This fucking scares me...

[shadd_]

i just can't agree with the assault rifle law. that's fucked up. 3 dead people is bad but 15-20 is a fuck of a lot worse.

[Nightshade]

I agree that no one NEEDS an AK, SKS, or anything like that, but given the extremely low numbers of crimes committed with these types of weapons and the intent of the Second Amendment, why prohibit them?

there are just way too many stupid people running around. plain and simple. the second amendment is crap as far as i'm concerned and was written when society was VERY different than it is now. i'm sure our forefathers would say "oh sh1t, dude re-write that!" if they were alive today and could see how people have abused this "right".

Yeah right. Living under one of the most tyrannical, deceitful governments in history, and you think the Framers of the Constitution would omit the Second Amendment today? HA!
You don't curtail the rights of law-abiding citizens in an attempt to control idiots.

[losCHUNK]

blow bushs head off then

[Nightshade]

i just can't agree with the assault rifle law. that's fucked up. 3 dead people is bad but 15-20 is a fuck of a lot worse.

I can kill 15 people with a handgun. I can kill 15 people with a hunting rifle. I can kill 15 people with a bus. Look at the statistics, aside from a few splashy, and yes horrible incidents, there aren't many crimes committed with "assault rifles".

[YourGrandpa]

The bottom line is, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Trust me. If there were no guns, people would still find a way.

[shadd_]

yeah you can argue about this or that all fucking day. if our governments would actually use EXISTING laws to their potential i don't think extreme gun measures would be such an issue.

[shadd_]

The bottom line is, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Trust me. If there were no guns, people would still find a way.

for sure. i live in a small town. i think we have had two murders in 20years. even though there is probably an average of 3 guns in every home the murders were stabbings.

[Nightshade]

Fucking yanks and their knife culture.

I agree with your comment regarding existing laws not being enforced. Geebs made a point about the Brady law earlier, and as I said, all it did was enforce existing law. I think the main thing it did was institute background checks, and I don't have a problem with that, because convicted felons shouldn't have guns.

[R00k]

o god let it sink

this is why i dived out at page 5 saying somming like

"dont wanna get drawn into this again because we went through 2 pages and achieved nothing"

were on pg 10 and it still looks like pg 5

Yeah man but it's a dry heat.

I'm still reading through the thread, but this made me

[Foo]

Yeah right. Living under one of the most tyrannical, deceitful governments in history, and you think the Framers of the Constitution would omit the Second Amendment today?

Lol fucking hell. Good luck in rousing the citizens against your own government.

You're gonna need those constitutionally afforded nukes. Better get in contact with Russia and see how many they can ship for you 2000 bux.

[R00k]

The fact that there were supposedly more armed defenders than crimes is completely worthless as any kind of argument -- for one reason because the survey the data was taken from explicitly said so to begin with. And for the statistically-minded, I have talked to dozens of people who have scared someone (or something) away with a gun, without any crime being committed and without anyone getting shot. It is a fact that it happens, and without taking that unknown number of incidences into consideration, the other statistic becomes uselessly unreliable.

Furthermore, why do people who favor gun control always compare the US to other countries? I'm referring to people who assert that legal gun-owners force criminals to carry guns; or that criminals might not have access to guns if people didn't legally buy them.

Has anyone forgot what old western movies look like? We have had guns in this country since its inception, criminals and non-criminals alike. Do any of you remember a time in your country when everyone who walked down the street owned a gun? Do you think all the guns that have accumulated or been made over the last 200 years will disappear when and if we properly reign in our law-abiding citizenry, and tell the public they can no longer buy or own a gun? THAT would be the wild, wild west.

Opponents of gun ownership enjoy calling people trigger-happy, or ego-compensating - but nearly all of the arguments I've heard opposing gun ownership have been just as paranoid and subjective as those they are attacking.

I think an important distinction that a lot of people fail to make is that advocating the right to own a gun is not the same as advocating that people own guns. Just because I advocate the right to burn a flag doesn't mean I think anyone should do it - unless there is a thoroughly sound and well-reasoned purpose for doing so.

18 year olds are allowed to own hunting guns BTW, but they are required to take safety courses in order to do so. For handguns, anyone who is over 21 has to take and pass a safety course, apply for a license, and go through a background check. We are not talking about every Joe Redneck being able to carry around a pistol.

I got a DUI, and I am not able to carry a handgun for 5 years after the offense. I don't like it personally, but it means that someone who is irresponsible enough to make a decision to operate a vehicle while intoxicated is likely not responsible enough to make important decisions involved with owning a handgun, such as never being able to take it to a place that serves alcohol, or being involved in even a misdemeanor while having it. People who go through the process of legally acquiring a handgun are very rarely the people who flout laws and regulations on a whim to shoot someone.

It's not like they sell the things at the fucking 7-11 over here, no matter what Michael Moore says in his movies.

