Guns...who loves them?

[Hotcorner]

yeah the militia argument loses a lot of weight these days...

 

if we've reached the point where your neighborhood is being taken over, a handgun isn't going to do much good against a tank...

 

what then, ban handguns but not rifles? what's the logic there? simply because sportsmen prefer rifles and handguns can be hidden?

[SorianoFanHFW]

But an ak47 can kill a lot of people.

 

Popular uprisings in nazi occupied europe and elsewhere throughout history have been accomplished with nothing more than hand guns and some rifles.

 

In fact, America parachuted cheap ass hand guns to the partisans throughout europe...so if a hand gun could theoretically stop a nazi tank...

 

the point is 200 million people armed with guns are hard to stop, even with a military like ours.

[SorianoFanHFW]

Switzerland, which is armed to it's teeth with (you guess it) guns, has a lower murder rate than Great Britain (where guns are illegal) by 14%.

 

Explain that then.

I'd attribute at least some of that to the fact that Swiss males are required to become members of the militia, and therefore are at least trained and presumably somewhat responsible with their weapons...

 

At 20 years old every male is issued an automatic military rifle and required to keep it at home. The country requires three weeks of service every year, diminishing over the years to one week.

 

When a Swiss is no longer required to serve, he may keep his rifle (converted from automatic to semi-automatic) or his pistol (if he served as an officer).

 

It may have saved the Swiss from Nazi invasion. It has been said that the Nazis decided not to try and take Switzerland because with basically every home being armed, it would've been far too costly.

 

I think it's more of a cultural/social issue why the U.S. can't handle their guns responsibly. Good post, the nazis didn't want to btoehr with switzerland because it was too much trouble (and probably for money laundering reasons and well.)

 

It is definitely a social issue.

[Fish Fillet]

But an ak47 can kill a lot of people.

 

Popular uprisings in nazi occupied europe and elsewhere throughout history have been accomplished with nothing more than hand guns and some rifles.

 

In fact, America parachuted cheap ass hand guns to the partisans throughout europe...so if a hand gun could theoretically stop a nazi tank...

 

the point is 200 million people armed with guns are hard to stop, even with a military like ours.

Your comparisons are a little bit of a stretch.

 

First off, if dumping in firearms to occupied countries in WWII was so effective, why did we bother to invade?

 

Of course it helped the resistance in those countries and added a marginal amount of instability, but it's not like a couple thousand rifles were going to kick the Nazi's out of anywhere.

 

And as for armed citizens being hard to stop... Didn't seem like much of a problem in Afghanistan, where every single person there not only owned a weapon, but had combat experience throughout their whole life. How about Iraq? Don't see the US losing to major offensives launched by a well-armed citizenry. If the current Iraq "insurgency" is the best a well-armed population can do then I'll pass on the risk of letting a drunk 18 year old carry around a semi-auto 9mm because "it's cool."

 

The Swiss were a million times more valuable as a legitimate fence for the Nazi's to use in order to liquidate the spoils of their philandering.

 

And finally, If the NRA was protecting my right to own an Abrams or a couple of Tomahawks in my backyard then the militia defense would work. But short of that it's a little weak. So I guess at best the NRA missed the boat on my right to protect freedom individually via bearing effective arms about a hundred years ago.

[SorianoFanHFW]

First off, if dumping in firearms to occupied countries in WWII was so effective, why did we bother to invade?Of course it helped the resistance in those countries and added a marginal amount of instability, but it's not like a couple thousand rifles were going to kick the Nazi's out of anywhere.

 

Did I claim hand guns alone can win a war? They can make a hell of a lot of a ruckus. The germans had to waste ARMIES worth of men just to take down internal dissent. Those armies could of been at the front.

 

For example, 4 german divisions had to be kept at warsaw BECAUSE of guys and their guns...

 

So your "marginal amount of instability" might be one of the largest understatements in history. The warsaw uprising was a flat out major battle behind enemy lines starting in the august of 1944.

