AR15

The modern sporting rifle is gaining popularity for hunting applications. Also, I believe the semi automatic rifles will increase in popularity for such purposes in the coming years if the government doesn't confiscate them first.

Exactly, in 50 years semi-automatic rifles will be laughingly looked at like we look at lever actions now. Reliable, but antiquated.

I don't really see it. What can we go further beyond semi auto? There might be more reliable/durable semi auto action, but it still will be semi auto. Black power has served us for a long time, it's not going to take merely 50 years to disappear.

You might say rail guns or whatever, but the energy source required to operate a rail gun is probably not going to become mobile for a long long time. There is also problem with operational lifetime of rail guns.

We already have rail guns that are mounted on ships. We are gaining technology at a faster and faster pace. I wouldn't be surprised if we had hand held rail guns and the beginning of energy weapons in the next 10-20 years.

I just said the energy required to operate a rail gun for more than a few shots won't become mobile for a long while. It takes 5-10 MJ for one shot, and the heat caused by it breaks the weapon down quite fast

Never underestimate how fast technology is progressing, hell, less than 5 years ago, people never would have thought that things like this were possible, and yet, biologists have already discovered how to create ''cybernetic flesh'' using nanowires, transistors, and blood vessels taken from rats (to mimic human tissue), and are now working on prosthetics that mimic human muscle/joint movement.

Military warfare already employs weapons that fire airburst rounds, which can be pre-programmed to detonate after traveling a certain distance, quite literally allowing you to eliminate targets hiding around corners/behind cover without putting yourself directly in danger

My point is, technology progresses at an exponential rate, we might be laughing at a lot of these things now, but a decade from now, who knows what the fuck people will have come up with?

Yes, I agree that there have been technological innovations recently, but how many of those innovations have actually been implemented on a large scale? The air burst rounds have been around for a while now, but the military is just beginning to start low rate production. The military adopting a new technology is a long process, they have to make sure that the system is proven reliable until they even start to consider it.

It's going to be the same thing with fire arms. The military is going to be slow to change from one system to another. The M4 is a perfect example of this. There are more reliable rifles today, but the army is not considering buying any of them.

And ten years ago a MP3 player/GPS/phone/game console/ebook reader/ internet/camera/watch was a stated impossibility within the next few years, and yet here we are with 100 dollar cell phones stronger then high end gaming computers of a decade ago. Give it time, the energy requirements for rail guns will drop, battery capabilities will rise, and everything will get smaller. It is inevitable.

Yes, but the MP3 players and what not have a large consumer population, whereas firearms have a much smaller consumer population. With each advance in technology, there will always be some people who jumps on it immediately, and others who tend to hang back. The large percentage of the population will tend to hang back until the system is proven to be better than the current system.

by the way, the energy requirement to send a projectile flying will always be the same. What's holding rail gun back is reliability and power storage.

The energy requirement to send a object down range in terms of actual kinetic energy will be the same, but HOW the energy is used will change. Look at battery powered cars, engines get more efficient, cars get lighter, batteries get stronger. I am not an electronics engineer, but assuming we find a better way to conduct energy, build better batteries, and more efficient rail systems, I do not see why it would not eventually be mainstream to have a hand held rail system. Literally everything you can say about rail guns I can say about technology in general. No offense, but hand held rail systems ARE INEVITABLE.

I never said that hand held rail gun are not possible, I suggested that they will not replace current cartridge system in merely 50 years. I suppose we will be make a rail gun that operates reliably when we make an alloy that is a superconductor at room temperature. Until then we will have to deal with eddy currents heating up the rails and how to carry around a lot of energy in a small package.

The big thing you overlook is we already HAVE hand held railguns, they just are not yet practical due to low battery capacity.

And I think they will. Look at computers, cell phones, televisions, etc. I am not saying it will happen over night, but that it will happen in less then 50 years, assuming there isn't some kind o massive global shift from war or climate change.

1. The DoD generates more research and development than any other organization in America, and they are by no means a small consumer population, but you also drastically underestimate how many civilians actually own guns.
2. The final energy requirements for said rail gun will be constant, but the efficiency of the machines can be improved. Physics was never as simple as a 2D video game.

I did not say that the consumer population of firearms were small, just not as big as cellphones and MP3 players. And I'm skeptic when you say more than any other organization, show me some proof.

Yes, you can increase efficiency all you want, but in the end you still have give the projectile the same amount of kinetic energy

1. Firearm Market: I know you didn't say the firearm market was small, and I didn't say that the firearm market had to be huge for energy technology to advance rapidly. Smartphones are just infantile technology, it doesn't take much to improve them.
2. Government Research Funding: Besides common sense? As an example, in 2010, the government spent $70 billion on just scientific/medical research [1], whereas Apple spent $3.4 billion on research in 2012 [2].
3. Rail Gun Efficiency: That's beside the point. Rail gun energy requirements can be reduced by increasing efficiency.
Please, keep your responses cogent.

References:
1. www.dailyfinance.com/2011/06/15/digging-into-the-u-s-budget-what-we-spend-and-how/
2. news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57543370-37/apple-r-d-spending-up-nearly-40-percent-in-2012/

You typed that on a computer that is processing instructions at billions of cycles per second. If it took you 2 or 3 seconds to load the FJ home page, you might have complained that it was slow. You piss away megabytes like they're more worthless than pennies. Do I need to tell you how that would sound to your identical twin 30 years ago?

We're one energy storage break-through away from powering rail guns, high-powered laser beams, and more on a single infantryman. But, you're welcome to try to predict the future of technology if you like.

But computers and whatnot were fairly new to the world 30 years ago. Firearms has been around for a long time. There are people who spend their life designing guns, but why do we have so few designs that are in use today?

