -Cygnus David

Of course illegal guns are going to get throw-I'm just of the belief it's better to have a very small group of people owning firearms compared to the whole nation. I know your going to claim that the firearms can help defend people but the numbers say something else

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.

Alleged rigging?

The one state is question Florida, which was called by every single other news broadcaster as going to Gore. The guess which station called it for Bush-Fox which had his first cousin directing the floor that very night. You can probably also guess who the Governor of said state was-Jeb Bush. Followed by the that over 50 congressmen stood up to complain about African Americans being struck off voting lists I'd say something doesn't add. Then when they were going to have a recount George Bush senior's friends on the Supreme court struck it down. So yeah it was pretty damn rigged, I could go into detail about Kennedy etc but I don't see any evidence that a higher gun ownership rate equals people being able to take an oppressive government.

Saudi Arabia has 35 guns per 100 people. Have they taken down their corrupt unelected oppressive government? As I said before have you tried shooting at a shadow?

You make some pretty blank statement claiming the UK has a higher crime rate per capita without providing any facts or figures to back this up. I had a quick look and all I could find was that the US has a higher murder rate per capita than the UK and

The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.

If I was referring to a stantag mag I'd call it a STANAG mag, you call me out on my own knowledge of guns even though I wasn't even referring to a drum mag, I was referring to the easily made box mags used on similar guns like the Stoner or M249.

I'd also argue that a single 5.56 round doesn't have to hit your head to kill you, the shock from getting hit in the leg along with hitting an artery could quite easily kill you.

I'm still waiting for an answer from all you gun nuts.

How would you stop school massacres?

[JacobIN]

Of course illegal guns are going to get throw-I'm just of the belief it's better to have a very small group of people owning firearms compared to the whole nation. I know your going to claim that the firearms can help defend people but the numbers say something else

Alleged rigging?

The one state is question Florida, which was called by every single other news broadcaster as going to Gore. The guess which station called it for Bush-Fox which had his first cousin directing the floor that very night. You can probably also guess who the Governor of said state was-Jeb Bush. Followed by the that over 50 congressmen stood up to complain about African Americans being struck off voting lists I'd say something doesn't add. Then when they were going to have a recount George Bush senior's friends on the Supreme court struck it down. So yeah it was pretty damn rigged, I could go into detail about Kennedy etc but I don't see any evidence that a higher gun ownership rate equals people being able to take an oppressive government.

Saudi Arabia has 35 guns per 100 people. Have they taken down their corrupt unelected oppressive government? As I said before have you tried shooting at a shadow?

You make some pretty blank statement claiming the UK has a higher crime rate per capita without providing any facts or figures to back this up. I had a quick look and all I could find was that the US has a higher murder rate per capita than the UK and

If I was referring to a stantag mag I'd call it a STANAG mag, you call me out on my own knowledge of guns even though I wasn't even referring to a drum mag, I was referring to the easily made box mags used on similar guns like the Stoner or M249.

I'd also argue that a single 5.56 round doesn't have to hit your head to kill you, the shock from getting hit in the leg along with hitting an artery could quite easily kill you.

I'm still waiting for an answer from all you gun nuts.

How would you stop school massacres?

Understand the broken american presidential election system. The poeples vote, when it boils down to it, do not count. The electoral collage is where the final decision is made. This is one of the many problems in the US government. But anyways, like I said, Bush was not a dictator. He was not oppressive. He was not cure to his citizens.

And if I was in the building when a school shooting was occurring then I would get my gun out and kill the asshole or die trying. Like any self respecting american would.


So, you're just going to make the most dangerous weapon legal to anyone, easy to buy? Theoreticaly, you are going to let children be able to get up, get a gun, and shoot everyone they see.
Great idea, bud.

If you actually took the time to read, you would see we have been over this many times.
It's called "Statistics".

Are you honestly still going to use this as argument?
Once again, take the time to read and you see this is not what I mean.

Like in every thread I see you in, your argument is (over and over again...) "Not all x are y!"

But nobody said they were.
NOt everyone that owns a gun is a killer.
But if you are going to give every damn family a gun, have a loaded gun in each house, and give guns out to everyone easily,
you can expect somebody to get hurt.

hunters can own guns here, too.
You just need to get an official license, that you are a hunter.
Why wouldn't the USA do that, if huntings so important?

Why does everyone need aces to a gun?
All that "protection" is only required because it's so f*king dangerous for everyone to own a gun!
USA is the only country not seeing this! It's pure denial.

Your argument: Everyone should own guns, because I don't expect them to fire them anyway.
That's not a legitimate argument.
Your expectations don't matter, statisticly people are going to fire and kill.
Without the guns, less people die.

I think I've been over this 7 times already.

Well, america could easily do that kind of protetion.
They are already doing overly suspecting inspections to anyone crossing the border, especially foreigners.
If they just use their phobia of anyone foreign being a terrorist to actualt stop people smuggling guns in, they could easily do that.

Also, if the only source for people to get guns is illegaly in mexico, there will still be much less guns.
The problem is not that criminals get weapons.
They get them here too, where guns are not legal.

The problem is that the USA is not only making it very easy for criminals to get guns, they are also practicly handing out guns to everyone that asks for it; everyone owns a loaded gun.
That's why so many shootings and gun accidents happen.

I'm sorry, but of all the "damn powerful government"'s in the world right now, I'm pretty sure the united states are on the top.

This is not a compliment.
USA spends the most money they have on military, developing new weapons, and in short, ultimate controll, for the sake of "defense".

And why would they be so different from countries in europe?
They have made guns illegal, and things are great here!
Why would that not work in america!

Well, have fun about fantasizing about people standing up to the usa government, but I wouldn't call that a reason to have guns legal for everyone.
After all ,the goverment is the one that makes guns legal :yeah:

"crimes" don't matter.
If you know anything about the police in the UK and the police in the USA you'd see what really matters.

NOt only do almost all criminals in the USA carry a gun with them,
the police also shoot in sight whenever they feel like it.
The UK police don't even use guns, unless it's a special dangerous occasion!


