2nd Amendment

[Rayne]

Yeah and when our system becomes corrupt, we cannot stand against it.

That
That is your reasoning for why guns should be allowed?
That?
Really?
I..
What?
Seriously?
...
You do know that in most, if not every democratic countries, there are measures taken to make sure that that will never happen. That is why we have representatives, senators, and elections.

I hope you are joking.

You do realise , Nazi Germany issued that "No Guns" order , Guess what , Few months later they started the slaughter.
Soviet Russia , Issued that order , Massive slaughter , We do realize what Stalin did right ?

Basically ,, Give up your guns , Give up your freedom ,

Just my opinion , do not eat me please ,,,

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B23VnNgOkCQ

[UTLonghorn12]

-snip

-snip-

-snip-

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B23VnNgOkCQ

That video... I mean, come on. Take away guns, take away Freedom? Really? Genocide? Where are the mass executions in the UK? Strange, maybe I missed the reports on the News.

The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher).

Yep. Definitely sounds like mass genocide to me. Go back to your little NRA club with the rest of the Mentally-Unstable Tea-Party members.

[Toxic]

Problem is that guns were in the country to start with, and it's pretty much degenerated since then. I'm open to opinions but I feel that weapons are being taken from the wrong group of people.

---

That post stank of useless, mundane and disrespectful content. If you cannot put your point across without profanity or insulting someone else, don't do it at all. Also, how is being a 'liberal shit' anything bad? Many of the people arguing FOR the 2nd amendment are liberal themselves. Personally, when I first heard about all this I wondered 'Why on Earth would anyone need these guns?' due to my personal experience of never needing them or using them. Throughout the course of the thread I have been enlightened in the mindset of those who wield weapons, the truth behind the clear propaganda of 'assault weapons' and also the perfectly valid arguments for the 2nd amendment.

Also, user warned for disrespect.

Libertarian, but same basic concept.

are you saying a liberal is the same as a libertarian.

My god man.
[Image: 2870w01.jpg] [Image: 290zwna.jpg]

I don't know what to say.

EDIT: You know what? Images aren't enough, I'm going to quote myself again.

Libertarian, but same basic concept.

[Slick Rick]

The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher).

Yep. Definitely sounds like mass genocide to me. Go back to your little NRA club with the rest of the Mentally-Unstable Tea-Party members.

Well OBVIOUSLY mass genocide isn't happening, yet, it could be a figure of speech or an exaggeration for all we know.

Here's another fun fact about the UK, since you bring up it's gun deaths. How about the fact that it has the highest overall (including VIOLENT and deadly crimes) crime rate in ALL OF EUROPE, and more so than the USA as well. Keep in mind, gun violence/deaths does not = overall crime, I'm talking ALL crime in general.

Switzerland. Only country in Europe where guns are
not totally outlawed, lowest crime-rate in all of Europe.

So yeah, I could care less how well a gun-free country is doing when it comes to overall crime, because I know it's gonna be total shit when compared to states like Texas, Colorado etc. Why? Because those places aren't gun free states, and people are able to protect themselves there.

Now if you were to compare Illinois, Michigan, New York, (ya know, good ol' gun free states which just so happen to have crime rates skyrocket since their statewide weapon bans; Chicago being the most dangerous city to live in in 2012, look up the statistics, and please take note guns are banned in Chicago) to the UK, then yes, the UK does have less crime in that scenario.

Edit:I'm not saying there aren't places in Europe with a lower crime rate than the US, I know there are.

[Adman]

Switzerland also has a population of around 7 million people, not very large.

Also, statistics are a funny thing. More crime would generally mean that more policemen are on the street, there is a correlation yet no-one would dare to suggest that policeman cause crime despite that being suggested by the correlation.

Anyhow, I'm not sure what would be the best way to go about gun control. I'm sure a large part is also about the mentality of the people, for example if a country suffers from poverty or poor education then you'd expect crime to go up despite the laws.

[Slick Rick]

Yeah, but it's all about their crime ratio per capita, regardless of their population

Even if I thought gun control were a good thing, it'd still be a bad idea to implement it into the states. There's SO many guns here already. It'd be a different story if you could press a button, and have all guns on the earth destroyed, but the actual scenario is, there's more guns than there are people here

[Dsu]

Even if they take it away, it's not going too stop the mass shootings, because people who do those kind of things won't follow the laws anyways, and just get them illegally.