The rail gun is not perfect. There are other problems beside power storage, such as how to deal with the massive amount of heat generated by induction

Few designs? We have more designs for guns than ships in the ocean, or microwave ovens. Why do people watch a couple movies and think they know everything about guns?
About the rail gun, the first one would probably be used as a single-shot sniper rifle, for stealth or range. Don't assume a decent coolant system is distant technology either. I would have mentioned lasers. They make no sound, have no heat or radar signatures, travel great distances, have no ballistic drop, are unaffected by wind, are invisible to the naked eye, and by using a mirror the source of the shot can be hidden from special purpose instruments.

no, all the guns we have right now are using similar system. Bolt action rifles will works the same way not matter what gun it is. Semi automatic and full automatic rifles all have a bolt and a firing pin and an gas system and so on. The system might change a few components from one gun to another, but the basic design are the same. You have the firing pin igniting the bullet and the bolt use the gas to cycle new round. The basic principle of operation are the same.
With current technology, rail gun can only be used as stationary turrets that draw power from a generator of some sort. To become a mobile single shot, you would need to store the energy equivalence of 3 car batteries in a small enough cartridge to be practical on the battle field. We already have anti-material single shot rifles that can do the job perfectly, in a small cartridge.
About lasers, I have no idea how they would work, but what you are talking about is a perfect system where no energy is lost to resistance. Also the laser beam would eventually be heating up the atmosphere so super long ranges are not yet practical.

1. Gun Designs: No derr. You don't change a design that works. We still have more options than we do types of light bulbs.
2. Rail guns: That only helps to demonstrate charagrin's point.
3. Lasers: Show me where I said the laser beam would travel forever? But, great point suggesting that it's not yet practical. I thought we were talking about modern weapons, not future weapons.

Soon, hores of geese will be taken out with the AR-15. World hunger solved.

So what the other guys are saying is
>This quote is 150+ years old, things have changed
>The constitution was made hundreds of years ago and it suports me guiz

The theory of evolution is old too, but hey we still use it.

And adapt it. When we know it's wrong we change it.

Hello. I am a creationist and would like an intelligent conversation with a reasonable macro-evolutionist. Not an argument. I would simply like to know why you believe it.

Okay. Let me lay out the basic natural selection example.

First, you must be able to accept that offspring will have traits similar to the parents. With this at least I hope you can agree. Children look like their parents.

So that being accepted as a truth, lets take a look at giraffes.
Giraffes eat leaves, and to do so they must be able to reach them. Giraffes that have shorter necks might not be able to get enough to eat and will, as a result, die before it can reproduce.If it does manage to reproduce, it's child will have the same Short neck flaw as it's parent, and it too will be at a disadvantage.

So, over millions of years, short necked giraffes die and don't reproduce, while long neck giraffes thrive and have offspring that share their long neck goodness.

Those best adapted to their environment will live, and those that are not adapted cannot survive and don't reproduce. The end result is that the one that is alive now the most evolved. Evolution does not happen to one organism, but rather to a species over millions of years.

I hope I could be of some help in clarification. If you have any qualms with what I have laid out, please voice them. This theory is only one in name, as is the theory of gravity. It is pretty much taken as fact.

Isn't there a limited amount of change allowed in alleles?

Oh derp. I left out mutations.

anyway, DNA is very complex. There is more to alleles than AA and Aa and aa.

And even with any limiting factor in the number of genetic recombinations (which is huge) there is still the chance that something can go wrong when the DNA is being copied. This can result in a mutation either good or bad. If it's bad, no children and dead. If it's good it will survive and reproduce and spread it's new genetic code.

Boom. Keep in mind though, I am by no means an expert biologist, my understanding is pretty basic.

If you are genuinely interested in it, and not just looking to prove some point, I would recommend doing a bit of googling and read some Wikipedia. You'll learn more there than I could tell you.

No no no, I am enjoying your help. I am not trying to be converted. Just trying to understand 80% of the worlds beliefs. But besides that, I read in my biology book that there is no evidence for good mutations. It is read that mutations can not add but destroy. It when on to talk about virus immunities. If you can not go further with you analogy then that is ok. Also in case you care the reason I am a creationist is: I think that if I am wrong I have done no harm and simply die. But if I am right i am rewarded, so why not? Also when you were in early school were you taught this theory?

There most certainly are good mutations. But nothing but the environment decides what is good or bad. Mutations are random. Almost all mutations you can observe in us (mutations from our ancestors) are good for our environment. If ever a proto human had a bad mutation, it would die and not carry on.

There are also mutations that don't effect odds of survival, and you can still see them today. Hair and eye color are both mutations, but because they have no impact on out ability to survive, all variations can be seen today. Someone with brown eyes is genetically different from someone with blue eyes.

If that's your rationale behind being a creationist, you do realise that there are literally dozens of other religions out there, right? As far as beliefs are concerned, I know plenty of Christians who support and confirm the theory of evolution. Besides, no one's forcing you to "cause any harm". Sorry for preaching but it is my belief that no one should ever be scared into believing anything under any circumstances.

Its not the argument itself, its the principle of the argument, the AR15 was not designed for hunting, it was designed to kill people.

So was every other fuckin' gun ever made. I see some obvious detective work going on here. Grats, guys.

Other guns were made for hunting, and so gun made for hunting should be legal with proper precautions. But the AR15 was made for civilians to kill other people.

Anyway, not the point. Back when the second amendment was created, civilians had the same/very similar weapons to what normal government forces had.

I don't even want that today, I'm ok a watered down version, semi autos and not as high quality.

I can agree with that to a point, semi-automatics are a bit to much in my opinion though, a bolt action or a shotgun are good for hunting, which is all guns should be.

*ok with

So the companies made them specifically so the people they sell rifles too will kill other people, specifically. Ok.

Well what the fuck else are you going to be using a semi-automatic rifle for? If you wanted a gun for hunting you would buy a rifle, self defense would be a pistol. I'm not saying that they would go out and kill people on the street, but for self defense it is a little over the top.

We have boars in my state. I live in a suburban neighborhood. About 400 yards from my house, a 150lb+ wild boar was killed in the middle of the street. I've seen 2 others around, aswell. Coyotes too.

It's still a right. They can decide what to protect themselves with. 99.99% of people who buy an AR15 with a 30 round magazine are going to shoot at the range, train, or use it for self defense. And it works.

Well I dunno then, in my opinion its a little too much, but its your country so do what you want.

Pistols are only practical for self-defense if you're mobile. Otherwise, you need more power. I would recommend a 30 round semi-auto rifle with hollow point rounds. Some people prefer shotguns, but I don't think they considered multiple attackers. Anyway, that's all beside the point.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment to empower the people against the government at the time it becomes corrupt, not if but when.

I don't think it really matters if you are mobile or not, if you put 3 pistol rounds into an attacker, he is going down just as fast as if you had used a semi-automatic rifle.