That "damn powerful government" has not yet turned its military on use, yet. We keep our guns for when the Military does. Understand that we alone could not overthrow the government. People in our military would also fight back. This is how we would win.

Again, 90% of all guns used in crimes are illegal and untraceable. So yes, Mexican guns are a huge problem.

Your being stereotypical. "Use their phobia that every foreigner is a terrorist." If your going to start being that way, maybe we shouldn't talk about this. I have a hard time disusing adult things with children.

Practically handing out guns? With a heavy ass tax? My gun I just got cost 200$ and the ammo cost 100$. My gun is not semi automatic. it is bolt action a semi auto gun, like the AR15 for instance, cost upwards of 1200$.

In the USA you do need a hunting license. Please research this before you make false accusations.

"everyone owns a loaded gun" False. Most people do not store their guns loaded. Allot of gun owners don't even have any ammo in their house.

Fun fact. About half of Switzerland's population walks around with AR on their backs. They have an extremely low crime rate. Explain how every body owning a gun is dangerous?


Guns will never be taken. Get over it. It is not your country. If you would like to make a difference, please come here with an invasion force or lead a revolution that will get ride of our dysfunctional government. Only way it'le ever happen.

Now, cheese, when you want to stop being stereotypical, we can talk more about this.

[Harry Smith]

Understand the broken american presidential election system. The poeples vote, when it boils down to it, do not count. The electoral collage is where the final decision is made. This is one of the many problems in the US government. But anyways, like I said, Bush was not a dictator. He was not oppressive. He was not cure to his citizens.

And if I was in the building when a school shooting was occurring then I would get my gun out and kill the asshole or die trying. Like any self respecting american would.

Yes,but the people in Florida didn't vote for Bush's electors, They voted for Gore. Bush didn't win the election-he fixed on. Saudi Arabia have an extremely high number of guns compared to other countries (35 per 100) yet they haven't risen up. I'll ask you again-have you tried shooting at a shadow? If you claim guns protect you from the federal government then how come it didn't help the people at Ruby Ridge? Or at Waco?

I'd even argue that thanks to the separations of power within the US system you'll never have a dictatorship, and no it won't be the gun owners who would stop it-it would be congress and the supreme courts

http://progressivecynic.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/g5.jpg




You know we had a school massacre in Britain-before that massacre handguns were legal to own. After said massacre we banned handguns and we haven't had one since.

That's worked hasn't it, or do you disagree? Yes or No?

You also bring up Switzerland which in all fairness is a straw man argument. The conditions in Switzerland are much tighter-compared to the national guard militia system in Switzerland in order to get a gun you have to join the army, after two years training your allowed to have a gun which is limited to semi-automatic weapons and pistols. I'd argue that Switzerland has a much better system because every gun owner is given military level training and the flow of the weapons are much more controlled.

However there's one clear difference- US is 3.6 firearm related homicides per 100,000. Switzerland is 0.5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

That clearly shows America have a clear gun problem-do you agree?

We keep our guns for when the Military does

IF

[Miserabilia]

Understand the broken american presidential election system. The poeples vote, when it boils down to it, do not count. The electoral collage is where the final decision is made. This is one of the many problems in the US government. But anyways, like I said, Bush was not a dictator. He was not oppressive. He was not cure to his citizens.

And if I was in the building when a school shooting was occurring then I would get my gun out and kill the asshole or die trying. Like any self respecting american would.





That "damn powerful government" has not yet turned its military on use, yet. We keep our guns for when the Military does. Understand that we alone could not overthrow the government. People in our military would also fight back. This is how we would win.

Again, 90% of all guns used in crimes are illegal and untraceable. So yes, Mexican guns are a huge problem.

Your being stereotypical. "Use their phobia that every foreigner is a terrorist." If your going to start being that way, maybe we shouldn't talk about this. I have a hard time disusing adult things with children.

Practically handing out guns? With a heavy ass tax? My gun I just got cost 200$ and the ammo cost 100$. My gun is not semi automatic. it is bolt action a semi auto gun, like the AR15 for instance, cost upwards of 1200$.

In the USA you do need a hunting license. Please research this before you make false accusations.

"everyone owns a loaded gun" False. Most people do not store their guns loaded. Allot of gun owners don't even have any ammo in their house.

Fun fact. About half of Switzerland's population walks around with AR on their backs. They have an extremely low crime rate.


Guns will never be taken. Get over it. It is not your country. If you would like to make a difference, please come here with an invasion force or lead a revolution that will get ride of our dysfunctional government. Only way it'le ever happen.

Now, cheese, when you want to stop being stereotypical, we can talk more about this.

That "damn powerful government" has not yet turned its military on use, yet. We keep our guns for when the Military does. Understand that we alone could not overthrow the government. People in our military would also fight back. This is how we would win.

What are you, a conspiracy theorist?
This is not at all a legit reason for everyone to own guns.

Your being stereotypical. "Use their phobia that every foreigner is a terrorist." If your going to start being that way, maybe we shouldn't talk about this. I have a hard time disusing adult things with children.

Atleast that is children that can't get up, grab a gun and shoot everyone in the school.
And yes, most of the american people is very xenophobic, thus a phobia that foreigners are dangerous.

Not stereotypical, statisctial. USA are very xenophobic.

Practically handing out guns? With a heavy ass tax? My gun I just got cost 200$ and the ammo cost 100$. My gun is not semi automatic. it is bolt action a semi auto gun, like the AR15 for instance, cost upwards of 1200$.


Oh, you have to pay for them, what a shame!
You know, with your logic, the goverment should just start handing out guns to the poor and the homeles, because appearently it's as important as food.

In the USA you do need a hunting license. Please research this before you make false accusations.

When I said "Why wouldn't the USA do that' I was reffering to banning guns, but giving licences for hunting, instead of letting everyone own guns.
By saying I'm making false accusations, you're actually the one making false accusations :yes:

maybe next time try actually reading what I said, instead of looking for something to bash on, ignoring the actual argument ;)

Explain how every body owning a gun is dangerous?

... Does anybody really need to explain why a gun is dangerous?
People. Can. Get. Shot.
Tadah?
Also, switzerlands politics and laws are still far from american ones.