From Washington D.C. to the UK, it's obvious that at the MINIMUM, banning handguns has no effect on violent crime. Some may say that's fine, because at least those victims of violent crimes weren't shot and may survive the incident. But do I deserve to lose a body part or my livelihood simply because some idiot didn't lock up his hunting rifle and his son accidentally blasted his own head off with it, making for a teary-eyed photograph that snags on people's heartstrings?

Beyond what is explicit in the Constitution, I personally believe it is my right as a human being to use any means necessary to defend myself against a life-threatening attack, just like any creature on this planet -- and if it were not legal to do it with a gun, then I would do it anyway if I was forced to. So why should I believe it would be right to punish me after the fact?

[Nightshade]

Yeah right. Living under one of the most tyrannical, deceitful governments in history, and you think the Framers of the Constitution would omit the Second Amendment today?

Lol fucking hell. Good luck in rousing the citizens against your own government.

You're gonna need those constitutionally afforded nukes. Better get in contact with Russia and see how many they can ship for you 2000 bux.

This one of the more ignorant comments I've seen from you. Do a little reading.

[Foo]

Yeah right. Living under one of the most tyrannical, deceitful governments in history, and you think the Framers of the Constitution would omit the Second Amendment today?

Lol fucking hell. Good luck in rousing the citizens against your own government.

You're gonna need those constitutionally afforded nukes. Better get in contact with Russia and see how many they can ship for you 2000 bux.

This one of the more ignorant comments I've seen from you. Do a little reading.

Woah, that was an awesome rebuttal. I'm aware of the origins of the constitutional rights to which your referring and their application within the historical context. You seemed to be asserting that the keeping of firearms would somehow still be useful to keep your own government in check. That's utterly laughable.

[R00k]

I think Foo's saying it's time to give up.

[shadd_]

you don't need to get the average joe with a gun to personally take over the whitehouse. you just need a big enough uprising to get noticed and hopefully some of the military to get onside.

[tnf]

Lol fucking hell. Good luck in rousing the citizens against your own government.

You're gonna need those constitutionally afforded nukes. Better get in contact with Russia and see how many they can ship for you 2000 bux.

This one of the more ignorant comments I've seen from you. Do a little reading.

Woah, that was an awesome rebuttal....That's utterly laughable.

It's almost as bad as the "I CAN SEE WHO THE AMERICANS ARE HERE...TALK ABOUT BRAINWASHED." and the "EVERY FOOL CAN SEE THAT MORE GUNS = MORE CRIME" or 'LOL ONLY IN AMERICA THE WILD WILD WEST" etc etc etc...

The utterly laughable rebuttals and comments have been flying from the other side as well..but tend to be ignored in the ridiculousness for some reason.

This whole thing needs a fork in it though.

[Nightshade]

Lol fucking hell. Good luck in rousing the citizens against your own government.

You're gonna need those constitutionally afforded nukes. Better get in contact with Russia and see how many they can ship for you 2000 bux.

This one of the more ignorant comments I've seen from you. Do a little reading.

Woah, that was an awesome rebuttal. I'm aware of the origins of the constitutional rights to which your referring and their application within the historical context. You seemed to be asserting that the keeping of firearms would somehow still be useful to keep your own government in check. That's utterly laughable.

It wasn't meant to be a rebuttal, I was just pointing out that you made a fucking ignorant comment, smartass. Look up entities like the Michigan militia before you shoot your pansy Brit mouth off.
I'm not saying that many of these organizations would be capable of stopping the Army in a set-piece battle, but then again, that's what you fuckers thought back in 1776, too.

[Dukester]

words, words, words....

another one of your well written, usually well though out posts, that I read while lurking here at work.

This one however is different from the others.....

It's a big day for me you see, I agree with you

[Foo]

Oh no shit.

You guys kicked our asses in WW2 and in nam!

[Nightshade]

Christ, you're all hopped up on idiot pills tonight, aren't you?

[+JuggerNaut+]

Look up entities like the Michigan militia before you shoot your pansy Brit mouth off.

[Massive Quasars]

Does anyone here agree that the Federal Assault Weapons Act should have been renewed in 2004? It wasn't (big surprise) but I'm just trying to get a sense of what people in this thread would see as the upper limit of 'reasonable gun control' legislation.

Wasn't this a mostly cosmetic ban? Perhaps the next ban, if it's ever passed, should deal more with the function of the weapon.

[Geebs]

From Washington D.C. to the UK, it's obvious that at the MINIMUM, banning handguns has no effect on violent crime.

The UK is a nation with a pretty good-going drink problem. Quite a lot of that violent crime is broken noses on a friday night, which is a long way from shootings.

It is also a nation with 1/5th the murder rate of the US.

[Geebs]

The bottom line is, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Trust me. If there were no guns, people would still find a way.

The rate of suicide in gun-owning households is 2-3 times higher than in households without a gun, and gun suicides make up something like a sixth of gun deaths annually.

You should have said "guns don't kill people, people kill themselves"

[reefsurfer]

It is also a nation with 1/5th the murder rate of the US.

Not to mention Sweden.. we are a friendly country and im proud to live in Sweden/europe.