You thought? If you don't know what you're talking about, you should ask instead of assuming. Guns don't work like they do in the movies. One woman emptied her pistol into her home invader and he ran off, got into his car, and drove for several miles before crashing. If there were multiple attackers, she would have been screwed. I believe they recommend 6-8 rounds per attacker, but that's obviously just an estimate. Factoring in how likely you are to miss in a stressful situation, a 30 round magazine is generally the minimum you would want for three attackers. Again, that's not even the reason you need a gun. Don't throw away your rights just because you don't know why you need them.

I'm sorry, but I haven't murdered anyone recently. I'm sure most people couldn't walk of 3-4 shots to the chest or stomach. I think most attackers would run anyway if the person they were trying to rob started to shoot back at them, most people don't want to risk their lives for a couple hundred dollars.

Well, I think your assumptions are pretty normal for most people who don't own guns. Most people won't walk off 3-4 shots to center of mass, but a lot do. In the robbing scenario you mentioned, the attackers are likely to attack you if they get the chance rather than risk getting shot in the back. Again, none of that even matters. Even if completely useless for self-defense, the purpose is to prevent the much more tragic robbery by the government.

Can't we just agree that the 2nd amendment is almost moot now, civilians will not create a successful uprising no mater what types of guns they have, they are simply to spread out and and with out some sort of command it would just be a few thousand people being subdued or killed by cops or the military.

So basically, your solution is that if the government wants to attack us for whatever reason, we should just accept it and turn in any means of fighting back.

I can literally hear your argument turn to dust in the face of anyone who has a free will.

I'm saying that all fighting back will do is get lots of people killed. Yes, there are a lot of people with guns, but without any form of command it will just be looting and killing innocent people in the streets, because most people would just see it as an opportunity to get free stuff. And you cannot 'literally' hear anyone's argument turning to dust because if you did then that would make you fucking insane.

None of that is backed up by anything. We are a first world country. Any civilized person will not immediately resort to killing everyone and stealing. That shit may fly in new orleans where it's basically encouraged in the culture, but not with normal people.

Also, good job on the overeaction to my dust comment. Glad to know you're secure in your thoughts.

I just don't like when people miss use it. But I digress, have you ever seen people in a time of panic? It doesn't matter where you are from, when the shit hits the fan most people are going to lose their minds and start wrecking shit.

Maybe you and your family might be looting. Just about every well informed gun owner is going to be on the lookout for looters and people robbing things. A large amount of them are ex-military or just mentally sane enough to know what to do and not do, and they won't put up with stupid bullshit like that. Infact, if there is a common enemy, people would work together.

And also that, during this so called uprising, you will have lot of people sitting in their houses shooting anyone who comes in rather then doing the actual 'uprising' part. The thing is, the government isn't just one thing, it is an entity that is everywhere, which makes it hard for people to unite against it, hence the wanton destruction.

It's not an overthrow. Defending themselves. You don't even need to kill anyone.

Are you being serious? A few thousand people? Get the fuck out of here, right now. Even if there were just a few thousand gun owners in America, out of the ten's of thousands of people in America, population size is irrelevant. The fact that an uprising could be very successful isn't even necessary. The 2nd Amendment has been doing its job for you for a long time without ever firing a shot. No, the 2nd Amendment is not anywhere close to moot.

You think all the gun owners in america could all just become organised and make tactics to fight the government? No, it would all be looting and murdering civilians. Even if they could all make tactics and form up into ordered units then guess what, the government has fucking missiles and nukes and the army. And now you are going to say 'well the army can't get involved with something like this', well guess what, yes the army would get involved because the military leaders would be under threat too. They wouldn't just sit there. And what exactly has the second amendment been doing then? Keeping civilians armed? A great lot of help that's done.

1. You are forgetting/don't know what most people in the military are like. You have obviously never, ever been around a soldier. If the government is fucking us over, 9 out of 10 guys will notice it. They are not mindless kill bots. They love guns and freedom as much as civilians, if not more so. Infact, most of them already are unhappy with the way things are getting done already.

2. Most local law enforcement might stick by their duty, but if we're getting screwed that bad from the gov, they will see differently.

3. If no-one abandons their position in the military or police, we have the second amendment there to protect ourselves.

I ran out of space to reply. How are you supposed to get rid of a tyrannical government if everyone is either in their house with guns or destroying things at random? Which leads back to my original statement, the US citizens will never overthrow a government.

Because we're not retarded. Well, most of us. Again, it's about defense. Defending ourselves from them. Overthrow? Replace it with what? Defense. It's about defense.

I don't think you quite understand what the point of the second amendment is. it is to get rid of a government by force. Not to turn the population into looters and people who just sit in their houses.

Oh, you're a woman. That explains how you can be persistently wrong, yet still jump to assumptions and carry on being assertive without actually being educated on the subject. Well, most gun owners are either self-taught in modern tactics, ex-military, current military, or are physically and mentally prepared to learn tactics quickly. Yes, the military would get involved, in fact much of it would reinforce the militia as they are us. The 2nd Amendment keeps the government sane everyday while you sleep. It has done a great lot of help. So much so, that the amount of violent crime it prevents every year, as well, pales in comparison.

yes, because there is only one person that post all these arguments pro gun control. Anti-gun people agree to the idea but they may have different point of views why they want gun control.

I now realise how butt hurt I sound

The first only 10 amendments shall not be infringed. The constitution has been changed a couple of times.(example: prohibition era of America.)

actually you will literally never hear an australian bitching about their gun "rights"

I am Australian and i couldn't care less that i can't use a gun. My step brother has gone through all the appropriate laws and regulations to be able to obtain a gun and he just sits there all day shooting cans and other shit laying around. Guns are either for people who want them for killing or for toys. ( And i think we all know guns are NOT toys.)

I'm from the UK, and everyone is scared of gangs of teenagers as they usually have knives. Police won't stop and search them because they would have to fill in too much paperwork.

I know for a fact that most Canadians don't want their firearms back. There may be a small minority that protests and whines about their lack of guns, but a majority of Canadians prefer the laws that are already in place.

So ALL Canadians and Australians want gun rights back? Every single one of them.
Right.

Probably not all of them, but there are protests.

