America is looking at removing the 2nd amednment.

[~Sky~]

As if banning guns will stop the crazy people from getting them.

This would damage things more then it would solve them.

 

[ZK]

Why is it that the Government doesn't further regulate their drinking policies, yet they just want to take away firearms from civilians? Why don't they also take drinking away? It's just as bad.

Alcohol-consumption is a choice. Being shot is not a choice.
Alcohol, in moderation, has many purposes and isn't always 'harmful', in the sense that people are physically and/or mentally injured/negatively affected due to consumption. A gun, on the other hand, has the single purpose of hurting and killing other beings.
Side-arms and hunting-rifles are acceptable, considering the United States' long history of private arms-ownership, self-defense and hunting, but there is no argument for owning and/or selling sub-machineguns to civilians. One does not need a sub-machinegun to defend one's home. If it comes down to that; you're not looking at a robbery.
It's been proven time and time again that incidents involving weapons with a high rate-of-fire cost more lifes than incidents involving pistols and/or knives. Terrible incidents like Columbine and Sandy Hook simply proves my point that semi-automatic and automatic weapons should not be owned by civilians.

 

[Unbiased]

As if banning guns will stop the crazy people from getting them.

This would damage things more then it would solve them.

Where there's a will there's a way. Drugs are illegal yet people get them ect

 

[Unbiased]

Alcohol-consumption is a choice. Being shot is not a choice.
Alcohol, in moderation, has many purposes and isn't always 'harmful', in the sense that people are physically and/or mentally injured/negatively affected due to consumption. A gun, on the other hand, has the single purpose of hurting and killing other beings.
Side-arms and hunting-rifles are acceptable, considering the United States' long history of private arms-ownership, self-defense and hunting, but there is no argument for owning and/or selling sub-machineguns to civilians. One does not need a sub-machinegun to defend one's home. If it comes down to that; you're not looking at a robbery.
It's been proven time and time again that incidents involving weapons with a high rate-of-fire cost more lifes than incidents involving pistols and/or knives. Terrible incidents like Columbine and Sandy Hook simply proves my point that semi-automatic and automatic weapons should not be owned by civilians.

The original intention of the 2nd amendment was so the citizens could defend themselves from a corrupt government. Limiting the use of what the citizens can defend themselves with is in direct contradiction to the 2nd amendment. Further an assault weapons ban was placed in 1994 and expired after columbine so even with assault weapons banned he still obtained one and he used a shotgun.

 

[TheCCV]

No one fears someone with a knife. So no it doesn't.

The point of owning a weapon isn't to strike fear in somebody, it's to defend yourself.

 

[Robot Boy]

The point of owning a weapon isn't to strike fear in somebody, it's to defend yourself.

exactly.

 

[Unbiased]

The point of owning a weapon isn't to strike fear in somebody, it's to defend yourself.

When's guns are banned from law abiding citizens your only going to be threatened with a gun from a criminal while you'll only have a knife.

 

[ZK]

The original intention of the 2nd amendment was so the citizens could defend themselves from a corrupt government. Limiting the use of what the citizens can defend themselves with is in direct contradiction to the 2nd amendment. Further an assault weapons ban was placed in 1994 and expired after columbine so even with assault weapons banned he still obtained one and he used a shotgun.

This is not an argument. Your trust in these amendments is admirable, but misplaced. If these amendments do not serve society, they should be removed.
I do not claim that a ban would magically cause all 'large firearms' to disappear. I do, however, claim that such a ban would make obtaining those weapons much harder. It doesn't take a whole lot: label all assault-rifles, shotguns and sub-machineguns. Make bullets harder to come by through restrictions on their availability. Fine and jail those who own the guns illegally.
You round up the 'civilian rifles' for the good of the people.
Honestly; I find the implication that civilian population would be able to defend itself from a 'corrupt government' laughable. Civil war would surely be a product of a situation even remotely resembling such a scenario. I admire that you're adamant about defending your property, but giving everyone an AK-47 doesn't magically create a bubble of 'safety'. You're confusing the ability to scare an unarmed trespasser with the ability to fight an armed robber. Or fight another civilian simply because he/she's at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Violence simply breeds violence. It's an undeniable fact.

 

[-Ibrahim-]

Quit with the 2nd amendment, They did not have automatic guns! They had muskets that took 10 minutes to reload so they thought it wouldn't be a big danger, they didn't know how industrialized the world was going to get!

 

[Robot Boy]

This is not an argument. Your trust in these amendments is admirable, but misplaced. If these amendments do not serve society, they should be removed.
I do not claim that a ban would magically cause all 'large firearms' to disappear. I do, however, claim that such a ban would make obtaining those weapons much harder. It doesn't take a whole lot: label all assault-rifles, shotguns and sub-machineguns. Make bullets harder to come by through restrictions on their availability. Fine and jail those who own the guns illegally.
You round up the 'civilian rifles' for the good of the people.
Honestly; I find the implication that civilian population would be able to defend itself from a 'corrupt government' laughable. Civil war would surely be a product of a situation even remotely resembling such a scenario. I admire that you're adamant about defending your property, but giving everyone an AK-47 doesn't magically create a bubble of 'safety'. You're confusing the ability to scare an unarmed trespasser with the ability to fight an armed robber. Or fight another civilian simply because he/she's at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Violence simply breeds violence. It's an undeniable fact.