 

About 2500 armed people (out of 20,000 that fought) killed 17,000 germans, 6,000 MIA, 9,000 wounded, and took out 300 armored cars and tanks (the largest tank army on earth had about 700 and it was lost in the battle of kiev).

 

So yes, people and their lousy little guns gave the germans an awfully bad bloody nose.

 

So does personal gun ownership make a difference? Yes, that's why the nazis made it illegal.

 

And as for armed citizens being hard to stop... Didn't seem like much of a problem in Afghanistan, where every single person there not only owned a weapon, but had combat experience throughout their whole life. How about Iraq? Don't see the US losing to major offensives launched by a well-armed citizenry. If the current Iraq "insurgency" is the best a well-armed population can do then I'll pass on the risk of letting a drunk 18 year old carry around a semi-auto 9mm because "it's cool."

Don't tell me you buy into what the liberal media says about iraq and afghanistan. Not every iraqi and afghan wants us dead...if it was their guns that were the problem there would be mass armed uprising, not woosy car bombings.

 

So if that is your justification to take away hand guns from the american citizen, let's just say it is a terrible reason.

 

The Swiss were a million times more valuable as a legitimate fence for the Nazi's to use in order to liquidate the spoils of their philandering.

I already brought up that point.

 

And finally, If the NRA was protecting my right to own an Abrams or a couple of Tomahawks in my backyard then the militia defense would work. But short of that it's a little weak. So I guess at best the NRA missed the boat on my right to protect freedom individually via bearing effective arms about a hundred years ago.

 

Militias in my honest opinion could be armed with such weapons, but the constitution seems to only allude to personal gun ownership. I would think assault weapons fall under this.

[g8trz2003]

nice avatar Fish Fillet! :thumbup

[SorianoFanHFW]

there's a thing called PM for that

[Guest Moneyball]

i love guns. if people didn't have them they would be robbed. like nukes the reason countries don't attack is because when you have a weapon that can destroy them they wouldn't even try.

 

REMEMBER THE COLD WAR

[Fish Fillet]

i love guns. if people didn't have them they would be robbed. like nukes the reason countries don't attack is because when you have a weapon that can destroy them they wouldn't even try.

 

REMEMBER THE COLD WAR

Ungh....

 

Projecting some type of personal detente is a little suspect. If this were true there would be no gun violence.

 

But if it were true, explain why cops get shot? I mean, an assailant is clearly aware that the police have an arsenal of weapons and superior numbers at their disposal, and yet cops managed to get shot.

[g8trz2003]

killings will happen. Without guns, there would be other violence. Guns don't increase violence, lack of guns don't decrease violence. There is no mistaken that guns can be used for 2 things: personal protection and sport (hunting). That is why we own guns.

 

As for this militia nonsense, I don't see how a militia argument is relevant to this day in age. I mean, theoretically 2000 people with ak-47s (my uncle actually has 2 of them) could hold up for awhile against the damn commies or what have you. But in actuality, having a nice handgun nearby does the trick in case of home attack. Shotguns and rifles can work, and also work well in hunting.

 

Some people like guns for the sheer joy of shooting targets. I see no problem in that.

[SorianoFanHFW]

Pretty convenient to ignore the fact you just got taught a history lesson.

 

Didn't aggrevated assaults and such GO UP in britain when guns were made illegal?

[Special K]

Its simple, you cant use the arguement that the Supreme Court never came out and gave their thoughts on the 2nd Ammendment. Thats like Me saying that you can't claim Dave Chapelle's funny simply because Richard Pryor hasnt openly stated he liked the Rick James sketches. That assumption just doesnt hold water my friend, and as for you "people" mean the militia reasoning?...

 

 

I guess the preambe should be changed to "We The Milita...."