Equating Canadian/Australian firearms owners to militant racists. Good fucking job.

that's retarded pro gun arguing:
1 & 2 is just stupid. Just because it was a gun free school/theater doesn't mean the shooter was unable to buy weapons. It's easy as fuck to bring them in those places.
3. it might have been stopped by a weapon, but if there were no guns to begin with, it would never even have happened.
4. Sure it's a problem that hammers and clubs kill many people, but how does that in any way mean that guns are safe?
5. okay so if you want gun control, you become a racist psycopath? I don't really understand your argument.
6. yeah some might want other their gun rights back, but not the majority doesn't.
7. stabbings did increase but the overall kill rate fell, and what's the problem with banning monster fuck knives in the public?

I mean there seems to be a huge problem with guns in the states compared to Europe and I think it's because everybody has the possibility to use guns violently pretty much

Also, very few criminals buy their guns through legal means, so it won't affect them any anyway.

Stricter gun laws, preventing the sale of gun laws. Its difficult to have laws preventing criminals from getting guns. The US has been saturated with so many guns, its easily accessible by anyone because of people selling their own.

yeah and what do you think will happen if strict gun laws pass? civilians wouldn't have them and there would be plenty on the black market from drug cartels in mexico. they have plenty of guns and drugs. we have a demand for drugs, so they fill the supply, they can easily do the same with guns.

you're right again. Again, a difficult issue to press on because of so many outcomes and repercussions of different laws

Everything. I don't want the government to know everything about me and what I own. I don't want a "big brother".

When you're an adult you should have the right to make your own decisions instead of having "permission" by the government.

lol "big brother" is what uneducated fucking rednecks use to say when they think Obama is trying to take their precious guns away from them. I wish I had bought stocks in those gun companies in 2008 before he won. I would be fucking rich.

So when you register your vehicle and giving them any personal information with the government, do you feel the same way? you're tracked no matter what anyway. The only people who need to be worried are people who are organizing crime.

and like i said, about 8% of people who use guns for crimes buy their firearms through legal stores. People aren't afraid about registering cars because 1. you're not limited to what car you can/cannot buy, 2. you can't fight against potential tyrannical government 3. it's not in the bill of rights to have a car. I can discuss this more in tomorrow. i'm too tired lol

Yeah you're right as well. Its a difficult situation to try to discuss because there are many different outcomes to look at and so many people effected. Plus, we're funnyjunk, not the usual political discussion board.. lol nite

Have you not considered that a national database does nothing to stop shootings, only to make rounding up guns easier?

So then prove him wrong with the correct sources. Simply saying "no that's wrong" is equally invalid

which one do you think is false?

1. Easily proven. Google
2. Nearly all schools are "gun free" zones. This despite the fact that the deadliest school killing in US history happened in Bath Township in 1927 using dynamite.
3. Google
4. True. Even true if you include "assault weapons" by the loosest definitions.
5. KKK wanted to keep guns out of the hands of black people. If you support gun control, you support the last remaining jim crow laws. Google
6. Subjective, but people probably become very pro-gun after getting mugged with a knife.
7. Again, google: Britain + stab proof knife. then hang your head in shame.

So....... whens the last time a school got attacked by a dude with fire extinguishers?

inb4 red thumbs, I dont really care about gun control. Just had to point out a flaw.

The pic only refutes the foolish argument that if you don't need it, ban it. Of course, they are very much needed, as has been iterated countless ways in the comments.

It's an analogy ya dingus

I understand that.... but guns and fire extinguishers aren't really interchangeable...

Yeah they are. Who needs guns, when the police will arrive after everyone's been shot by a criminal owning an illegally possessed gun?

But they really aren't.
No matter how you want to put it, or what light you want it in, guns are designed to end life. And if the civilian using the gun doesn't know how to properly use it, or isn't thinking clearly, or is just a bad shot, more people can end up being hurt than what it normally would have.
Fire extinguishers are made to put out fire, to prevent death instead of cause it. You take a civilian who hasn't had a proper training with using a fire extinguisher, and that person will be able to at least partially douse the fire, if not understand how to generally use it.

That is the stupidest argument ever. So if guns are designed to end life, were just supposed to accept were gonna die? Or gonna be able to fight back with another gun when getting attacked with a gun>?

I ain't pretending to know the answer for fixing violence, but I don't see how killing solves it. Seems to me like that just starts a revenge cycle.
Also, my comment was mainly about the difference between guns/police and fire extinguishers/fire fighters.
If you want to debate gun laws, there are people much more qualified than I.

like the head of the NRA

When a person points a gun at another person, the intent is to end the person's life, or wound them. In no way can a gun put out a fire, or save a person from drowning, there is no positive effect to what a gun does outside of the philosophical "Gun used to kill killer" argument, that is irrelevant. Self defense or not, gun's will hurt someone when used, they are designed to kill or injure another living being, as to the person's own motives, WHY they want to do that, that is subjective and completely irrelevant to the argument of the fire extinguisher's/Gun bogus, the entire argument is farce, and ilovehitler stated exactly how it is.

You've picked one up before, right? Those things are excellent bludgeons.

But its not common for people to even consider using them for other than... Say... Self-defence. People just don't think about them that much otherwise.

I just thought of it, and I'm perfectly sane.

We're discussing the topic. Of COURSE you thought of it.

And of 7 billion people in the world, I can't be the only one who thought "You see that big, heavy red canister? I bet it'd be an excellent bludgeon."

I've thought about kicking an old lady into a pond with the ducks she's feeding. Doesn't mean that I'm thinking about such things on a daily basis, nor does it mean that I'm crazy.

Nor does it mean I'm crazy. I mean, I'm sane.

But what of the insane ones who act on these thoughts? I be a few old ladies have been kicked into duck ponds over the years.

Doesn't mean that it was insane people that did it either. If the answer to the original question was if only insane people would use a fire-extinguisher as a bludgeoning-tool then no. But the average person don't go looking for his/her fire-extinguisher when he/she hears a burglar. They COULD take it, but if they find something else, say... A frying pan first, then they'd use that instead.

And crazy people don't always kill people with common household objects. Some do, some wild and irresponsible people also do, but no typical group of people.

And why would they choose a frying pan over a fire extinguisher? Frying pans are awkward.

They have a handle. That's why the 'common man/woman' would think 'hey, I'll use this as a weapon!' But my point is that people would use if if they saw it when they felt threatened.

Exactly. What he's saying is he'd rather just shoot or scare away the mugger/burglar/rapist/etc and avoid being victimized than wait for the police to show up.

fire hydrants can't be used to START fires. they only put them out.
in contrast, guns can be used for self-defense, but they can also be used for the very crimes that they are said to protect against.