Guns will never be taken. Get over it. It is not your country. If you would like to make a difference, please come here with an invasion force or lead a revolution that will get ride of our dysfunctional government. Only way it'le ever happen.

Right, if most of the american people are like you, and I have been given the impression that sadly, they are, then guns will never be banned.
However, I am only arguing why they should be. So try actually coming with a counter argument to why guns should be banned, instead saying they can't be banned because that's not what the people want.

Now, cheese, when you want to stop being stereotypical, we can talk more about this.

Now , jacob, when you want to start reading what I write and come up with an actual counter-argument, we can debate about this, which is the point of the thread.

[JacobIN]

I am done discussing this. It is clear neither side side going to win.

[Miserabilia]

I am done discussing this. It is clear neither side side going to win.

Good argument?
Quitting the debate counts as giving up and losing! xD

:yeah::yeah:

[Lovelife090994]

Good argument?
Quitting the debate counts as giving up and losing! xD

:yeah::yeah:

Actually if you think the point is to win and that giving up or really walking from foolishness is a loss then you are a lost cause. If he wishes to leave let him. You have these stereotypes ingrained in you about America and you only mention America for guns. Not every American owns guns. It is more than getting up to get a gun. You need a liscense, training, know-how, education, the gun, the money, and a safe place, with plans. And about kids. Most guns are hidden and not loaded. Plus if your child is looking for your gun then the parent needs to sort out things with the child.

[Harry Smith]

Actually if you think the point is to win and that giving up or really walking from foolishness is a loss then you are a lost cause. If he wishes to leave let him. You have these stereotypes ingrained in you about America and you only mention America for guns. Not every American owns guns. It is more than getting up to get a gun. You need a liscense, training, know-how, education, the gun, the money, and a safe place, with plans. And about kids. Most guns are hidden and not loaded. Plus if your child is looking for your gun then the parent needs to sort out things with the child.

No your correct not every American owns guns-there's 89 guns per 100 people. Compared to other countries America is obsessed with guns.

You don't need a license or any training to get a gun in the majority of states, you just walk into your gun shop and promise the shop keeper your going to behave.

American children die by guns 11 times as often as children in other high-income countries

In 2007, more pre-school-aged children (85) were killed by guns than police officers were killed in the line of duty.

An average of eight children and teens under the age of 20 are killed by guns every day

Don't try and pretend that children at all benefit from your gun culture

[radsniper]

ok um my brother looked this up and there is less crime in texas because more people have guns also he found out that in a different country every adult has gun training (from tax payer money) and most have guns and there is virtually no crime (which then they don't need as many cops so the taxes even out) i think we as a country should start gun training earlier and and to put guns in school teachers hands (thus no school shootings) basing on the numbers (guns,people,taxes) and the mental stability numbers shootings and deaths from shootings should go down to 10% or less of what they are now making the safety of the USA go up so that we can focus on more important stuff like the cure for cancer and AIDS

Quote:
American children die by guns 11 times as often as children in other high-income countries

that's because they have sucurity people who deal with that.
Quote:
In 2007, more pre-school-aged children (85) were killed by guns than police officers were killed in the line of duty.
Quote:
An average of eight children and teens under the age of 20 are killed by guns every day


this is why teachers need guns and gun training are the best options

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[Zenos]

Don't try and pretend that children at all benefit from your gun culture

Please spare us your anti-gun socialistic views.

I've been handing guns since I was 8 years old,and hunting since then as well.

the knowledge gained from practicing with guns and hunting, has taught me certain things.

1) if I pull that trigger what ever I shoot could end up dead and once a life is gone it's not coming back

2) if I have a gun and ammo with me and i'm lost in the woods,I can bring down an animal for food and even protect myself from a wild animal


3) Knowing what I can do with a gun has given me respect for life.

So again stop with your anti gun socialistic rants.

No matter how much we try to explain to you ABOUT our rights and why we have those rights your socialistic up bringing that guns are bad keeps you harping on and on about guns being bad yadda yadda get rid of them yadda yadda.

heck your population is unarmed if your nation was invaded and defeated you guys wouldn't have a gun to resist with and most younger people unless they had military training wouldn't know how to load,or aim and fire a gun accurately to try to resist an invading enemy!

and whats worse your on here reveling in that fact insisting that we American's adopt your view point AND disarm out populace all the while acting like your degree in our legal system from oxford qualifies you to dictate to the citizens of another nation just what they should do when it comes to guns. This shows one your knowledge of our legal system is theoretical,that you do not understand it and there fore do not respect it.

[radsniper]

tru dat bro

[radsniper]

Please spare us your anti-gun socialistic views.

I've been handing guns since I was 8 years old,and hunting since then as well.

the knowledge gained from practicing with guns and hunting, has taught me certain things.

1) if I pull that trigger what ever I shoot could end up dead and once a life is gone it's not coming back

2) if I have a gun and ammo with me and i'm lost in the woods,I can bring down an animal for food and even protect myself from a wild animal


3) Knowing what I can do with a gun has given me respect for life.

So again stop with your anti gun socialistic rants.

No matter how much we try to explain to you ABOUT our rights and why we have those rights your socialistic up bringing that guns are bad keeps you harping on and on about guns being bad yadda yadda get rid of them yadda yadda.

heck your population is unarmed if your nation was invaded and defeated you guys wouldn't have a gun to resist with and most younger people unless they had military training wouldn't know how to load,or aim and fire a gun accurately to try to resist an invading enemy!

and whats worse your on here reveling in that fact insisting that we American's adopt your view point AND disarm out populace all the while acting like your degree in our legal system from oxford qualifies you to dictate to the citizens of another nation just what they should do when it comes to guns. This shows one your knowledge of our legal system is theoretical,that you do not understand it and there fore do not respect it.

tru dat bro

[Miserabilia]

Actually if you think the point is to win and that giving up or really walking from foolishness is a loss then you are a lost cause. If he wishes to leave let him. You have these stereotypes ingrained in you about America and you only mention America for guns. Not every American owns guns. It is more than getting up to get a gun. You need a liscense, training, know-how, education, the gun, the money, and a safe place, with plans. You need a liscense, training, know-how, education, the gun, the money, and a safe place, with plans.