[SorianoFanHFW]

Its simple, you cant use the arguement that the Supreme Court never came out and gave their thoughts on the 2nd Ammendment. Thats like Me saying that you can't claim Dave Chapelle's funny simply because Richard Pryor hasnt openly stated he liked the Rick James sketches. That assumption just doesnt hold water my friend, and as for you "people" mean the militia reasoning?...

 

 

I guess the preambe should be changed to "We The Milita...."

:lol Well said

[Flying_Mollusk]

Its simple, you cant use the arguement that the Supreme Court never came out and gave their thoughts on the 2nd Ammendment. Thats like Me saying that you can't claim Dave Chapelle's funny simply because Richard Pryor hasnt openly stated he liked the Rick James sketches. That assumption just doesnt hold water my friend, and as for you "people" mean the militia reasoning?...

 

 

I guess the preambe should be changed to "We The Milita...."

:lol Well saidNo, Im arguing all the way back to my original point. The Supreme Court, in response to a petitioner claiming a regulation on sawed off shotguns was a regulation on his individual right to bear arms, said such right was not established since it had no link to the militia. My ORIGINAL claim was that it is silly to think that the 2nd amendment is some blanket protection of "arms" protection. Here:

 

One of the biggest misconceptions perpetuated by the NRA is that we have the right to bear arms. The supreme court has never interpreted the 2nd amendment as some unequivical right to bear arms.

Mr arrogance then decided he was going to give me a history lesson without giving me a history lesson. He pointed to the text and pretty much dismissed the SC.

 

Now why would the court, in interpreting whether a sawed off shotgun was an arm for which one had a right to bear, link it to a use for the milita? And why would they allow such a regulation of the right to bear an arm was unquestioned? Perhaps because it isnt. That was my original point. The right to bear arms is not unequivical.

 

I backed this up with the question of why the NRA, if said right was unequivical, would not have challenged the numerous federal gun control laws in court? I argue that its because they know that the court will issue a bright line rule like they have for right to free speeh and religion that clears away their 2nd amendment claims.

 

 

Well at least SF finallt concedes that an amendment only weight down as much as the court says it does. And franky thats fine with me as we live in practical times and not ideological ideas.

 

 

Now he continues to preform his dispositive thinking by demanding that I dismiss his views. Im not going to defend every gun control law so you can set me up and then say you won and make yourself feel better. But the fact is gun laws are easily subverted and the NRA does whatever it can to keep this subversion going on. Then you and the NRA like can jump up and down and claim practical laws dont work and just inhibit ownership. How can the inhibit ownership argument have any weight.

 

 

-Is it so immense a burden to wait a WEEK for a gun?

-Is it so immense a burden to not be able to buy 15 handguns at once?

-Is it so immense a burden to not have assault weapons?

-Is it so immense a burden to not have 8 handguns to protect your house?

 

 

Now you say people will be able to get guns through illegal gun dealers. Therein lies the problem. The police are taking guns off the streets in rapid numbers. But they are being supplied back onto the streets in rapid numbers. How? Those same illegal gun dealers who point to go to a gun store and purchase guns in bulk. Thats how merchants operate. It allows them to have a well established business. Now if we made it a hassle on them to buy guns in bulk, they probably would have no business. If they could only buy a certain amount of guns a month or have to get other people to buy them for them, it would disable their supply. But we cant stop them. The illegal arms dealers are using every loophole and opening they can and the NRA refuses to give way to allow them to be closed. Guns are allowed to be supplied for illegal purposes.

 

 

Amen, Mollusk. I think we actually argree on something.

 

About time! :thumbup

[SorianoFanHFW]

Mr arrogance then decided he was going to give me a history lesson without giving me a history lesson. He pointed to the text and pretty much dismissed the SC.

Being arrogant sure beats being stupid. You can read into the previous how you please.

 

Now why would the court, in interpreting whether a sawed off shotgun was an arm for which one had a right to bear, link it to a use for the milita? And why would they allow such a regulation of the right to bear an arm was unquestioned? Perhaps because it isnt. That was my original point. The right to bear arms is not unequivical.

