you also your sentence

My head reading that meme....

Dammit!!!

the problem with someone in the school having a gun would be that it'd have to be a teacher or principal. My mom is a teacher has personally said that she'd never be able to shoot anyone, especially a student. Instead of a gun, give her a taser, change some legislation (which is easy with protest, we just need numbers) and change some of the backwards laws on taser and rubber bullets and such.

also, we have been debating for around a day now. we should wrap it up soon :P

Yeah I agree let's wrap this up. I would like to say that if schools had signs that read "Faculty Armed and Trained with Firearms" that in it self would ward of some wanna be mass murderers. Even if your mother may not fire the gun, another teacher most likely would. If you imagine the situation of not shooting the murderer he could kill 20 people, and be taken to prison, versus, 2 people then somebody shoots him. Much less catastrophic. It has happened before where the principle has stopped a student from killing people. But anyway, it was nice talking to you.

I nearly missed this comment.

Honestly, I think the massive ownership of guns is better at stopping foreign powers, because fuck those guys. Also, unfortunately the government, while not evil or tyrannical, is sort of corrupt. It's shifting towards an aristocracy because the rich can buy votes.
My feelings on guns are mixed, to be honest. I like the protection aspect as well as the idea of some foreign nation just trying to invade us without getting shot at, but then shit like sandy hook happens. I believe we need better gun safety and control.

Yes, and a gun can cause destruction on a much greater scale than knifes, guitar string, and a bat.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westroads_Mall_shooting
Hell, there was even a shooting at my school this year. Fortunately, the assailant was tackled after he fired one shot.

And I'd rather injure someone whom then tries to sue me rather than kill them.

Good thing someone was brave enough to tackle him, otherwise plenty of other people could be dead. In this same instance, imagine if someone had a gun and shot the attacker instead of tackling him. It equalizes the fight (just as this picture illustrates, it is a fact you can look it up). I just want to bring up another point on your previous comment about C4 being illegal, people can still obtain it, I'm not speaking of the police or some other form like that, but criminals can get whatever weapon they want if they desire. Same with drugs. The whole gun control incident is completely ridiculous, when someone that does not follow the law kills people, then suddenly everyone wants to ban guns for the law abiding citizens, that is not fair at all. It is in fact punishing the wrong person. When instead you place restraints on the average, law abiding, citizen that is the absolute worst route to take in reducing crime. Basically what I am saying is don't take away my rights, be that of gun control or smoking marijuana(even though that is illegal in my state), don't punish me for what some idiotic lunatic did to kill/injure other people. I don't care if you don't want to have guns or use drugs, that is your personal choice, and an adult is capable of making their own decisions (crazy people are a different story), the government is not here to tell me what is and isn't morally wrong. My overall point is to say...Don't limit my rights, the only way we can possibly solve this problem is a better education system and better background checks not gun control.

the problem with someone in the school having a gun would be that it'd have to be a teacher or principal. My mom is a teacher has personally said that she'd never be able to shoot anyone, especially a student. Instead of a gun, give her a taser, change some legislation (which is easy with protest, we just need numbers) and change some of the backwards laws on taser and rubber bullets and such.

also, we have been debating for around a day now. we should wrap it up soon :P

Yeah I agree let's wrap this up. I would like to say that if schools had signs that read "Faculty Armed and Trained with Firearms" that in it self would ward of some wanna be mass murderers. Even if your mother may not fire the gun, another teacher most likely would. If you imagine the situation of not shooting the murderer he could kill 20 people, and be taken to prison, versus, 2 people then somebody shoots him. Much less catastrophic. It has happened before where the principle has stopped a student from killing people. But anyway, it was nice talking to you.

All that i can say is, no.
Hitler banned guns because he was a dictator. Same with stalin. Banning guns didnt create them.
And no, the second amendment does nothing today to stop our government. What stops our government is our system. If someone wanted to take control and oppress people, they couldn't. we have checks and balances for a reason.

Lets pretend that the only thing our constitution says is that we can bear arms. Great. Woohoo. You have an AR-15, I have an airforce, tanks, trained snipers, predator drones, and bombs. I win. What stops this from happening is the system that the framers set up with the constituion. No one person has power, and we have a multi-party system where power is derived from the people.