Just sayin',
I wrote an entire response to him and he responds with " Oh you're not going to win anyway, I leave baibai",
you can understand how that's not a legitimate response, right?
I can't write a decent response to something like that.
I try to use arguments,
and you two haven't responded to any of them, instead you're just being offended and saying I am "stereotyping".

Not every American owns guns.

I have heard so many varations of you saying this in every thread I have ever seen you...
"Not all X is Y!"
You need a liscense, training, know-how, education, the gun, the money, and a safe place, with plans.

Doesn't matter, guns are still available for all, and there are many ways around that.
If the gun system actually worked, there wouldn't be kids shooting each other.

Oh, and the parents may hide the gun but that doesn't even matter,
kids in america are still having school shootings.
Just statistics.

You can defend the statistcs, but the statistics are still;
-america is (compared to the rest of the world) obsessed with guns
-america has a high death rate with guns
-america has the most school shootings

[radsniper]

You can defend the statistcs, but the statistics are still;
-america is (compared to the rest of the world) obsessed with guns TRUE


-america has a high death rate with guns NOT PROPER TRAINING


-america has the most school shootings THE SCHOOL NEEDS GUNS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND PROPER TRAINING

[Harry Smith]

Please spare us your anti-gun socialistic views.

I've been handing guns since I was 8 years old,and hunting since then as well.

the knowledge gained from practicing with guns and hunting, has taught me certain things.

1) if I pull that trigger what ever I shoot could end up dead and once a life is gone it's not coming back

2) if I have a gun and ammo with me and i'm lost in the woods,I can bring down an animal for food and even protect myself from a wild animal


3) Knowing what I can do with a gun has given me respect for life.

So again stop with your anti gun socialistic rants.

No matter how much we try to explain to you ABOUT our rights and why we have those rights your socialistic up bringing that guns are bad keeps you harping on and on about guns being bad yadda yadda get rid of them yadda yadda.

heck your population is unarmed if your nation was invaded and defeated you guys wouldn't have a gun to resist with and most younger people unless they had military training wouldn't know how to load,or aim and fire a gun accurately to try to resist an invading enemy!

and whats worse your on here reveling in that fact insisting that we American's adopt your view point AND disarm out populace all the while acting like your degree in our legal system from oxford qualifies you to dictate to the citizens of another nation just what they should do when it comes to guns. This shows one your knowledge of our legal system is theoretical,that you do not understand it and there fore do not respect it.

You can call me a socialist all you want-it doesn't make my argument any less correct does it?

Ah okay-lets have a look at Britain history;the last time a country tried to invade us in 1940 our air force, army and navy managed to stop them. You don't need 50 year old housewives with AR-15's in order to defend your nation-you need something called an Army!

America on the other hand has all these militia's but if I'm correct didn't the British Army march through your capital and burn the white house down. The best way to defend your country is through diplomacy and a strong military.

I know how to load,aim and fire a gun-it's really pretty simple-the only difficult part is finding the spare parts over a long period of time.

Ahahaha as much as I'd love to, I don't have a legal degree from Oxford at the age of 17-you don't really get sarcasm do you.

Isn't all knowledge of a political debate theoretical? That's how the majority of politcal papers and analysis work.

That's the funny thing is that your debating style is so terrible, you don't have any stats, or even any strong arguments you just keep calling me British and claiming I don't understand your country

You can defend the statistcs, but the statistics are still;
-america is (compared to the rest of the world) obsessed with guns TRUE


-america has a high death rate with guns NOT PROPER TRAINING


-america has the most school shootings THE SCHOOL NEEDS GUNS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND PROPER TRAINING

No, the schools don't need to defend themselves. The best way to stop gun crime is through gun control-armed guards in schools don't help anyone.

The fort Hood shooter managed to kill 13 people on a military base-on of the most armed areas in whole country, the Washington naval base shooter managed to kill 4 people. Armed guards are often poorly trained, poorly armed and strategically vulnerable.

http://progressivecynic.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/g13.jpg?w=600

[Miserabilia]

You can defend the statistcs, but the statistics are still;
-america is (compared to the rest of the world) obsessed with guns TRUE


-america has a high death rate with guns NOT PROPER TRAINING


-america has the most school shootings THE SCHOOL NEEDS GUNS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND PROPER TRAINING

This is hilarious, literaly, it made me laugh.
I am saying "America has a high death rate with guns"

And you respond with NOT PROPER TRAINTING.

What do you even mean?
The training is irrelevant.
THe fact is that america has a high death rate by guns.

THE SCHOOL NEEDS GUNS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND PROPER TRAINING

Okay, so when a kid finds his parents gun, goes to the school and shoots all the innocent kids and teachers,
your excuse for that is
"NEEDS GUNS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES"

I suggest you watch this movie. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363589/)

[radsniper]

i'm saying that the USA at least needs gun training because most death by guns are stupid people like i feel like looking down the barrel of a loaded gun to see what it looks like or to scare people i'm going to point this gun at them and pretend to shoot (uh that wasn't supposed to be loaded) and some feel like handling guns while drunk and high is a good idea

this is what americans do every day and we don't all have to have guns just the proper training and less restrictions


this guy i know has guns in his car at all times and some are illegal and i know people who carry a concealed all the time and none of them have ever gotten hurt or hurt anyone because they are nit stupid

[Harry Smith]

i'm saying that the USA at least needs gun training because most death by guns are stupid people like i feel like looking down the barrel of a loaded gun to see what it looks like or to scare people i'm going to point this gun at them and pretend to shoot (uh that wasn't supposed to be loaded) and some feel like handling guns while drunk and high is a good idea

this is what americans do every day and we don't all have to have guns just the proper training and less restrictions


this guy i know has guns in his car at all times and some are illegal and i know people who carry a concealed all the time and none of them have ever gotten hurt or hurt anyone because they are nit stupid

Adam Lanza went to shooting range every week-that helped him butcher 22 children in school. I'll admit gun safety and training is important but don't think that training is going to stop school massacres

[radsniper]

it's a sad reality but that is probably true

[Miserabilia]

i'm saying that the USA at least needs gun training because most death by guns are stupid people like i feel like looking down the barrel of a loaded gun to see what it looks like or to scare people i'm going to point this gun at them and pretend to shoot (uh that wasn't supposed to be loaded) and some feel like handling guns while drunk and high is a good idea

this is what americans do every day and we don't all have to have guns just the proper training and less restrictions


this guy i know has guns in his car at all times and some are illegal and i know people who carry a concealed all the time and none of them have ever gotten hurt or hurt anyone because they are nit stupid

So, what is easier and safer;

1- Giving everyone guns, but having to spend time and money on licences and training

2- Not giving everyone guns.