 

Already you present a flawed argument that the second amendment applies only to militias. Furthermore, you must concede to the fact that going with current supreme court interpretation isn't worth two cents "in china money." Otherwise by your logic, the fact that blacks couldn't vote was perfectly constitutional. That's BS. That's why it is important not to let society think gun control is good, because it only leads to a supreme court that ultimately outlaws guns.

 

Well at least SF finallt concedes that an amendment only weight down as much as the court says it does. And franky thats fine with me as we live in practical times and not ideological ideas.

Yeah, you must of loved poll taxes and such...because making them illegal impeded on a "States soveriegnty." BS.

 

Im not going to defend every gun control law so you can set me up and then say you won and make yourself feel better. But the fact is gun laws are easily subverted and the NRA does whatever it can to keep this subversion going on. Then you and the NRA like can jump up and down and claim practical laws dont work and just inhibit ownership. How can the inhibit ownership argument have any weight.

 

I have a question for you...why support ANY LAW that doesn't work? What's the point? I can support a law that makes sodomy illegal, but we all know the law can never achieve this. Such a law is stupid and this includes gun control laws.

 

What gun control laws do is set up society into believing that guns are somehow this terrible dangerous force that we must rid from every house from all of society. We should stop giving people the idea that their 2nd amendment right is somehow not important.

 

-Is it so immense a burden to wait a WEEK for a gun?

-Is it so immense a burden to not be able to buy 15 handguns at once?

-Is it so immense a burden to not have assault weapons?

-Is it so immense a burden to not have 8 handguns to protect your house?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. All these things are our right. Judging from the fact so many handguns are illegal, someone buying 15 handguns legally does not scare me.

 

Anything that impedes gun ownership is a burden. Any law that does not work is bad. So how can you support gun control, it is just stupid.

 

Now you say people will be able to get guns through illegal gun dealers. Therein lies the problem. The police are taking guns off the streets in rapid numbers. But they are being supplied back onto the streets in rapid numbers. How? Those same illegal gun dealers who point to go to a gun store and purchase guns in bulk. Thats how merchants operate. It allows them to have a well established business. Now if we made it a hassle on them to buy guns in bulk, they probably would have no business. If they could only buy a certain amount of guns a month or have to get other people to buy them for them, it would disable their supply. But we cant stop them. The illegal arms dealers are using every loophole and opening they can and the NRA refuses to give way to allow them to be closed. Guns are allowed to be supplied for illegal purposes.

 

But here's the fault in your logic: illegalize guns, gun violence goes up, like in places like Great Britain. So you can cut one source, but yet another opens up. So by making legal restrictions, you just take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. It is rather simple.

 

With the fact staring you in the face that personal gun ownership can act against government oppression (to the smallest or highest degree, that is a matter of opinion) and the fact that gun control laws 100% DO NOT WORK, there is no reason to set any restriction to the 2nd Amendment.

[Special K]

Canada is a country of 30 Million people, roughly 10 Million families, and there ar 7 million guns. Yet their murder rate is so low its not funny. I wonder why this is?

[SorianoFanHFW]

Canada is a country of 30 Million people, roughly 10 Million families, and there ar 7 million guns. Yet their murder rate is so low its not funny. I wonder why this is?

I think most intelligent people know it is not the amount of guns, but the society that breeds murderous violence.

[Flying_Mollusk]

I have a question for you...why support ANY LAW that doesn't work? What's the point? I can support a law that makes sodomy illegal, but we all know the law can never achieve this. What gun control laws do is set up society into believing that guns are somehow this terrible dangerous force that we must rid from every house from all of society. We should stop giving people the idea that their 2nd amendment right is somehow not important.

 

Im not going to entertain your broad views of laws. We will always have crime in this country so you cant judge the effectivness of gun laws on the crime rate. Nor can you compare it to other nations. We have a violence ridden nation, we have way way more large cities that are condusive to crime which raises the PERCENTAGE.