I never said Hitler or Stalin gain their initial power because of massive gun banning, I simply said they gained much power through this act. The 2nd amendment by it self may not keeps us from tyrannical rule, but at least it gives a fighting chance. For instance, imagine we are under dictatorship, we could form a militia and capture tanks or some other form of military weaponry, not that it is very likely, it helps equalize the power. I want my government to be afraid of guns, because they know if they screw up massively we can take them out by impeaching them, or if comes to worse situations then we will take them out personally. The government should never be the one in total control. They work for the voters. Not the other way around. Sadly the situation does seem like they are in control of us at this point in time.

I nearly missed this comment.

Honestly, I think the massive ownership of guns is better at stopping foreign powers, because fuck those guys. Also, unfortunately the government, while not evil or tyrannical, is sort of corrupt. It's shifting towards an aristocracy because the rich can buy votes.
My feelings on guns are mixed, to be honest. I like the protection aspect as well as the idea of some foreign nation just trying to invade us without getting shot at, but then shit like sandy hook happens. I believe we need better gun safety and control.

I don't understand your argument. The accidents part is very right. There was a gun, it was used as it is intended to function, to harm. The person didn't intend to use it, but the gun was used for its intended person.

Additionally, if C4 was in a room, and no one was there, the C4 would do nothing. Same with heroin and a tank, yet there is a damn good reason that they are illegal.

Here is how I'd respond to someone breaking into my house:
www.taser.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_bullet
www.zarc.com/us/projectiles/
www.ritzcamera.com/ (criminals do not like to be identified)

Obviously tanks and C4 are illegal, are the same reason nukes are, they can do massive amounts of damage on a far greater scale than a gun. So you would tazer the person/rubber bullet a criminal and risk them getting back up and suing you because of the screwed up legal system in the US? A dead man can't sue.

Yes, and a gun can cause destruction on a much greater scale than knifes, guitar string, and a bat.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westroads_Mall_shooting
Hell, there was even a shooting at my school this year. Fortunately, the assailant was tackled after he fired one shot.

And I'd rather injure someone whom then tries to sue me rather than kill them.

Good thing someone was brave enough to tackle him, otherwise plenty of other people could be dead. In this same instance, imagine if someone had a gun and shot the attacker instead of tackling him. It equalizes the fight (just as this picture illustrates, it is a fact you can look it up). I just want to bring up another point on your previous comment about C4 being illegal, people can still obtain it, I'm not speaking of the police or some other form like that, but criminals can get whatever weapon they want if they desire. Same with drugs. The whole gun control incident is completely ridiculous, when someone that does not follow the law kills people, then suddenly everyone wants to ban guns for the law abiding citizens, that is not fair at all. It is in fact punishing the wrong person. When instead you place restraints on the average, law abiding, citizen that is the absolute worst route to take in reducing crime. Basically what I am saying is don't take away my rights, be that of gun control or smoking marijuana(even though that is illegal in my state), don't punish me for what some idiotic lunatic did to kill/injure other people. I don't care if you don't want to have guns or use drugs, that is your personal choice, and an adult is capable of making their own decisions (crazy people are a different story), the government is not here to tell me what is and isn't morally wrong. My overall point is to say...Don't limit my rights, the only way we can possibly solve this problem is a better education system and better background checks not gun control.

the problem with someone in the school having a gun would be that it'd have to be a teacher or principal. My mom is a teacher has personally said that she'd never be able to shoot anyone, especially a student. Instead of a gun, give her a taser, change some legislation (which is easy with protest, we just need numbers) and change some of the backwards laws on taser and rubber bullets and such.

also, we have been debating for around a day now. we should wrap it up soon :P

Yeah I agree let's wrap this up. I would like to say that if schools had signs that read "Faculty Armed and Trained with Firearms" that in it self would ward of some wanna be mass murderers. Even if your mother may not fire the gun, another teacher most likely would. If you imagine the situation of not shooting the murderer he could kill 20 people, and be taken to prison, versus, 2 people then somebody shoots him. Much less catastrophic. It has happened before where the principle has stopped a student from killing people. But anyway, it was nice talking to you.

Clearly he is a very outdated robot if he can't make his own sandwich. Shameful.