[Dylan]

You do realise , Nazi Germany issued that "No Guns" order , Guess what , Few months later they started the slaughter.
Soviet Russia , Issued that order , Massive slaughter , We do realize what Stalin did right ?

Basically ,, Give up your guns , Give up your freedom ,

Just my opinion , do not eat me please ,,,

Just try to think about what you said, think about it hard, too.

Have you?

Good.

Let me introduce you to the logical fallacy entitled "Slippery Slope". A logical fallacy is basically a flaw in logic and/or reasoning, there are several of them and several are made by each person everyday. Slippery Slope basically consists of saying "If we do a then eventually x, y and z will happen!" It's based on believing that allowing or disallowing one thing will escalate, for example: "If we allow homosexuals to get married the next step will be monkeys or cats!" Or it could also be "If we ban guns mass-slaughter will happen!"

You've got two examples from throughout history with two of the worst dictators of all time. You're actually suggesting that the only reason these dictators were successful was because they banned guns. That is, no offense, a mental statement. For things to get as bad as they did in WWII you need a lot more factors than just "no guns", the very notion that all a dictator needs to do is outlaw guns and he's done is just wrong.

Have you even considered all the countries wherein a very small percent or 0 percent of the population own guns? Did their leaders start mass-slaughtering them?
No?
Well I guess your argument is flawed, then.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_countries...d_firearms

---

Even if they take it away, it's not going too stop the mass shootings, because people who do those kind of things won't follow the laws anyways, and just get them illegally.

Difference is how easy they can get them, there's possibly a rather large one and can mean the difference between a school shooting that happens, and one that doesn't.

For example: I don't do drugs because I don't know where the hell I can get them. If they were legal for purchase I'd surely have gotten some. (not saying that doing drugs is wrong or imoral, i personally believe anyone should decide whether he/she should be able to do drugs.)

And anyone claiming there isn't a difference is just plain wrong, as basis for this statement I would refer to the amount of gun-related shootings there is in countries with guns legalized as opposed to those that don't (usually those with guns legalized have more crimes with guns).

---

Even if I thought gun control were a good thing, it'd still be a bad idea to implement it into the states. There's SO many guns here already. It'd be a different story if you could press a button, and have all guns on the earth destroyed, but the actual scenario is, there's more guns than there are people here

That is one point where I can agree. The US is far beyond the line now for anyone to even hope that there can be regulation of current guns, but that does not bar possibilities of future regulation & control. For example any gun sold from 2014 could be tracked by the gov. Sure NO WAY near as many as there're already around, but it's a start anyway. That and different municipals could also start a "give your unregistered gun get something" in return, which would limit the amount of unregistered guns that're goin' 'round.

It wouldn't stop gun-related crimes but it would help, and as long as a life is saved, it's worth it.

[Joey Skylynx]

My main issue is when they attempt to ban certain firearms under the happy brand word 'assault weapon'.
As of the moment anything which has been dubbed an assault weapon generally only accounts for 0.85% (from Feinsteins numbers) - 2.5%(entire Rifle Subset provided by FBI.Gov). The bad taste in my mouth comes from the misinformation and bad statistics.
The problem child? Handguns. Problem areas? 250,000+ population centers.
If this is the case I can already speak for how you solve these issues!

1.) Disallow anyone from purchasing handguns without a Concealed[or Open] Carry license. Use National Guards in each state to sponsor public education classes which allow people to get the licenses for $15 if they pass the tests. This license lasts for 5 Years, and each registration of new handgun(s) requires a new background check[as is normal with the 4473].

2.) As said before, we need public education courses for firearm safety/handling. As of the moment the standard tuition for handgun safety classes is $150 out of your pocket. That's ridiculous, and needs to be fixed. We need safety courses, firearm handling/operation, and otherwise to be brought as public education courses by the government. This will greatly reduce accidential injuries/death and will weed out those who only wish to buy firearms to look cool.

3.) Ban Gun Buyback Programs.
Historical firearms are destroyed everyday thanks to ridiculous programs which attempt to promote 'saving the local community'. Such programs should be out-right banned if their primary purpose is to destroy firearms and waste material.
Now here's my way of doing these programs... Purchase the firearms from those who bring them, and get the standard pricing of what they are. Take said firearms and give them some TLC, and then auction them off on GunBroker, GunsAmerica, or some form of auctioning site. It's rudimentary, but it would displace the firearms from the local community, and would in some respect save priceless historical firearms which are going to be tossed away into some smelter[Burn in hell, LAPD.]

I could go on about public education, mental healthcare, and job centers but that would be dragging it on...