As I'm sure you all have heard, Obama and other politicians are trying to increase control on guns. This may involve strengthening background checks, banning magazines with the capacity for 10+ rounds, and banning "assault style" rifles. Much of Congress as well as most states in the US oppose this, however Obama does not seem deterred. What are your thoughts and/or opinions on these matters?

Well, I personally think we don't need more gun control laws, but instead need to enforce the ones we already have. Honestly, most of these new laws won't stop shootings like the ones in New Town. However, the one law I do support is one that will make background checks mandatory at gun shows as well as at gun stores. It closes a huge loophole in the current law.

>>2 That's actually one law I want anyways.

Also I know other states are doing this as well, but TN is working on a law to make it illegal for federal agents to enforce bans on guns or magazines.

man douse not know what is best for man. thay need to takeaway ALL the guns! all but the ones for war that is.

>>4 Taking away all the guns wouldn't really do much. After a short amount of time, the larger gangs would just smuggle in more guns and would be able to use them without fear of someone pulling a gun on them. They wouldn't have to worry about a store owner or some guy they're robbing having a gun because law abiding citizens would hand them over as they were told. It would just lead to a rise in gun crime as the criminals start shooting people up without fear that they'll get shot up.

It's my personal belief that only small firearms and hunting rifles should be legal for purchase. I mean, come on. Why would you need a friggin assault rifle for home defence? A pistol or rifle would work just fine if someone broke into your home. Heck, even a fucking baseball bat is intimidating. To me, semi and full auto guns are an unnecessary risk. Plenty of mass shootings in the states could have been avoided If such dangerous guns were prohibited. I'm fine with the idea of small handguns being kept on your person for self defence, but that's where the line should be drawn. No auto, no dead people.

>>6 Yeah, I don't have a problem with stuff like that, it's just the people screaming that there shouldn't be guns anywhere that annoy me.

People seem to keep blurring "gun control" and "gun confiscation" to mean one in the same thing; they don't, or at least not completely.

We desperately need the former. Like anu said, better background checks, etc. I wouldn't mind the latter as well, but it is people's property if they already own it, and you'd be breaking U.S. law by attempting to take them, causing frenzy and ultimately making people more attached to their guns, not less. Best option is to increase background checks and shit; don't let psychos get their hands on guns.

(but in the instance of Newtown, if anyone's to blame, it'd be Mrs. Lanza. Who the fuck teaches a mentally challenged kid the mechanics of firing weapons? I don't even.)

>>8 yeah if someone's already got a gun that went on a ban list, let em keep it, but said guns should no longer be sold to the general public.

Fuck gun control. If anything, we need more guns, and laxer laws against carrying guns. The more people have guns, the faster they can stop the psychos who use them wrong.

Well, that's my opinion.

>>10 Like Switzerland? Because nearly everyone there has military grade guns. Pretty much not gun violence over there at all.

>>11 that's because everybody has military training.

Maru-Kai, the more lax gun control is, the more criminals will have access to higher grade weaponry

>>13 Um, they have access to higher grade weaponry because they get it illegally 9 times out of 10. Most criminals don't go through the trouble to get legal weapons. There was actually a study done where everybody in a town was given a gun, the crime rate dropped drastically. I'd say paying for everyone to have a gun is pretty lax gun control.

guns are used for protection but its what the person with the gun desides its use not us crazy peaple will always find a gun and will kill we cant stop that we could omly find a way to protect our self from that i mean what next they want us to where a tracking chip implanted so the goverment can find you not even in the comunist countrys will do that

used im mean not us

>>8>>13 Mexico has strict gun control, yet the cartels have guns, and they're more powerful than the government right now. This shows that gun control won't always solve the problem.

>>6 Because a 4'5" girl with a baseball bat has a decent chance to protect herself against a 6' tall intruder... But we need weapons comparable to those of the military in order to protect ourselves from the possibility of a tyrannical government.