 

Ok if gun possesion and less crime compared with gun control and more crime means gun control has failed, lets look at it another way. By your vary rationality does SOCIALISM reduce crime? Those nations have a lot more socialism and less crime so does a policy irradicating government economic programs mean more crime? My point is its a weak comparison to the nations but you seem so intent on doing it. There are SOOO many otehr factors.

 

But lets say it is our culture and not the guns. The fact is guns are condusive to that culture. Yes you and furman gator should have gun access. But how does that argument follow that that part of the nation that is more condusive to violence shouldnt be limited in their gun possesion? AND THIS ISNT EVEN GUN POSSESION! Its affectuating criminals and gun dealers prevented from getting guns! And you dismiss this without anything substanative. You dismiss by saying its our culture and we will always have crime-with mere possesion over regulation. Everything is so simple for you.

 

 

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. All these things are our right. Judging from the fact so many handguns are illegal, someone buying 15 handguns legally does not scare me.

 

Anything that impedes gun ownership is a burden. Any law that does not work is bad. So how can you support gun control, it is just stupid.

 

Youve got to be kidding me. Those things are such immense burdens? Not all intrusions on rights are so burdensome. Its silly to make a bright line rule. But you usually do that.

 

Canada is a country of 30 Million people, roughly 10 Million families, and there ar 7 million guns. Yet their murder rate is so low its not funny. I wonder why this is?

We have three times that population and hence way more larger cities which raises our murder rate by a lot. We also have a capitist society which is going to be conducive to more violence since less guarenteed services. And yes, we do have violent history. But the presence of more crime in this country shows that we have other factors that govern and thats why we need to make sure guns are well regulated.

 

 

 

Being arrogant sure beats being stupid. You can read into the previous how you please.

 

Blah blah blah...Why is it that you are the only person who refers to other people as being stupid? Rippyo is stupid, cyberlina is stupid, Im stupid. I staunchly disagree with a rippyo, furman and fish fillet but they are far from stupid. You ever hear the phrase reasonable minds can differ? Are you that into yourself that you have to refer to everything you believe as being intelligent and obvious but what others believe as being stupid? Trust me, these say a lot more about you than they do about anyone else.

 

And dont even pretend you dont effuse arrogance. Does anybody else keep score in an debate? Does anyone else call other people idiots?

[SorianoFanHFW]

Im not going to entertain your broad views of laws. We will always have crime in this country so you cant judge the effectivness of gun laws on the crime rate.

:lol :lol :lol ...so, if gun availability was proven to increase gun violence, you wouldn't support gun control :lol :lol :lol why do you think we have it, for the hell of it! If the law doesn't work, dump it.

 

Nor can you compare it to other nations. We have a violence ridden nation, we have way way more large cities that are condusive to crime which raises the PERCENTAGE.

So, there you said it. THAT'S the problem, not guns. Thank you.

 

Ok if gun possesion and less crime compared with gun control and more crime means gun control has failed, lets look at it another way. By your vary rationality does SOCIALISM reduce crime? Those nations have a lot more socialism and less crime so does a policy irradicating government economic programs mean more crime? My point is its a weak comparison to the nations but you seem so intent on doing it. There are SOOO many otehr factors.

Oh no, you went all Michael Moore on me!

 

No, it is not socialism. There are far too many socioeconomic factors that come into play in America. Nice try! :thumbup But here's what we do know, gun control does not correlate with les illegal guns or violence...so what's the point Sherlock Holmes?

 

But lets say it is our culture and not the guns. The fact is guns are condusive to that culture. Yes you and furman gator should have gun access. But how does that argument follow that that part of the nation that is more condusive to violence shouldnt be limited in their gun possesion?

Are you trying to say that because furman and I are white, we can have guns, but not black people or something???