If guns only worked in self-defense situations, there'd be no school shootings or gun-related crimes, and no one would have a problem with guns anymore. unfortunately, that is not the case, and murderers and psychopaths can use guns to commit crimes. However, while a criminal could kill with a gun, an arsonist couldn't start a fire with a fire extinguisher. Therefore, the fire hydrant comparison is flawed.

Not really. They're heavy and they've got a decent edge on their bottom.

Ive seen many stupid comments on FJ in my time...but you have reached a new level of dumb

I've thought about it and alas, my conclusion still remains intact; what a ludicrous comparison. We were debating gun control laws in America a few weeks ago at my school and honestly, some of the pseudo-cynical-metaphorical arguments put forward were ridiculous. If I had to choose, I'd say that the apex on the mound of stupidity was reached when someone tried lifting a desk to "prove a point" as apparently, desks are tantamount to guns in terms of danger to humans.

Obviously an outright ban on guns is far-fetched and extreme, but why not increase gun regulation just a tiny bit? A video popped up on Youtube the other day in which a bloke literally got handed a gun after buying something innocuous, like a pair of trainers and yet
there are still those who genuinely believe that gun control wouldn't be a preventive measure.

Im kind of on the fence about the whole gun thing so push me either way. But arguments like this are completely invalid. Pro gun people are always like "YEAH WELL PEOPLE WILL USE ROCKS AND CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO" yeah but those things werent built for the specific function of killing. Anything built for the job will perform said job to a certainly higher standard than something that isnt.

thats actually an interesting perspective, except there is no downside to fire extinguishers, but there is for guns

none are made for killing, but saving lives. Not the same man.

all our lives we have ben told that a gun has to be used to killsomeone/ protect someone. Why the fuck can't we just embrace a decent piece of mechanical technology?

Guns are used for saving lives, too.

made for saving lives by taking them

Well, sometimes.
It's not always necessary to fire a gun in order to defend yourself, since pointing a gun at the guy or even having a gun in your possession is enough to deter many criminals. Hell, even the knowledge that many people in your area (not you specifically) are armed is enough to serve as a deterrent.
Even if you do fire it, there's no guarantee that you'll kill your target, and you probably don't need to. If the guy is mugging you with a knife, shoot him in the leg and you can run away without killing him.

Even if self-defense does result in the death of the attacker, there's such a thing as justifiable homicide.

Trust me, if there were a more reliable, non-lethal way of stopping an attacker, the vast majority of people would be all over it. Until then, Tasers are one-shot items, stun-guns require you to be in bludgeoning/raping distance, and if you're being attacked, odds are the attacker feels they're capable of taking you on, so forget hand-to-hand combat.

Rubber bullets, bean bags, etc....

Those are crowd-control measures, not self-defense measures. If you can find me evidence that people have reliably stopped attackers (particularly the sufficiently enraged, determined, or drug-fueled variety) with bean-bag rounds and rubber bullets, I may reconsider my previous point.

Kill or be killed, basic rule of survival. Are you going to allow your opponent the upper hand by refusing to own a handgun while they come with a rifle? Sure, lemme just cock my bow and arrow- ooooh... I've been shot in a literal fraction of the time it would take to retaliate.

I'd say something but i like comment 97

Not necessarily. People can brandish a gun and instantly the attacker will run for their lives. Its only when the person is going to be attacked that it is kinda required to defend themselves and shoot the attacker.

That's the ideal situation, but not everyone runs. If you present arms, you have to be ready to pull the trigger. The moment you draw, you're bluffing. What will you do if they call your bluff?

Thats a good point, that is why people need to train before even buying a weapon.

Since i have shot weapons, and have taken courses, i would know that even shooting the ground in front of their feet would be enough to break their determinedness and make them run, but if i really had to shoot THEM, it would be in the lower leg/arm. Nothing to kill them, but to definitely wing them.

The sad part is, some prosecutes will try to charge you with stupid charges like torture, and the criminal could sue you. I think it is better now, but a few years ago in Tucson you shoot to kill or face to consequences.

but made for killing.

so?

Because fire extingushers cannot be used to kill people at range.

Every American has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall, how could that possibly be misconstrued?

the constitution also said that it was a mans right to own slaves...

Maybe it's time to reassess blindly following a 200 year old piece of legislation

yeah, and while we're at it. lets take out fair trail, trial by jury, and all those other things that gave power to the people.

search slavery and constitution. Slavery isn't mentioned by word, but it is heavily implied.

TBF, they did erase that part (it only took a civil war to do it, but still)

correction: any firearm that you can physically "bear" or carry with you.
But yes it was written referring to the same firearms that the current military was utilizing.

And I too am tired of people arguing that my rights are predicated on "need". If that was true alcohol would be illegal because of the public's lack of need.

What am I missing?

I dunno, are you missing something? He's arguing in favor of gun control with this post, he's using something retarded with little to no credibility to support his case, and he's a disgrace.

I thought he was arguing against it.
As in, see? Its not just the current government that doesn't like guns. Its the older governments too.

regaredless of if he is supporting gun rights or against them, though, a quote from a 150 year old magazine writer has exactly fuck-all to do with anything that would involve credibility, intelligence, or a worthwhile opinion.

That's not the way I took it... but it is possible.

also, if we were to overthrow our goverment, our petty hunting rifles and shotguns would have little affect on tanks, not saying a ar15 would be much better but still, we have to protect our ability to overthrow them if need be.

I'm not sure if you are pro gun rights or gun control. But this pic is for our rights, it means i don't need a AR15 its my right to have one

i completely agree! i have a collection myself and am a former marine. i know the importance of having one

even the feds admit banning weapons will not stop crime www.wnd.com/2013/02/feds-admit-gun-laws-wont-slow-crime/

I don't need free speech, but it's nice to have it.

you guys are completely missing the point of the pic

Then there might be something wrong with the pic, not everyone else.

lmao wtf do you think it means?