"Violence breeds Violence": true...but there is no way in hell I'm letting someone take my life away as soon as they attempt it.

@Ibrahim -> or did they?...you can't read they're minds and assume that as time passes there would not be any changes and that is what they thought....are you calling these great men stupid?....don't insult me.

 

[SasukeUchiha910]

oh hell no they will never

 

[ZK]

"Violence breeds Violence: true...but there is no way in hell I'm letting someone take my life away as soon as they attempt it.
@Ibrahim -> or did they?...you can't read they're minds and assume that as time passes there would not be any changes and that is what they thought....are you calling these great men stupid?....don't insult me.

So, you're gonna shoot them for trying to kill you?
Yes, I imagine you will.
Or you could both have no guns, and all you'd get is a black eye and some bruised ribs.

 

[Robot Boy]

So, you're gonna shoot them for trying to kill you?
Yes, I imagine you will.
Or you could both have no guns, and all you'd get is a black eye and some bruised ribs.

Well if it came to hand-to-hand combat I'm sure they would have a bruised eye and broken ribs. I'm trained. It depends on what the other uses and I will accordingly use the appropriate way to fight them meaning if they use a fist...I use a fist...they use a gun...I use a gun..I'm not irresponsible and its not up to anyone on how they should limit me on how I defend myself...but again I'm not irresponsible.
P.S. you missed some responses where people say the criminals and the mentally ill find alternative ways to find weapons to kill people...again pointless.

 

[Unbiased]

This is not an argument. Your trust in these amendments is admirable, but misplaced. If these amendments do not serve society, they should be removed.
I do not claim that a ban would magically cause all 'large firearms' to disappear. I do, however, claim that such a ban would make obtaining those weapons much harder. It doesn't take a whole lot: label all assault-rifles, shotguns and sub-machineguns. Make bullets harder to come by through restrictions on their availability. Fine and jail those who own the guns illegally.
You round up the 'civilian rifles' for the good of the people.
Honestly; I find the implication that civilian population would be able to defend itself from a 'corrupt government' laughable. Civil war would surely be a product of a situation even remotely resembling such a scenario. I admire that you're adamant about defending your property, but giving everyone an AK-47 doesn't magically create a bubble of 'safety'. You're confusing the ability to scare an unarmed trespasser with the ability to fight an armed robber. Or fight another civilian simply because he/she's at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Violence simply breeds violence. It's an undeniable fact.

Your a fool if you think it'll be harder to obtain it. Marijuana is illegal yet I can go down the street in my high middle class neighborhood and get some. Same goes for cocaine, LSD ect. Law abiding citizens will not have guns and criminals will. Look at mexico and tell me again a ban will make getting those weapons harder.

 

[-Ibrahim-]

I find it funny how you say don't insult me. You honestly think those "great men" were perfect? LOL

 

[Robot Boy]

I find it funny how you say don't insult me. You honestly think those "great men" were perfect? LOL

Oh you edited....When did I say they were "perfect" I said Great. I just didn't want you to underrate them for they're contributions or for what they thought.

 

[-Ibrahim-]

Oh you edited....When did I say they were "perfect" I just didn't want you to underrate them for they're contributions or for what they thought.

Not really an edit, at first I just wrote one word "LMAO" but I felt i needed to elaborate more.

 

[Robot Boy]

Not really an edit, at first I just wrote one word "LMAO" but I felt i needed to elaborate more.

oh..cool cool.

 

[7PointOh]

Alcohol-consumption is a choice. Being shot is not a choice.
Alcohol, in moderation, has many purposes and isn't always 'harmful', in the sense that people are physically and/or mentally injured/negatively affected due to consumption. A gun, on the other hand, has the single purpose of hurting and killing other beings.
Side-arms and hunting-rifles are acceptable, considering the United States' long history of private arms-ownership, self-defense and hunting, but there is no argument for owning and/or selling sub-machineguns to civilians. One does not need a sub-machinegun to defend one's home. If it comes down to that; you're not looking at a robbery.
It's been proven time and time again that incidents involving weapons with a high rate-of-fire cost more lifes than incidents involving pistols and/or knives. Terrible incidents like Columbine and Sandy Hook simply proves my point that semi-automatic and automatic weapons should not be owned by civilians.

Owning Firearms is a choice as well. Being hit by a drunk driver or being on the receiving of a drunken rage is not a choice. Just saying. Alcohol has the single purpose of taking away your inhibitions and affecting your judgement. Statistically speaking, alcohol fatalities far outnumbers firearm fatalities. But that's only because of the access people have to it.

So yes I agree with gun control. Automatic weapons, although not truly illegal, is strictly regulated. To own one a person has to go through exhaustive measures. Now you say side arms and pistols, but you do know that they are semi-automatic weapons. Unless it's a revolver or some old west style manual double action pistol, most sidearms are semi-auto.

I personally would like to see more of the safety training involved with license. Mandatory supplemental safety training periodically to keep your license. Still wouldn't stop the law breakers and the wackos though.

 

[ZK]

Your a fool if you think it'll be harder to obtain it. Marijuana is illegal yet I can go down the street in my high middle class neighborhood and get some. Same goes for cocaine, LSD ect. Law abiding citizens will not have guns and criminals will. Look at mexico and tell me again a ban will make getting those weapons harder.

Following that logic; all drugs and weapons should be legalized, as making them illegal doesn't 'stop anyone from getting them'.