 

AND THIS ISNT EVEN GUN POSSESION! Its affectuating criminals and gun dealers prevented from getting guns!

Look at great britain, THEY GET THEM ANYWAY. Gun control=massive failure + inhibited rights.

 

And you dismiss this without anything substanative. You dismiss by saying its our culture and we will always have crime-with mere possesion over regulation. Everything is so simple for you.

It is the fact that 85% of the fire arms used in crime are illegal anyway, the fact that gun violence was not curbed in countries where guns are illegal, and Switzerland's murder rate that lead me to believe there is no good reason for good control. Name one dude, one. It is not the amount of guns on the streets, because guns will continue to change hands, like they had elsewhere. It cannot be for less crime, because there's no correlation for that either.

 

So, you have no good reason to limit people's rights.

 

Youve got to be kidding me. Those things are such immense burdens? Not all intrusions on rights are so burdensome. Its silly to make a bright line rule. But you usually do that.

You know what's better than a little bit of burden??? NO BURDEN! Why have any at all for no reason? Furthermore, why give the government the ability to confiscate guns in the future? Why give society the idea that guns should not be respected?

 

I mean, guns have become so taboo nower days. People have lsot respect for their awesome killing power. In the past (in america), there were periods of higher gun ownership and less crime and periods with lower gun ownership and more crime. In my grandmother's day, everyone knew where the family gun was and they didn't dare touch it. By trying to push guns out of the public focus via gun control, it only becomes more taboo and more the weapon of criminals than the means of self defense for the citizen.

 

We have three times that population and hence way more larger cities which raises our murder rate by a lot. We also have a capitist society which is going to be conducive to more violence since less guarenteed services.

Switzerland has a lower tax rate than us and less gun violence...explain that.

 

Guys, it is not capitalism. It is our violent culture(s) from all segments of our society. It is the fact we have a huge amount of economic diversity. We are naturally more on edge than citizens of other countries. Yes, the media comes into play, but is it capitalism? No, there's no proof of that. Don't let Moore get the best of you.

 

 

And yes, we do have violent history. But the presence of more crime in this country shows that we have other factors that govern and thats why we need to make sure guns are well regulated.

So this is the crux of your argument? We have things to govern, therefore we must have ineffectual laws? Sorry, that's stupid.

 

Blah blah blah...Why is it that you are the only person who refers to other people as being stupid? Rippyo is stupid, cyberlina is stupid, Im stupid. I staunchly disagree with a rippyo, furman and fish fillet but they are far from stupid. You ever hear the phrase reasonable minds can differ? Are you that into yourself that you have to refer to everything you believe as being intelligent and obvious but what others believe as being stupid? Trust me, these say a lot more about you than they do about anyone else.

 

And dont even pretend you dont effuse arrogance. Does anybody else keep score in an debate? Does anyone else call other people idiots?

 

Blah blah blah. Stop being so condescending oh superior moral guide of all. It takes two to debate, don't be saying I'm somehow more arrogant than you. By assuming that, your assumption falls into the realm of stupidity, thus my response.

[Flying_Mollusk]

...so, if gun availability was proven to increase gun violence, you wouldn't support gun control why do you think we have it, for the hell of it! If the law doesn't work, dump it.

If everything were just so simple. But its not. Laws are also meant to undercut wrongdoing but they wont always bring peace on earth.

 

 

Oh no, you went all Michael Moore on me!

 

No, it is not socialism. There are far too many socioeconomic factors that come into play in America. Nice try! But here's what we do know, gun control does not correlate with les illegal guns or violence...so what's the point Sherlock Holmes?

 

You just proved my point.

 

Are you trying to say that because furman and I are white, we can have guns, but not black people or something???

Youve gotta be kidding me. This has nothing to do with race. Its about violence prone areas. Ill make it a little more clear for you. Brevard county does not equal south side of Chicago.

