Should guns be banned in the United States?

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Certain guns like high powered rifles, automatic weapons or magnums. Those are unnecessarily powerful for either hunting, or home defence.swizz-the-gamer

You can't really hunt a bear with anything other than an extremely powerful firearm.

But the whole Mexican separatist thing was idiotic. What does it say when those who are opposed to banning any guns think like that? Oh well, makes my side seem more reasonable.

Another great option would be to actually teach people about guns and get rid of the taboo.

If more people owned legally aquired firearms, less people would die at the hands of illegal firearms and those who used illegal firearms would die faster.

I disagree. Greatly.

Except for the fact that that's not why I think they should be legal.

I don't really care about hunting. If you want to hunt, hunt.

Either way, if guns are ever banned, I'd wind up owning various other instruments that are capable of inflicting pain on other people, like crossbows.

I'd keep that at home.
For protection.

I'll take what I can get legally. I may not agree with a law, but I won't break it unless I feel necessary.

No. If guns were banned, I would not illegally obtain any firearm of any calibur unless there was some reasoning.

I respect the law and those who uphold it, therefore unless I saw absolutely fit(IE: stereotypical evil government scenario), I would not obtain them through dubious ways.

But drugs are fun.
swizz-the-gamer

So are guns.

Anyone ever read the Federalist papers? Hamilton and Madison both argued in favour of a federal government BECAUSE the second amendment was going to be incorporated into its existence. They made the argument that armies controlled by a federal government would not pose a threat to liberty because of the prevalence of an armed populace. That is why we have a right to them guaranteed in the constitution. Frattracide

Indeed. The Second Amendment was really put into the Bill of Rights to provide the populace with a means to overthrow a tyrannical government, if one were to develop.

Abolishing the Second Amendment, as is, would only create an even more useless, but more threatening, nanny state.

"If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to takeawayeverything you have." -Pres. Gerald Ford

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] But drugs are fun.
The_Ish

So are guns.

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="mastershake575"]

[QUOTE="Bloodbath_87"] Just think about that...guns do nothing except TAKE LIFE AWAY.swizz-the-gamer

Drugs can't defend people. They can fry your brain, but that's it.

Legally owned firearms are rarely a danger, because they are rarely used for crime. THey can be tracked.

Illegally gained firearms are the universal preference. We should use resources to constrict the trade of illegal firearms over banning all of them, in my opinion.

Anyone ever read the Federalist papers? Hamilton and Madison both argued in favour of a federal government BECAUSE the second amendment was going to be incorporated into its existence. They made the argument that armies controlled by a federal government would not pose a threat to liberty because of the prevalence of an armed populace. That is why we have a right to them guaranteed in the constitution. Frattracide

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]Anyone ever read the Federalist papers? Hamilton and Madison both argued in favour of a federal government BECAUSE the second amendment was going to be incorporated into its existence. They made the argument that armies controlled by a federal government would not pose a threat to liberty because of the prevalence of an armed populace. That is why we have a right to them guaranteed in the constitution. reagan80_basic

Indeed. The Second Amendment was really put into the Bill of Rights to provide the populace with a means to overthrow a tyrannical government, if one were to develop.

Abolishing the Second Amendment, as is, would only create an even more useless, but more threatening, nanny state.

"If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to takeawayeverything you have." -Pres. Gerald Ford

[QUOTE="The_Ish"]

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] But drugs are fun.
swizz-the-gamer

So are guns.

We should decriminalize drugs, then.

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="The_Ish"]

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] But drugs are fun.
The_Ish

So are guns.

We should decriminalize drugs, then.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]Anyone ever read the Federalist papers? Hamilton and Madison both argued in favour of a federal government BECAUSE the second amendment was going to be incorporated into its existence. They made the argument that armies controlled by a federal government would not pose a threat to liberty because of the prevalence of an armed populace. That is why we have a right to them guaranteed in the constitution. bman784

Right, because things like government sponsored genocide don't happen these days.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]Anyone ever read the Federalist papers? Hamilton and Madison both argued in favour of a federal government BECAUSE the second amendment was going to be incorporated into its existence. They made the argument that armies controlled by a federal government would not pose a threat to liberty because of the prevalence of an armed populace. That is why we have a right to them guaranteed in the constitution. bman784

They must have meant.....

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="monkeytoes61"]You never studied the constitution is history ****did you? The_Ish

"The right to bear arms"

What are guns to you, then?

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]Anyone ever read the Federalist papers? Hamilton and Madison both argued in favour of a federal government BECAUSE the second amendment was going to be incorporated into its existence. They made the argument that armies controlled by a federal government would not pose a threat to liberty because of the prevalence of an armed populace. That is why we have a right to them guaranteed in the constitution. Frattracide

Right, because things like government sponsored genocide don't happen these days.