He's talking about the future, where we bring sandwiches to our new robot overlords to appease them.

You have a sandwich eating robot?
Why?

I can, its on the far left.

The average person does not need a gun. There are other ways to get food (you pointed out crossbows early. Ted Nugent does quite well with a crossbow). There are other just as good non-lethal forms of protection. Forms that cannot accidentally kill anyone.
You actually brought up a good point. What if a gun accidentally goes off? Well I already have the answer to that. There were 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.
As to history and taking away guns blah blah blah. That, statistically, is shit. For one, it confuses correlation with causation. Guns were banned because dictators rose, dictators did not rise because guns were banned. Today, there are thousands of countries world wide where guns are not necessarily banned, but gun ownership is so low, it might as well be 0. Japan, for example, only people who use guns for sport may own a firearm, and they don't have a dictator. You also forget this is the united states of America. If the government magically turned tyrannical, which is nigh impossible under our Constitution, who would enforce their tyranny? Our soldiers are loyal to their country, not their government.

Sorry I also forgot to reply to other parts about governments banning buns. Hitler gained much more power when he banned guns, killing 6 million jews (not to mention other people who were considered unfit) who had no protection, Stalin banning guns and sending out soldiers to kill citizens who disagreed with his view? The reason why our country is "safe" from tyrannical government is because of the 2nd amendment my friend. Just as you may you hunt with a crossbow, you may kill people. There were mass murders even without guns, people are capable of doing this even without these "tools of destruction".

All that i can say is, no.
Hitler banned guns because he was a dictator. Same with stalin. Banning guns didnt create them.
And no, the second amendment does nothing today to stop our government. What stops our government is our system. If someone wanted to take control and oppress people, they couldn't. we have checks and balances for a reason.

Lets pretend that the only thing our constitution says is that we can bear arms. Great. Woohoo. You have an AR-15, I have an airforce, tanks, trained snipers, predator drones, and bombs. I win. What stops this from happening is the system that the framers set up with the constituion. No one person has power, and we have a multi-party system where power is derived from the people.

I never said Hitler or Stalin gain their initial power because of massive gun banning, I simply said they gained much power through this act. The 2nd amendment by it self may not keeps us from tyrannical rule, but at least it gives a fighting chance. For instance, imagine we are under dictatorship, we could form a militia and capture tanks or some other form of military weaponry, not that it is very likely, it helps equalize the power. I want my government to be afraid of guns, because they know if they screw up massively we can take them out by impeaching them, or if comes to worse situations then we will take them out personally. The government should never be the one in total control. They work for the voters. Not the other way around. Sadly the situation does seem like they are in control of us at this point in time.

I nearly missed this comment.

Honestly, I think the massive ownership of guns is better at stopping foreign powers, because fuck those guys. Also, unfortunately the government, while not evil or tyrannical, is sort of corrupt. It's shifting towards an aristocracy because the rich can buy votes.
My feelings on guns are mixed, to be honest. I like the protection aspect as well as the idea of some foreign nation just trying to invade us without getting shot at, but then shit like sandy hook happens. I believe we need better gun safety and control.

The accidents part is so very wrong, somebody was involved in directly causing the accident, someone pulled the trigger and expected nothing to happen. If you have a gun in a room with no one in there, the gun would do nothing. If there are so many forms of non-lethal protection, please tell me how you would handle the situation if someone broke into your house while you were there.

I don't understand your argument. The accidents part is very right. There was a gun, it was used as it is intended to function, to harm. The person didn't intend to use it, but the gun was used for its intended person.

Additionally, if C4 was in a room, and no one was there, the C4 would do nothing. Same with heroin and a tank, yet there is a damn good reason that they are illegal.

Here is how I'd respond to someone breaking into my house:
www.taser.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_bullet
www.zarc.com/us/projectiles/
www.ritzcamera.com/ (criminals do not like to be identified)

Obviously tanks and C4 are illegal, are the same reason nukes are, they can do massive amounts of damage on a far greater scale than a gun. So you would tazer the person/rubber bullet a criminal and risk them getting back up and suing you because of the screwed up legal system in the US? A dead man can't sue.