That we don't "need" firearms like the one on the flag.

it says "last time i checked its not the bill of needs" as in i dont need an AR15 its my right to have one

that's a childish view of the constitution. every right has its limitations, any constitutional scholar will tell you that. if you believe that the second amendment was intended to allow you to buy any weapon you wanted, then do you think that you have the right to own a warhead or an RPG? and if the answer is no, on what basis are you drawing a distinction? these claims based only on the literal language of the constitution are ridiculous. let me give you an example, article 1 section 8 gives the congress the power to establish post offices and post roads. but it does not grant the power to maintain those post offices. do you then believe that the federal government is acting unconstitutionally when it maintains post offices? another example, article 1 gives congress the power to establish an army and a navy, but for reasons that should be obvious not an air force. we've never had an amendment that explicitly allowed the federal government to establish an air force, so it is unconstitutional too i guess. my point is that constitutional law doesn't end with the document itself because that would be impossible, and what most people don't understand is that the constitution has always been interpreted to include rational inferences and assumptions and the ambiguity of where to draw that line is where the real debate is. that's why your lack of need for an ar15 and guns in general is relevant. if it was just a matter of looking at the second amendment and saying "well, i guess it says you can bear arms, case closed" then the supreme court would be out of a fucking job. you know nothing about the constitution and i hope you get your dick sliced in half hotdog style.

wow, another liberal who thinks he can try to get his point across by name calling. well i will take the higher road on this one.

and yes you can purchase just about any weapon you want given the correct licensing. will cost you allot of money and time but is possible and that includes missiles, and RPGs. I dont know about that post office thing but the only reason they were able to make the air force is because they made it a division of the army, just like the marines are a division of the navy.

According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

and i will keep my hot dog intact thank you very much

by the way, you said this: "The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms." what the supreme court is doing is figuring out what the second amendment means, and by copying and pasting this into your argument what you are saying is that the supreme court interprets the clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as meaning that they have the right to bear arms. congrats.

p.s. i did not name call, i said i hoped your dick would be sliced in half hot dog style, that's not name calling.

here are some jems from the majority opinion in heller you may have missed due to the fact that you didn’t actually read the case:
"we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons.""
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues"
"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

to clarify:
1. you believe you can legally purchase missiles. i'll just let that sink in for anyone reading, this guy thinks he could purchase a tomahawk or a nuclear missile if he only had the money
2. your point about the air force proves my point even further: where does the constitution say that congress has the power to create such divisions in the army? when you read the constitution you have to assume into it grants or restrictions of power that aren't in the literal language. of course in reality the air force is constitutional but that's because we make assumptions about the federal government's powers that are in no part of the constitution.
3. congratulations on your ability to use Wikipedia, unfortunately the holding in Heller does very little to support your case. Heller holds that an absolute prohibition of firearms in the home for self defense is unconstitutional. it also held that the term bear arms means something one could carry, so sorry no missile for you.

first of all, creating the air force was by no meant unconstitutional so that didn't help your point by any means. next i used Cornell not wiki. as for missiles for me, legally your right me personally can not own one quite yet, need to get licensed first but once i have the $5,000 a year to own the license and go through the courses i can, along with fully automatic machine guns. next the government can pass what they need to pass using loop holes, such as making a division of the army. there's nothing saying they cant. just like there's nothing saying what arms we are allowed to bear. i will sport my AR15 till the day i die, if that day involves a civil war fighting for my rights so be it, but I along with the 235,675,000 american gun owners will not let this happen with out a fight. these are the same rights i have fought for, for the last four and a half years of my life fighting for. something some one like you would never dream of doing. watching your friends die in front of you because of your country's ideals, makes you cherish every right he died for.

saying that the air force wasn't unconstitutional is a legal conclusion, not a rationale. the idea that the federal government can do something just because the constitution doesn't say it can't is wrong, read the 10th amendment. the federal government is a body of limited rather than plenary powers, meaning it can only do things that are expressly allowed by the constitution, rather than being limited only by what is expressly forbidden by the constitution. so my point about the air force stands. the larger point i was trying to get across, with the examples and the quotes from heller, is that no right is absolute. you haven't acknowledged that yet, and for some baffling reason think you, a private citizen can purchase a tomahawk missile. you can't. the fact that you're a veteran is irrelevant to the debate. explain to me how your military service means your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is right and mine is wrong. what our rights our is precisely what it is we're trying to define, you can't just say "i fought for these rights" and thereby conclude that your interpretation is right. you try to make an emotional appeal over your service and your friend who died. and i respect your service and his sacrifice. I didn't sign up because i didn't believe that what we were doing over there was actually protecting our freedoms, but if i had believed that i would have enlisted. you believed differently, and regardless of who is right about the war you deserve respect. but it does not mean you can dictate what the 2nd amendment means. I've given you evidence and reasoning to support my conclusions and you came back with "there'll be a civil war if they try to take my gun away" regardless of whether or not that is true it does nothing to help your argument and makes you look crazy.

It puts out a very anti-gun styled vibe/message.

that's funny because i got it off of a pro-gun website

What exactly gives you the right to carry a weapon? (note that you in this case does not specifically mean you. I read your comments, and you claim to be a former marine.)
A gun is a tool to end life. It doesn't matter what light you want to put it under, they exist solely for killing. You say target practice? What are you practicing for besides murder. I mean, there may be some people who enjoy shooting who would be appalled at ending life, but that's the user, not the tool.
What gives you the right to be able to look at someone, and with the press of a finger decide if they deserve to live or die? No person has that right.

The millions of people who kill others for them killing others. Do you not see how this can go on and on? Hatred can only breed hatred.
You say you are given that right because others did something. You say you deserve something without having to work for it. And, if by some chance you're more than a twelve year old and are actually a former soldier, you should know full well what it truly means to end a life. To look at someone and decide "this creature isn't worth living. this creature can in no way ever try to fix what it's done. It deserves nothing but death." You can't make that decision.
And on the talk of killing to retain your right to kill, do you think you'd be able to stop the modern day war machine that is our government and military?

And yes, my username. The one thing every person I've argued with on this site brings up. Yes, once upon a time there was a boy who thought others deserved to die because they were not like him. This boy was me. Yet, of late, I've begun to realize that nobody needs to die, that hatred can only end with more hatred. Peace is not achieved through the barrel of a rifle, but through the words from a mouth. Once upon a time I praised hitler, but then I grew up.