Can you seriously believe that could happen in America.:roll:

And murder so that we may have unrestricted gun-fun.SolidSnake35

Maybe, but then that would restrict the rights of others to live. Remember, we're supposed to let people do they want so as long as it does not hurt another or restricts the rights of others.

Using the argument "if we allow guns and drugs, why don't we allow murder too, or why not abolish government in general?' shows short-sightedness.

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]Anyone ever read the Federalist papers? Hamilton and Madison both argued in favour of a federal government BECAUSE the second amendment was going to be incorporated into its existence. They made the argument that armies controlled by a federal government would not pose a threat to liberty because of the prevalence of an armed populace. That is why we have a right to them guaranteed in the constitution. Frattracide

Right, because things like government sponsored genocide don't happen these days.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]Anyone ever read the Federalist papers? Hamilton and Madison both argued in favour of a federal government BECAUSE the second amendment was going to be incorporated into its existence. They made the argument that armies controlled by a federal government would not pose a threat to liberty because of the prevalence of an armed populace. That is why we have a right to them guaranteed in the constitution. KG86

Right, because things like government sponsored genocide don't happen these days.

Can you seriously believe that could happen in America.:roll:

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Certain guns like high powered rifles, automatic weapons or magnums. Those are unnecessarily powerful for either hunting, or home defence.-TheSecondSign-

You can't really hunt a bear with anything other than an extremely powerful firearm.

But the whole Mexican separatist thing was idiotic. What does it say when those who are opposed to banning any guns think like that? Oh well, makes my side seem more reasonable.

Another great option would be to actually teach people about guns and get rid of the taboo.

If more people owned legally aquired firearms, less people would die at the hands of illegal firearms and those who used illegal firearms would die faster.

I disagree. Greatly.

Except for the fact that that's not why I think they should be legal.

I don't really care about hunting. If you want to hunt, hunt.

Either way, if guns are ever banned, I'd wind up owning various other instruments that are capable of inflicting pain on other people, like crossbows.

I'd keep that at home.
For protection.

I'll take what I can get legally. I may not agree with a law, but I won't break it unless I feel necessary.

No. If guns were banned, I would not illegally obtain any firearm of any calibur unless there was some reasoning.

I respect the law and those who uphold it, therefore unless I saw absolutely fit(IE: stereotypical evil government scenario), I would not obtain them through dubious ways.

Of course you don't see people running around with crossbows, you not suppose to run around with weapons in public.

I think it should be ban at some point, because you could be selling guns to terrorists.

Thats why US has so much terrorists, people that hate US can just buy guns there.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] And murder so that we may have unrestricted gun-fun.The_Ish

Maybe, but then that would restrict the rights of others to live. Remember, we're supposed to let people do they want so as long as it does not hurt another or restricts the rights of others.

Using the argument "if we allow guns and drugs, why don't we allow murder too, or why not abolish government in general?' shows short-sightedness.

guns don't kill people, people kill people...battlefront23

But what would the very very few who would fight the goverment do against a single tank or a plane?
swizz-the-gamer

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]guns don't kill people, people kill people...SolidSnake35

so do hands and feet...

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Certain guns like high powered rifles, automatic weapons or magnums. Those are unnecessarily powerful for either hunting, or home defence.KG86

You can't really hunt a bear with anything other than an extremely powerful firearm.

Yeah but you don't need gun that shoot like 30 bullets a second to take down a bear.

And a random murderer is not going to drop over $10,000 (could not find the price) for a .557 Nitro Express. (One round is $70)

[QUOTE="The_Ish"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] And murder so that we may have unrestricted gun-fun.SolidSnake35

Maybe, but then that would restrict the rights of others to live. Remember, we're supposed to let people do they want so as long as it does not hurt another or restricts the rights of others.

Using the argument "if we allow guns and drugs, why don't we allow murder too, or why not abolish government in general?' shows short-sightedness.

That's why we have freedom of speech, and checks and balances. :)

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Certain guns like high powered rifles, automatic weapons or magnums. Those are unnecessarily powerful for either hunting, or home defence.Makemap

You can't really hunt a bear with anything other than an extremely powerful firearm.

But the whole Mexican separatist thing was idiotic. What does it say when those who are opposed to banning any guns think like that? Oh well, makes my side seem more reasonable.

Another great option would be to actually teach people about guns and get rid of the taboo.

If more people owned legally aquired firearms, less people would die at the hands of illegal firearms and those who used illegal firearms would die faster.

I disagree. Greatly.

Except for the fact that that's not why I think they should be legal.

I don't really care about hunting. If you want to hunt, hunt.

Either way, if guns are ever banned, I'd wind up owning various other instruments that are capable of inflicting pain on other people, like crossbows.

I'd keep that at home.
For protection.

I'll take what I can get legally. I may not agree with a law, but I won't break it unless I feel necessary.