[radsniper]

the former because

less death,hospital bills and police so saving money in these catagories will be less tha the taxes for the training

[Miserabilia]

the former because

less death,hospital bills and police so saving money in these catagories will be less tha the taxes for the training

Are you kidding?
How would giving everyone guns cause less death?

I'll help you correct this;

less more death,hospital bills and police so saving money in these catagories will be less tha the taxes for the training, and let's just not care about how many people get shot and hurt

[Kurgg]

In my opinion, guns don't kill people, people do but guns make killing other people easier. I don't support neither total ban or no control on guns, but a good compromise between these.
Yes, it is true that guns were creayed to hurt and kill, but if someone really would kill, he would do it, was there guns or not and criminals would still have guns, were they legal or not.
Though, some drunkard could go and shoot his family or shoot in public at property and other people.

[Harry Smith]

In my opinion, guns don't kill people, people do but guns make killing other people easier. I don't support neither total ban or no control on guns, but a good compromise between these.
Yes, it is true that guns were creayed to hurt and kill, but if someone really would kill, he would do it, was there guns or not and criminals would still have guns, were they legal or not.
Though, some drunkard could go and shoot his family or shoot in public at property and other people.

Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. Should nuclear weapons then be legal? By your logic they should.

Okay sure- a gun is very effective at killing-more so than a knife or a hammer. Sure a hammer can kill but a gun is about 100x more effective.

The point of control is to make it harder for the criminal to get hold of them-what's easier- going to a gun store or arranging to pick up an illegal gun off a criminal in a dark alley?

[Kurgg]

Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. Should nuclear weapons then be legal? By your logic they should.
You missed my point. Guns should be legal, but not all of them and they should be regulated.

Okay sure- a gun is very effective at killing-more so than a knife or a hammer. Sure a hammer can kill but a gun is about 100x more effective.

The point of control is to make it harder for the criminal to get hold of them-what's easier- going to a gun store or arranging to pick up an illegal gun off a criminal in a dark alley?
As I said, I support the idea that people would get guns, but only with licences etc. . How could a person with a record get a gun license? No, he won't so he gets it from the street.
If we ban the guns it will only affect to the persons who use it to hunt or in sports. If we don't regulate the gun, it would be too easy for a maniac to get one.

[Harry Smith]

You missed my point. Guns should be legal, but not all of them and they should be regulated.


As I said, I support the idea that people would get guns, but only with licences etc. . How could a person with a record get a gun license? No, he won't so he gets it from the street.
If we ban the guns it will only affect to the persons who use it to hunt or in sports. If we don't regulate the gun, it would be too easy for a maniac to get one.

Regulated is a very bad word to use- the guns are 'legal' and 'regulated' in the UK-they're also 'legal' and 'regulated' in Alabama. There's a very big difference between the two

[Kurgg]

Regulated is a very bad word to use- the guns are 'legal' and 'regulated' in the UK-they're also 'legal' and 'regulated' in Alabama. There's a very big difference between the two
I meant regulated like in the UK, with licenses, ID:s and all that stuff

[Sir Suomi]

I love how nobody seems to realize that, if it were not for the inner city violence in America's larger cities, America's homicide rates would be lower than Britain, who are one of the biggest paragons of gun control. :rolleyes:

Seriously people, look at areas such as Chicago. It has one of the toughest gun law in America, yet it's known to be one of the most violent cities in America, with a large amount of both gun-related and non-gun related homicides. Obviously, over the top Gun Regulation is ineffective. So what should we do then?

I'd suggest a small amount of basic firearm safety should be taught to younger children in school. It's a fair assumption to say that we could save a lot of children's lives from accidental deaths and injuries caused my the mishandling of firearms. Also, the class may help encourage a sense of both fear and respect for the firearms, and help the children realize that they are not toys, and should be treated with caution and respect. I myself have been taught this, and I believe it has made me more aware of the power that a firearm brings.

Another topic I would like to tackle would be the issue of the firearms being used as a recreational activity. There is a large amount of people who use firearms for competition purposes, such as members of a Trap Team, which I'm proud to say my hometown has. There are also those who just enjoy the feeling of excitement that comes after shooting some targets with your rifle. It's easily comparable to activities such as hiking, running, fishing, etc.

Also, on the topic of hunting, as a fellow hunter myself, it disgusts me to see the image people portray of hunters, saying that we're "murderers", while at the same time enjoying that delicious steak you bought from the store. I believe hunting is by far more humane than the way livestock are butchered. When you hunt, you are forced to work for your meal. We put in hours of hard work practicing, walk miles over rough terrain, and scouting, just so we can come home with whatever it may be that we're hunting. We are simply doing as nature intended, seeing as we are one of most adept predator our world has yet seen, hunting prey that make ignorant mistakes, that ends up with them crossing into our sights. And most people also do not realize, but hunting can actually improve the health of a herd/flock/etc of animals. Overpopulation is extremely deadly in nature, which will result in famine due to there not being enough food for a population to survive on, a much higher chance of deadly diseases spreading through a population (Which happened in my own state, Blue Tongue wiped out a major portion of the deer population, which before was extremely overpopulated), and also makes life for us humans easier, i.e reducing the amount of vehicle-deer collisions on roads.

If nothing else, refer to our Second Amendment :yeah:

[Aajj333]

Simple gun solution: Outlaw them. It isn't like there are any other illegal objects that people get their hands on and abuse.