Yes, and a gun can cause destruction on a much greater scale than knifes, guitar string, and a bat.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westroads_Mall_shooting
Hell, there was even a shooting at my school this year. Fortunately, the assailant was tackled after he fired one shot.

And I'd rather injure someone whom then tries to sue me rather than kill them.

Good thing someone was brave enough to tackle him, otherwise plenty of other people could be dead. In this same instance, imagine if someone had a gun and shot the attacker instead of tackling him. It equalizes the fight (just as this picture illustrates, it is a fact you can look it up). I just want to bring up another point on your previous comment about C4 being illegal, people can still obtain it, I'm not speaking of the police or some other form like that, but criminals can get whatever weapon they want if they desire. Same with drugs. The whole gun control incident is completely ridiculous, when someone that does not follow the law kills people, then suddenly everyone wants to ban guns for the law abiding citizens, that is not fair at all. It is in fact punishing the wrong person. When instead you place restraints on the average, law abiding, citizen that is the absolute worst route to take in reducing crime. Basically what I am saying is don't take away my rights, be that of gun control or smoking marijuana(even though that is illegal in my state), don't punish me for what some idiotic lunatic did to kill/injure other people. I don't care if you don't want to have guns or use drugs, that is your personal choice, and an adult is capable of making their own decisions (crazy people are a different story), the government is not here to tell me what is and isn't morally wrong. My overall point is to say...Don't limit my rights, the only way we can possibly solve this problem is a better education system and better background checks not gun control.

the problem with someone in the school having a gun would be that it'd have to be a teacher or principal. My mom is a teacher has personally said that she'd never be able to shoot anyone, especially a student. Instead of a gun, give her a taser, change some legislation (which is easy with protest, we just need numbers) and change some of the backwards laws on taser and rubber bullets and such.

also, we have been debating for around a day now. we should wrap it up soon :P

Yeah I agree let's wrap this up. I would like to say that if schools had signs that read "Faculty Armed and Trained with Firearms" that in it self would ward of some wanna be mass murderers. Even if your mother may not fire the gun, another teacher most likely would. If you imagine the situation of not shooting the murderer he could kill 20 people, and be taken to prison, versus, 2 people then somebody shoots him. Much less catastrophic. It has happened before where the principle has stopped a student from killing people. But anyway, it was nice talking to you.

Having a gun loaded next to your bed? That, i must take a pure stance, as VERY bad.
If you have children, you definitely need a gun safe, end of story. Additionally, if you have a gun ready next to the place where you sleep, an accident is highly likely. In those few moments after you wake, your judgement is very impaired. Is that a dangerous criminal in the hall, or your lovely wife?

No, obviously you have never used a weapon. A gun will not go off all by its self. It does not have to be chambered, at the same time it is loaded (or cocked). Yes if you have little children you would have to keep it in a safer place. How hard would it be to check to make sure your spouse was in the bed with and, and to ask "Honey is that you?"

guns for sports is ... an odd subject. its like bombing for sports, or stabbing for sport. its odd.

and yeah, but you can expect the owner not to have the gun ready. Plus, most robberies occur when no one is home. Robbers don't want to kill, they want money. Most will bail if even a small child is home.

<- MFW=Bombing for sport?

True most robberies are committed when no one is home, but does that mean when the rare few that do happen when someone is home shouldn't be able to protect themselves? It doesn't take but a few seconds to have a gun ready if someone breaks in. You can have it pre-loaded and beside your bed, it takes around 3-4 seconds. Maybe you think guns are bad, but I prefer to think guns aren't bad, but rather bad people can use them in bad ways, good people can use them in good ways(to ensure the safety of themselves and others around them) .

Having a gun loaded next to your bed? That, i must take a pure stance, as VERY bad.
If you have children, you definitely need a gun safe, end of story. Additionally, if you have a gun ready next to the place where you sleep, an accident is highly likely. In those few moments after you wake, your judgement is very impaired. Is that a dangerous criminal in the hall, or your lovely wife?

No, obviously you have never used a weapon. A gun will not go off all by its self. It does not have to be chambered, at the same time it is loaded (or cocked). Yes if you have little children you would have to keep it in a safer place. How hard would it be to check to make sure your spouse was in the bed with and, and to ask "Honey is that you?"