No. If guns were banned, I would not illegally obtain any firearm of any calibur unless there was some reasoning.

I respect the law and those who uphold it, therefore unless I saw absolutely fit(IE: stereotypical evil government scenario), I would not obtain them through dubious ways.

Of course you don't see people running around with crossbows, you not suppose to run around with weapons in public.

I think it should be ban at some point, because you could be selling guns to terrorists.

Thats why US has so much terrorists, people that hate US can just buy guns there.

Yes, but most citiznes are too stupid to take over a government.wemhim

You might have a point. After a revolution, populist retards (think Huey P. Long or Hugo Chavez) would probably take over and the resulting mob rule would prolong our misery anyway.

guns don't kill people, people kill people...battlefront23

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]Anyone ever read the Federalist papers? Hamilton and Madison both argued in favour of a federal government BECAUSE the second amendment was going to be incorporated into its existence. They made the argument that armies controlled by a federal government would not pose a threat to liberty because of the prevalence of an armed populace. That is why we have a right to them guaranteed in the constitution. KG86

Right, because things like government sponsored genocide don't happen these days.

Can you seriously believe that could happen in America.:roll:

No, because the populace is well armed. In places were the governments prevent the ownership of arms it does happen. Just because the current existing political climate in the U.S. is not conducive to acts like genocide, doesn't mean it won't be some day. Pre WWII Germany was a developed, civilized country. Genocide happened there AFTER firearm ownership was made into a crime.

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]Anyone ever read the Federalist papers? Hamilton and Madison both argued in favour of a federal government BECAUSE the second amendment was going to be incorporated into its existence. They made the argument that armies controlled by a federal government would not pose a threat to liberty because of the prevalence of an armed populace. That is why we have a right to them guaranteed in the constitution. Frattracide

Right, because things like government sponsored genocide don't happen these days.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]guns don't kill people, people kill people...battlefront23

so do hands and feet...

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]Anyone ever read the Federalist papers? Hamilton and Madison both argued in favour of a federal government BECAUSE the second amendment was going to be incorporated into its existence. They made the argument that armies controlled by a federal government would not pose a threat to liberty because of the prevalence of an armed populace. That is why we have a right to them guaranteed in the constitution. bman784

Right, because things like government sponsored genocide don't happen these days.

You would prefer genocide to civil war?

The real problem here is bullets, not guns. Lets just ban bullets!Mythbuster4ever

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]guns don't kill people, people kill people...wemhim

man will always find easier ways to kill each other... if you're afraid someone might shoot you, how about you buy your own gun?

[QUOTE="wemhim"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]guns don't kill people, people kill people...battlefront23

man will always find easier ways to kill each other... if you're afraid someone might shoot you, how about you buy your own gun?

I had to laugh at that. :lol:

[QUOTE="wemhim"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]guns don't kill people, people kill people...battlefront23

man will always find easier ways to kill each other... if you're afraid someone might shoot you, how about you buy your own gun?

[QUOTE="wemhim"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]guns don't kill people, people kill people...battlefront23

man will always find easier ways to kill each other... if you're afraid someone might shoot you, how about you buy your own gun?

no we should never ban guns....

That would be too much, and is just giving the government more and more power.

I think we need to at least have a background check and a license for guns instead of just popping into the pawn shop and buying one.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]

[QUOTE="wemhim"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]guns don't kill people, people kill people...wemhim

man will always find easier ways to kill each other... if you're afraid someone might shoot you, how about you buy your own gun?

No. Get rid of one Bill of Right, and then the others will go in time aswell.GettingTired

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]Anyone ever read the Federalist papers? Hamilton and Madison both argued in favour of a federal government BECAUSE the second amendment was going to be incorporated into its existence. They made the argument that armies controlled by a federal government would not pose a threat to liberty because of the prevalence of an armed populace. That is why we have a right to them guaranteed in the constitution. Frattracide

Right, because things like government sponsored genocide don't happen these days.

You would prefer genocide to civil war?

LOLOL guns don't kill people, people kill people right guys??? mmogoon

No. Get rid of one Bill of Right, and then the others will go in time aswell.GettingTired

Criminals have guns in the UK... I don't have a gun. I'm not afraid.
swizz-the-gamer

But, aren't you just a little concerned about what the Canterbury Archbishop said about "adopting some Islamic Sharia laws" to quell "Muzzy" angst in the U.K.?

I believe Churchill would have called this notion "appeasement".

[QUOTE="swizz-the-gamer"] Criminals have guns in the UK... I don't have a gun. I'm not afraid.
reagan80_basic

But, aren't you just a little concerned about what the Canterbury Archbishop said about "adopting some Islamic Sharia laws" to quell :Muzzy" angst in the U.K.?

I believe Churchill would have called this notion "appeasement".