[Zenos]

Simple gun solution: Outlaw them. It isn't like there are any other illegal objects that people get their hands on and abuse.

Sorry second amendment prohibits outlawing gun ownership!


There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by them As passed by the Congress:A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.As ratified by the States: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment Defined:

The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.


The Second Amendment was developed as a result of the tyrannous rule of the British parliament. Colonists were often oppressed and forced to pay unjust taxes at the hand of the unruly parliament. As a result, the American people yearned for an Amendment that would guarantee them the right to bear arms and protect themselves against similar situations. The Second Amendment was drafted to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States through the ability to raise and support militias.




Court Cases Tied into the Second AmendmentIn District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm to use for traditionally lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home or on their property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia.

[Harry Smith]

I love how nobody seems to realize that, if it were not for the inner city violence in America's larger cities, America's homicide rates would be lower than Britain, who are one of the biggest paragons of gun control. :rolleyes:

Seriously people, look at areas such as Chicago. It has one of the toughest gun law in America, yet it's known to be one of the most violent cities in America, with a large amount of both gun-related and non-gun related homicides. Obviously, over the top Gun Regulation is ineffective. So what should we do then?

I'd suggest a small amount of basic firearm safety should be taught to younger children in school. It's a fair assumption to say that we could save a lot of children's lives from accidental deaths and injuries caused my the mishandling of firearms. Also, the class may help encourage a sense of both fear and respect for the firearms, and help the children realize that they are not toys, and should be treated with caution and respect. I myself have been taught this, and I believe it has made me more aware of the power that a firearm brings.

Another topic I would like to tackle would be the issue of the firearms being used as a recreational activity. There is a large amount of people who use firearms for competition purposes, such as members of a Trap Team, which I'm proud to say my hometown has. There are also those who just enjoy the feeling of excitement that comes after shooting some targets with your rifle. It's easily comparable to activities such as hiking, running, fishing, etc.

Also, on the topic of hunting, as a fellow hunter myself, it disgusts me to see the image people portray of hunters, saying that we're "murderers", while at the same time enjoying that delicious steak you bought from the store. I believe hunting is by far more humane than the way livestock are butchered. When you hunt, you are forced to work for your meal. We put in hours of hard work practicing, walk miles over rough terrain, and scouting, just so we can come home with whatever it may be that we're hunting. We are simply doing as nature intended, seeing as we are one of most adept predator our world has yet seen, hunting prey that make ignorant mistakes, that ends up with them crossing into our sights. And most people also do not realize, but hunting can actually improve the health of a herd/flock/etc of animals. Overpopulation is extremely deadly in nature, which will result in famine due to there not being enough food for a population to survive on, a much higher chance of deadly diseases spreading through a population (Which happened in my own state, Blue Tongue wiped out a major portion of the deer population, which before was extremely overpopulated), and also makes life for us humans easier, i.e reducing the amount of vehicle-deer collisions on roads.

If nothing else, refer to our Second Amendment :yeah:

Was Sandy hook in an urban area?

The point about hunting and recreation is correct-that's why I think it should operate on a strict licensing system where you have a reason for owning each gun and then limit guns which aren't used for sport or hunting (pistols). That's similar to what we have in Britain-I know someone who has about 5 different guns-he owns them under a license that has to be signed by the Home Office, he gets visits from the police every year to check and he had to undergo a full background check


Sorry second amendment prohibits outlawing gun ownership!


There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by them As passed by the Congress:A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.As ratified by the States: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment Defined:

The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.


The Second Amendment was developed as a result of the tyrannous rule of the British parliament. Colonists were often oppressed and forced to pay unjust taxes at the hand of the unruly parliament. As a result, the American people yearned for an Amendment that would guarantee them the right to bear arms and protect themselves against similar situations. The Second Amendment was drafted to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States through the ability to raise and support militias.




Court Cases Tied into the Second AmendmentIn District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm to use for traditionally lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home or on their property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia.

Good copy and pasting there. The second amendment can be repealed by Congress, do you know that?

The whole reason for the 2nd Amendment was to allow Militias to protect states-that means single shot muskets not AR-15's

[phuckphace]

I like guns. especially SMGs. always wanted a Tech-9 or P90 or Uzi. too bad I'm broke as fuck and can't afford one :(

[Shaundi]

I like guns, not for the fact that it kills people, but they are real fun shooting objects with them, when i was in a farm i found an old shotgun in an attic and shot various stuff, was very fun.

[Sir Suomi]

The whole reason for the 2nd Amendment was to allow Militias to protect states-that means single shot muskets not AR-15's

6316

This is the Pucklegun, a primitive automatic cannon that was developed in 1718, nearly 70 years before the Constitution was written. Your argument that our Founding Fathers could not have predicted firearms that were automatic and semiautomatic is invalid.

[Harry Smith]

6316

This is the Pucklegun, a primitive automatic cannon that was developed in 1718, nearly 70 years before the Constitution was written. Your argument that our Founding Fathers could not have predicted firearms that were automatic and semiautomatic is invalid.

Not really-the puckle gun was a complete joke. By your logic the Italians had tanks and Planes in the 1500's. Is that true?

1) It never entered production
2) It shoot square bullets
3) It was never used on a battlefield
4) Look at it. It was made in 1720 and really only in the corners of British society. The founding fathers didn't think oh yeah lets arm everyone with a machine gun shown that one time in Britain 60 years ago

Your argument is invalid in suggesting that something as crap as the puckle gun is similar to a modern assault rifle-I'd love to see you commit a school massarce with that

[Aajj333]

Sorry second amendment prohibits outlawing gun ownership!


There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by them As passed by the Congress:A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.As ratified by the States: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment Defined:

The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.


The Second Amendment was developed as a result of the tyrannous rule of the British parliament. Colonists were often oppressed and forced to pay unjust taxes at the hand of the unruly parliament. As a result, the American people yearned for an Amendment that would guarantee them the right to bear arms and protect themselves against similar situations. The Second Amendment was drafted to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States through the ability to raise and support militias.




Court Cases Tied into the Second AmendmentIn District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm to use for traditionally lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home or on their property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia.