I didn't say they died for nothing. I just hope they died for people to realize they didn't need to.
I say you don't need guns, and you say I'm telling you to give up your property. I must question if you're reading my words.
You, like me and all of humanity, don't think solely based upon reality. Humans are biased creatures.
Yes, I do dream of a world like that. Shouldn't everyone?
Yes, I do understand the world isn't like that. But there needn't be murder to stop murder. I think it's the Danish, though I'm probably wrong on which country it is, and for which I apologize, that use rehabilitation facilities instead of prison or the death sentence, and it proves to be even more effective. It seems to me that the world would be better like that, people learning to be helpful, productive members of society.

And since you can't seem to understand this fact, I don't love hitler anymore. He was as evil as they get, and I think the world would have been better without him. But I keep my username partially because I'm lazy, and partially to remind me.

The world isn't perfect. In a perfect world, guns would either not exist or exist solely for recreational purposes. However, people threaten other people's lives. People beat, rape, and kidnap people. You have to balance and weigh these things in your head. If you compromise someone's right to Life, is yours forfeit as well? Where does your freedom end and someone's right to survival start?

I ain't gonna pretend to have all the answers, or to be some glorious mind. I'm just a man stating my opinion of what little I think.
To be perfectly honest, I don't know how to fix the world as you've so honestly described it. I don't. But I can't bring myself to think that guns are the solution to violence.

Guns may not be the solution, but they aren't the problem. Rather, they are a coefficient amplifying the problem that once released upon the world, can never be truly reduced to zero. If you want to solve gun violence, solve violence. Get kids out of gangs. Get mentally unstable people the treatment they need. Give people a reason to feel safe. The main reason why people get concealed carry permits is because they feel a need to. They accept that the world is flawed and that even though the chances of their lives being threatened may be slim, it is a real possibility. If you could guarantee the safety of every man, woman, and child on the planet, nobody would carry.

And that is exactly the world I dream of; one with no reason to kill.
The best way to do this I can think of is the rehabilitation method, used by one of the skandinavian countries, I believe (I can't for the life of me remember which it is). Teach people to help society instead of teaching them that they are terrible people. If you tell someone they're terrible, ain't they just gonna be terrible?

I think that's how almost everyone wants it. Killing sucks.
However, freedom is still important. That's not to say that freedom frees you from social responsibility. You have to make choices that respect the rights of others to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. I guess since violence is a problem, some people just aren't mature enough for freedom. That's not to say nobody should have it. The vast majority of us get along just fine. It just goes to show that again, nothing's perfect.

I believe that's Norway.

To be honest, I have mixed feelings about that system. The concept fits well with my inner peace-loving hippy, and apparently it works. However, the realist inside me knows that a policy like that must be extremely expensive/resource-intensive. Also, what bout the people who will never get back into society? People who've been sentenced to spend the rest of their lives behind bars? What good is it to rehabilitate them?

It obviously wouldn't be put into nationwide effect immediately. The shock would just be too large, and would probably cause problems. But a gradual switch to that, with more minor crimes being rehabilitated first. As for expense, it would seem to me that because they eventually go back into society and start working again, they would help pay for it by going back into the work field.

<<<< me
and im not going to even give you the time of day, do to your name i can not ant will not take you seriously

If you had read any of my other comments, you would know why I have this name.

like i said the time of day

Not even trying to understand anything, I see.
I'm glad you haven't the time of day.

1. Just because it wasn't against the law, does not mean the manufacturer sells it to civilians.
2. Irrelevant.

"You can't hunt with that! You'll cut the deer in half!"

"That gun would leave nothing on the animal! It's not useful for hunting!"

"Only cops should have guns! They are trained to use them correctly!"

"Cops can control their weapon! They won't hurt anyone innocent!"
www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/23/us-usa-newyork-nypd-lawsuit-idUSBRE90M17820130123

"The gov't will never hurt it's own citizens!"
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/18/us-citizens-drone-strike-deaths

"Clip(the term is magazine you fuckheads. learn it) restrictions will make it tough for people to get them and use them to kill muh babbys."

No fucking shit, dipshit.

That ain't a samefag. That's the same fag. He's making a point. He's not faking a discussion and circle-jerking himself. He's presenting his short snippets of sarcasm that support the point he's trying to communicate.

sarcasm is strong with this one

Because media has manged to stir up a panic, and they feel like they advocate, even accomplish a safer world if they push for gun bans. What rustles my jimmies the most is how few of the mass shootings actually are with "assault weapons".... And that an overwhelming majority of violent [gun related] crime is done with illegal weapons anyway.

Okay, in all honesty, do you really think it's a good idea for people to be walking around with a suppressor or a machine gun?
If you're innocent, you have no need of a suppressor.
You have no rights to machine guns or suppressors.

The intention of the assault weapons ban is not to totally eliminate violent crimes, but to reduce the violence in our country. Such an exaggeration is ignorant by itself.

Both the Vice President and the congresswoman pushing the bill in the House of Representatives have acknowledged the fact that it will do little to nothing to reduce violent crime.

As a history buff, I enjoyed this factoid. Thumb for you.

Why thank you, I would thumb you up in return but I can't seem to be able to thumb people up or down... And if I spam the thumb up or down button it can endlessly go on, but resets after I press r or F5.

If you really didn't care, why would you waste your time responding at all...

i responded because i had a relevant image, i had no idea that anyone would get this butthurt, and if i'm already on this site i'm already wasting my time so what does that matter?

I guess that doesn't count as nobody cares.. Touche.

The part where they already are.

Go try to buy a fully automatic.
Try not registering a gun.


I do agree though. It is very plain, and fitting it is listed 2nd after only the free expression of ideas.

if only they had known what guns would become..

if you are telling me that they could have predicted the kind of weapons we have now, you are fucking retarded. Go crawl back under your uneducated rock somewhere, and take a fucking history class for christs sake.

"Oh yeah, I bet we will be able to carry around multiple fully automatic weapons on our person that can shoot hundreds of yards with incredible accuracy."
Thomas Jefferson
Dam. Just found this quote. Guess you're right.

Their.

You just called me a bitch lol, you are a kid. I am done with this.

doubt it.

Depending on the state, all you need is a Permit for a Fully Automatic and some states don't register guns anyway.

Well not all states require registration but yeah there are limits on automatic.

Something you need to know about scumbags: they don't usually target other scumbags. They like to target the good people who are less likely to hunt them down and give them columbian neck ties.

Well, actually a very large portion of murders and other violent crimes are linked to gang violence, so scumbags do target other scumbags.
I'm just saiyan.

So give them more guns and the problem solves itself, right?