 

 

It is the fact that 85% of the fire arms used in crime are illegal anyway, the fact that gun violence was not curbed in countries where guns are illegal, and Switzerland's murder rate that lead me to believe there is no good reason for good control. Name one dude, one. It is not the amount of guns on the streets, because guns will continue to change hands, like they had elsewhere. It cannot be for less crime, because there's no correlation for that either.

 

I never said number of guns nor control of guns. Gun control that undercuts illegal gun sales is the vital law.

 

 

You know what's better than a little bit of burden??? NO BURDEN! Why have any at all for no reason? Furthermore, why give the government the ability to confiscate guns in the future? Why give society the idea that guns should not be respected?

 

 

This is why I say you are idealistic.

 

So this is the crux of your argument? We have things to govern, therefore we must have ineffectual laws? Sorry, that's stupid.

 

No, other things govern violence in this country. As in other factors.

 

Blah blah blah. Stop being so condescending oh superior moral guide of all. It takes two to debate, don't be saying I'm somehow more arrogant than you. By assuming that, your assumption falls into the realm of stupidity, thus my response.

 

Its called civility. Im arguing youre less civil in arguments than the level a heated argument should have. And youre explicit in your arrogance. But if you dont want to, thats your choice.

[SorianoFanHFW]

If everything were just so simple. But its not. Laws are also meant to undercut wrongdoing but they wont always bring peace on earth.

So that's your justification for gun control? If it is well meaning, that's good enough?

 

Dude, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Yes, peace on Earth will not be accomplished, but you can avoid infrigement on rights and unneccesary legislation by avoiding unneccesary laws. So if you concede to the point that gun control is ineffectual, what are you even debating for?

 

You just proved my point.

And this does with "But here's what we do know, gun control does not correlate with les illegal guns or violence..." how?

 

Youve gotta be kidding me. This has nothing to do with race. Its about violence prone areas. Ill make it a little more clear for you. Brevard county does not equal south side of Chicago.

So, make guns illegal in cities and not the country side? What if people need the protection offered by a firearm in a city? Hell, they are citizens too, they are entitled to it. So what point are you making? Take rights away from some people and not others? At this point you are not even making sense.

 

I never said number of guns nor control of guns. Gun control that undercuts illegal gun sales is the vital law.

But gun control has failed to undercut illegal gun sales and gun violence in our nation and others.

 

This is why I say you are idealistic.

At least I'm not advocating a list of laws that I believe are ineffectual anyway.

 

I might have some reasons (some of which "idealistic") to be against gun control, but you have none to be for it. I can live with that.

 

No, other things govern violence in this country. As in other factors.

Yes, and gun control has proven to be a non factor in making less violence. So why do you support it?

 

Its called civility. Im arguing youre less civil in arguments

 

Listen to yourself and read the above.

 

Good. It has come to the point where you are aguing for ineffectual laws practically "for the hell of it." Well, excuse me for thinking that is stupid.

 

I can intelligently bring up points how gun control is ineffectual and how personal gun ownership has faught tyranical government. Of course you do not reply to this. you repeat tired arguements to the point you concede that guns do not make the level of violence in this nation and gun control is useless.

 

So by being "civil" you mean desiring ineffectual laws that serve no purpose, so be it. In a sane society, we would not want that, especially when such laws inhibit our rights.

[SorianoFanHFW]

You can buy tanks as long as you "preserve" them for 40 grand...I wish I had 40 grand.

[Shamrock]

I think arguments and interpretations of the Constitution have been exhausted on both sides, so I will just post my opinion. Guns should be regulated and assault weapons banned. I'd like to see some of the data from Britain though.

[SorianoFanHFW]

Serioiously Sham, AK47s are perfectly legal...how many crimes with those do we hear of?

 

I'll get some britain numbers sometime, but I'll be busy,

[Buckeye]

Here's a perspective we haven't thought of...

 

You know who DOESN'T like guns:

 

 

I'll bet that dude HATES guns! Look at all the trouble they cause... BROTHER!