Tried to be sarcastic. Guess it went unheard:yawn:

[radsniper]

hey harry if congress repealed the 2nd amendment they would probably get shot

but the single shot musket gave me the idea

so i've said guns in the school were a good idea with the training but you gave me the idea instead of a normal gun put some single shot guns then the gunman can either be stopped or at least not helped by the extra shots

[Harry Smith]

hey harry if congress repealed the 2nd amendment they would probably get shot

but the single shot musket gave me the idea

so i've said guns in the school were a good idea with the training but you gave me the idea instead of a normal gun put some single shot guns then the gunman can either be stopped or at least not helped by the extra shots

What? Give teachers single shot guns to stop school massacres?

[radsniper]

put them in planned places that the all faculty know where they are like at a desk near the front door so the first person can react

or even better put them in a locked box next to the fire blankets but they can only be opened by a silent alarm system throughout the school

[Harry Smith]

put them in planned places that the all faculty know where they are like at a desk near the front door so the first person can react

or even better put them in a locked box next to the fire blankets but they can only be opened by a silent alarm system throughout the school

That's not going to work. So when said gunman enters a silent alarm echoes which opens boxes that allow teachers to pick up a single shot .22 rifle. I bet that will be a good help.

You do know that they had an armed guard in Columbine High School, you know where 13 people died. If you put guns into school it's pouring oil onto the fire

[radsniper]

how about a silent alarm that locks all the doors

in order to make it out the gunman will have to put his gun in a reverse lock box

[Zenos]

Was Sandy hook in an urban area?

The point about hunting and recreation is correct-that's why I think it should operate on a strict licensing system where you have a reason for owning each gun and then limit guns which aren't used for sport or hunting (pistols). That's similar to what we have in Britain-I know someone who has about 5 different guns-he owns them under a license that has to be signed by the Home Office, he gets visits from the police every year to check and he had to undergo a full background check




Good copy and pasting there. The second amendment can be repealed by Congress, do you know that?

The whole reason for the 2nd Amendment was to allow Militias to protect states-that means single shot muskets not AR-15's


Sorry you are wrong when they said Shall not be infringed...guess what that means the founders meant it can't me altered and it can not be repealed.

I'd like the foillowing:


1) why you a citizen of a foreign nation with no understanding of our laws and rights keeps insisting that you know just what that amendment is meant for?

2) why you a citizen of a foreign nation keeps insisting it can be changed or repealed when the way it is written says it all that it can't be changed or repealed?


3) why you a citizen of a foreign nation wants to keep trying to force your opinion on our 2nd amendment rights upon us the citizens of another nation,and when we stand up to you and give this fact or that fact you totally ignore them,pop off about America this and Ameirca that all the while trying to make your nation and your nations ways seem better,and like you are trying to force your natiosn ways off on us?


4)Why you a citizen of a foreign nation have to come off all elitist toward us Americans and take a condecending attitude toward us like you know better what is best for us and like you are talking to children who know nothing about their rights and their own nations system of doing things,and continually show us that you neither respect nor understand America,it's citizens,their rights and system of doing things,by sidestepping facts presented to you,and in turn giving us flimsy arguments as to why you ate so right and we are so wrong about our rights and legal system?

[Harry Smith]

Sorry you are wrong when they said Shall not be infringed...guess what that means the founders meant it can't me altered and it can not be repealed.

I'd like the foillowing:


1) why you a citizen of a foreign nation with no understanding of our laws and rights keeps insisting that you know just what that amendment is meant for?

2) why you a citizen of a foreign nation keeps insisting it can be changed or repealed when the way it is written says it all that it can't be changed or repealed?


3) why you a citizen of a foreign nation wants to keep trying to force your opinion on our 2nd amendment rights upon us the citizens of another nation,and when we stand up to you and give this fact or that fact you totally ignore them,pop off about America this and Ameirca that all the while trying to make your nation and your nations ways seem better,and like you are trying to force your natiosn ways off on us?


4)Why you a citizen of a foreign nation have to come off all elitist toward us Americans and take a condecending attitude toward us like you know better what is best for us and like you are talking to children who know nothing about their rights and their own nations system of doing things,and continually show us that you neither respect nor understand America,it's citizens,their rights and system of doing things,by sidestepping facts presented to you,and in turn giving us flimsy arguments as to why you ate so right and we are so wrong about our rights and legal system?

yeah I get it I'm foreign sorry I'll go and change my passport

The second amendment can be repealed by congress-you quite clearly don't even know your own parliamentary rules. Please actually study this

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm

[AlexOnToast]

how about a silent alarm that locks all the doors

in order to make it out the gunman will have to put his gun in a reverse lock box

And if he has two guns?

[radsniper]

And if he has two guns?

have him put them both in it would be pretty big but if you don't know how many guns he has check school camera footage

[Zenos]

yeah I get it I'm foreign sorry I'll go and change my passport

The second amendment can be repealed by congress-you quite clearly don't even know your own parliamentary rules. Please actually study this

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm

Lol

First of we do not have a parliament,secondly the idea of the amendment say "Shall not be infringed" means just that and that includes being repealed.

Don't you think the U.S.Supreme Court realizes that's what is meant by Shall not be infringed otherwise they would not have upheld that amendment as one of our right?

Good one ignore the questions I had asked guess you have no answer for them.

Oh I understand our rights and they way things are done here!

You on the other hand DO NOT and you are mouthing off that we need to get right fo what was and is meant to be a right of the U.S. Citizen for as long as the USA exists.

Now please stop telling us about our rights ,and treating us like we don't know anything about our system of law.

[JacobIN]

Was Sandy hook in an urban area?

The point about hunting and recreation is correct-that's why I think it should operate on a strict licensing system where you have a reason for owning each gun and then limit guns which aren't used for sport or hunting (pistols). That's similar to what we have in Britain-I know someone who has about 5 different guns-he owns them under a license that has to be signed by the Home Office, he gets visits from the police every year to check and he had to undergo a full background check




Good copy and pasting there. The second amendment can be repealed by Congress, do you know that?