At the same time, why don't we stop this gun control debate and focus on getting everybody laid. Constantly. Think about it: If we're too busy fucking, who's going to shoot anyone?

I like that idea.

I nominate Zarke for world-leader. He promises that you will have vagina on your penis.

Exactly, and that is why it is a risk to let firearms be legal. It allows the scumbags to shoot the good men.

Alright, so by your logic, if firearms were illegal then no criminal would use them in any crime. Let me ask you this:

Adam Lanza (The poster boy for the anti-gun movement) shot and murdered 20 children and 6 adults. That's 26 counts of murder in the first degree. Do you really think one more felony for having an AR-15 would have stopped him? Also, Connecticut already had an Assault weapons ban on the books.

It's harder to get a gun in you can't get it locally. Sure, no problem visiting a neighbouring state or some shit, but if it was illegal in the whole country, the chance of him getting the gun would be infinitely smaller. I don't really care about all that stuff, and I'm not even American, but I just wouldn't like to be in a position to be afraid of potentially being shot to death.

"Visiting a neighboring state" i don't know about your state, but in mine, you can't purchase a firearm unless you have proof of residence in that state.

If you're not american then you should look into mass stabbings. They happen in china and other regions where there are total gun bans. Usually the targets are schoolchildren because they can't fight back against an adult.

Here's an example:
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timcollard/100037122/three-mass-stabbings-of-children-in-a-month-what-the-hell-is-going-on-in-china/

Evil will always be evil, and it is up to us to keep the tools around we need to stop evil.

Just saying. Start educating a population not to kill eachother rather than live in the Wild West and "kill or be killed".

I was using the Wild West as an analogy. Assuming people understood what I was talking about.

Hey man, I'm with you. Unfortunately the guys up top aren't looking for the actual causes of crimes, they're just trying to change the tools they're committed with.

well unfortunately, i can't educate a population, but what i can do, is it bulleye 6/6 with a 45 longcolt about 20 yard out. If someone would like to take a chance at killing me, please go for it. If me and my buddy ever start this damn motorcycle shop we've been talking about, we will never get robbed cause i want every damn guy in there open/conceal carrying. 9/10 robbers are total pussies and sometimes they don't even load their gun. once they know your not scared of them they back the fuck off usually. And I'll tell ya, I'm not scared of a damn thing, cause i bet i can out-shoot some dumb ass wanting my cash

So, if they come into your shop and you know their guns are unloaded, then why would you want to shoot them? See, this is the problem. The bloodlust. People who would kill as long as they have the slightest excuse to do so.

i don't know their guns are unloaded, if i see them rack the slide and nothing is there then im gonna pistol whip that idiot, otherwise, rule 1 of gun safety, always assume the firearm is loaded

the second amendment wasn't created to protect hunters. it was created so that if our government oversteps its bounds we can revolt and defend ourseves against potential tyranny

actually it was created to maintain the militias used to prevent slave revolt, but it's still a damn law of the land.

hmm, well to be fair there is little in the way of empirical proof for either side of that argument, and congressional law scholars generally disagree to either direction. I guess I'll just take that to mean that trying to figure out what the intentions were of people living hundreds of years ago in a completely different world with a completely different mindset is ultimately futile, and hence moot. Regardless of the reasons for the inception of the 2nd amendment however, the fact is that it is supported in it's existence by the majority of americans, it has the convenient side-effect of keeping people armed against tyranny, it isn't the cause of mass shootings, simply the tool being used to carry them out, and ultimately any reduction in what people can legally arm themselves with will have no real impact on gun crime as a whole in this country. It's all a farce, and it leaves a sour taste in my mouth, much like the NDAA, Patriot Act, TSA, and many other things our gov't has done in the past few decades.

But Government will always grasp for more power, because all humans desire it and a little taste is all it takes to become an addict, and inevitably all those without significant power will not like other people having that power, and so the cycle will continue until a truly benevolent version of humanity can arise, or until we all blow ourselves the fuck up.

But that's just my opinion. Perhaps I'm simply old and jaded.

There's nothing futile about it. The fore fathers said a lot about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of it's experienced Patriots to prevent it's ruin."
- Samuel Adams

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
- Patrick Henry

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

you do realize 2 of those quotes have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, and were about completely different topics right?

For having nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, it expresses their beliefs in it very well.

The amount of ignorant faggotry in the comments is absurd. Most of them don't have a single clue about the differences between guns, effectiveness at various ranges, ect. It's rather disappointing that these ignorant fools are the ones that have louder, more obnoxious voices getting stuff they don't understand banned.

Couldn't tell, didn't read much of them, so I don't care to disagree or agree ^^

Have a nice day.

It's fine. I'm very passionate about this subject, and I only got in 2 pages before I couldn't take any more. I just hadn't logged in yet, and didn't care to after I popped :/

How do we know you're mot the anon?

Check my earlier comment? I don't care about this particular topic. Nor I ever did, my fine sir.

sorry then sir.

I had to.

needs more America tho.

I'm a poly sci major and I struggling to not rage at every "logical" thinker here.

And what do you think?

I think it's up to what all 3 branches of government have agreed upon and in accordance to the constitution. As well as the supreme court ruling in the District of Columbia vs. Heller. Keep the guns in the house. If you are afraid of bad guys with guns in public so badly then hide in your little hole and order things to your house.

That sounds like a pitiful, sad existence.

tis the life of a phobic ridden individual.

I'm not sure what to make of that. Are you calling people who feel a need to arm themselves for protection paranoid?

No? I am saying that you shouldn't be so afraid to go outside without a gun. I am saying that you should keep the gun to protect your personal kingdom, your house.

Let's bring it completely in a different context. If a country were to bring their weapons into another, perhaps larger country nearby, in order to protect, perhaps citizens that are traveling, it's not the problem with the troops themselves being in the country. rather the fact that the large country lacks enough protection for itself.

Depends on your definition of your "kingdom". I'd value my life over my property. Handicapping one's ability to adequately protect their person while saying that they have every tool at their disposal to protect their property seems somewhat backwards to me.

Geez, I'm not sure if I should be glad that you didn't major in English or scared that you're taking poli-sci... It took a few passes to make heads or tales of that scenario, and it's still difficult to see the relevance.

Probably because I am terrible at wording things. The problem is not with owning guns or not in public, but the fact that the government can't adequately protect it's citizens, it's job.