The whole reason for the 2nd Amendment was to allow Militias to protect states-that means single shot muskets not AR-15's


A: pistols are in fact used in hunting.

B: No, muskets are not AR15's, but the internet is not a printing press from then either. Neither Is radio, social media, high literacy rates, or TV.

[Lovelife090994]

yeah I get it I'm foreign sorry I'll go and change my passport

The second amendment can be repealed by congress-you quite clearly don't even know your own parliamentary rules. Please actually study this

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm

I'm waiting on you to answer the question. If you knew anything of US Law you'd be speaking differently. But since you don't I suggest you stop the talk that is making you look ignorant and like the victim after you have insulted a country's longstanding amendment of a right. And if may be so bold, why mention Sandy Hook? Do you think we wanted a gunman to kill people? Do you think we expect guns to always do this? No. While guns can indeed be used by a person to kill or protect, just because a criminal used a weapn does not mean that weapon should be banned. Like say a knife, baton, or gun. Police carry club-like batons and guns and hunters if liscenced can carry a gun to hunt and if allowed can carry a concealed handgun if they have liscence and training to that. Outlawing all guns is like saying no one can own a knife since knives have also been used to kill.

[Harry Smith]

Lol

First of we do not have a parliament,secondly the idea of the amendment say "Shall not be infringed" means just that and that includes being repealed.

Don't you think the U.S.Supreme Court realizes that's what is meant by Shall not be infringed otherwise they would not have upheld that amendment as one of our right?

Good one ignore the questions I had asked guess you have no answer for them.

Oh I understand our rights and they way things are done here!

You on the other hand DO NOT and you are mouthing off that we need to get right fo what was and is meant to be a right of the U.S. Citizen for as long as the USA exists.

Now please stop telling us about our rights ,and treating us like we don't know anything about our system of law.

I believe the supreme court also ruled that racial segregation was legal didn't it? The supreme court is hardly a great voice.

I'm not even talking about that-you don't even understand your own government. The United States of America has something call the Congress-this congress can change the constitution called something called a constitutional amendment. They've done it for the 25th amendment in the past. So yeah the congress actually has the power to repeal the second amendment-that's a fact.

Your simply wrong about the second amendment-it can be repealed http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/15/Texas-A-M-Law-Professor-Time-To-Repeal-And-Replace-Second-Amendment



A: pistols are in fact used in hunting.

B: No, muskets are not AR15's, but the internet is not a printing press from then either. Neither Is radio, social media, high literacy rates, or TV.

Not really, in Britain the hunting community mainly uses air rifles without license and bolt actions under very strict conditions. People don't tend to hunt with pistols unless it's for very small game because of the low caliber, lack of accuracy due to a short barrel and because of the other options.

Your arguments a complete strawman about the printing press-the nature of firearms have dramatically changed in the last 200 years.

Do you think we should update our laws every now and again? Yes or No? Simple as that

just because a criminal used a weapn does not mean that weapon should be banned. .

So then why are hand grenades banned? Why are heavy machine guns banned? Why are RPG's banned? Surely using your logic all those weapons should be available.

No-I'm sure the pro gun lobby only want to create life, spread love and be peaceful because we all know that's what guns do. I'll shoot the question back at you and ask how you would stop shootings like this happen without gun control? Any ideas? The US has a gun problem, none of you are accepting that are you. Your just grabbing your rifle and closing your eyes-the US has a very clear problem with guns

[Gustave_the_Croc]

I live in Australia and Own 11 guns in total. I'm a sporting shooter, I do for sport and I'm really good at it. It is an olympic sport and I've gotten myself to an inter-national level. Shooting to me is nothing more than a sport. The weapon itself is a tool to conduct the sport, nothing more nothing less.

[JacobIN]

Not really, in Britain the hunting community mainly uses air rifles without license and bolt actions under very strict conditions. People don't tend to hunt with pistols unless it's for very small game because of the low caliber, lack of accuracy due to a short barrel and because of the other options.

Your arguments a complete strawman about the printing press-the nature of firearms have dramatically changed in the last 200 years.

Do you think we should update our laws every now and again? Yes or No? Simple as that


I am Talking about the US, where this entire conversation is mainly concerned. And yes, pistols are used to hunt, fairly often, In the US, where again this conversion is about.

Yes, firearms have changed dramatically in the past two hundred years. Again, so have Media, and other ways to communicate free speech. Your argument makes no sense, please elaborate.

This is not a yes or no question; it is a question that has several answers all varying depending on the need at the time. Again, your argument does not make much sense, because you want to change guns laws, but I doubt you want to change free-speech laws.

[Harry Smith]

I am Talking about the US, where this entire conversation is mainly concerned. And yes, pistols are used to hunt, fairly often, In the US, where again this conversion is about.

Yes, firearms have changed dramatically in the past two hundred years. Again, so have Media, and other ways to communicate free speech. Your argument makes no sense, please elaborate.

This is not a yes or no question; it is a question that has several answers all varying depending on the need at the time. Again, your argument does not make much sense, because you want to change guns laws, but I doubt you want to change free-speech laws.

Actually I do want to change free-speech laws-that's why I'm opposed to shops being able to refuse service to LGBT individuals or for people to be able to carry out hate speech. That's sidetracking though.

The constitution was written during a time of war 200 years ago, look how much the world has changed since then. How would you feel if we still followed the same divorce, sexuality and economic laws from back then as well-luckily the US has managed to make progress on all of these issues.

Also when it was written the average man had a 7ft musket that took about a minute for a trained man to fire, plus a bayonet. If said man wanted to go on a massacre on his own he'd probably be able to kill about 2 people before being stopped-however nowdays thanks to our tech smaller, more powerful guns are available to more people at a much cheaper price-do you agree? This means that I'd say the original premise of having a well trained militia is lost because a 20 year college student keeping 2 pistols and an AR-15 isn't really a militia for me. I'll happily list a clear criteria for a proper state approved militia.

I also don't like how you and the gun-lobby just hide behind the 2nd amendment-you have school massacre after school massacre yet you still insist that you need your 2nd amendment. The gun lobby simply can't admit that it's got a problem-do you accept that the US has a clear problem with gun violence?