>>17 look at uprising right now. Will owning a gun really help you against the entire US army. Would an AR17 really help against a tank or a SWAT team? No it would make you more of a target.

>>18 1 vs military, no. Citizen militia vs military, yes. And semi-automatic rifles and extended magazines allow that militia to be much more effective.

Don't say we can't. Colonists defeated what was, at the time, the largest empire in the world.

>>17 Really? Would a 4'5" girl even be holding a baseball bat up to an intruder? Much less a gun? No. They're either dead or hiding with their mom as she calls the police. If you're gonna make an argument, make it plausible

>>20 My 20 year old friend, Lauren, is indeed 4'5". Not only plausible, but a very possible incident that I chose specifically because it applied to certain people I know.

>>20 I'm a 5'7" 18 year old. We have 2 guns in our house, a revolver and a two-shot (I can't remember the technical name for the life of me), and my father has shown both me and my brother how to load and fire them. Even if I was shorter, I'd still be going for the gun if someone broke in rather than hiding in a closet. I know several girls who are shorter than me that would be doing the same thing if they had a gun in their house. Height doesn't really matter in situations like that, upbringing and mental preparedness does.

>>18 Drug cartels, not a single gun owner. This is large groups of people we're talking about. Groups that kill people everyday. Putting more gun control laws in place wouldn't phase people like this at all.

>>22 To add to Anubis' >>18 response, tell me, anyone, about how criminals follow laws?

Hell, if there was a gun on ban like that, the black market prices for these types of weapons would sky-rocket.

>>6 in Alaska, they need to defend themselves from BEARS.
On a ranch, Farmers need to protect their flocks from pack of about 20 Coyotes. a small hand pistol or bolt action rifle can not meet these demands.

Not to mention, most of the AK-47 and other machine guns are Already illegal.... Not sure how many people remember the West Hollywood Shootout back in the 90's, but the cops actually didn't have the firepower to deal with that situation.

Really should just put a stop on the "Gun show loop hole" that allows people to buy guns without a background check.

One more thought on this, This topic only came up because of the Sandy Hooks shooting. People want to place the blame on JUST ONE scapegoat, because it's simpler that way. If you haven't noticed, they tried saying, "This wouldn't happen if we didn't have guns"
or
"It was Video games that caused this"
or
"It's the movie industry that made him do this"
or
"It was a mental disorder"
In reality, it was a combination of All these factors, but that seems too complicated for people to handle, so they just attack one of them.

I'm in favour of that, I don't want people to have guns and arms in their houses. Most of the robberys here end with that, only a robbery. i'm not saying that is good, becuse I don't think so, and one as a person can nt know what the thief want of us, but of that a percent of the robbery that end with a murdering was because the family that was on the house had a gun and try to kill the man. And thing went wrong, and innocent people end dead. I don't think that an arm is the solution, I think is the cause.
But the problem is another thing. United States had the last year and this one lots of assaults organiced by sick people. Why? What we can do to stop that people without violence and before they act?
I hope I write it well and you can understad it.

i dont like it.
sure background checks should
be done anyway but they shouldnt
take them away from people who
already has one

Okay, as someone who lives in a country where we have a strict gun policy (Australia), I have to say this.
Since our gun laws came into effect, barely any of the murders in the country had anything to do with firearms. It's not like you CAN'T get guns at all; my graphics teacher from last year owns twenty of 'em.
If the US chose to enforce our policy on firearms, I can tell you things are going to get a lot better.
The point of our system is that they check if it's SAFE for you to own a gun. If you have a track record of violence (Non-self defense kind of thing, though), then why are they going to supply you with a weapon? In my eyes, it's just common sense.
You don't need to ban guns in the USA. You just need to be smart with them.

>>27 We have those background checks...

Part of the reason for allowing a society to bear arms is the idea that it is a citizen's duty to overthrow a government if they become too tyrannical.

To that end, if these gun-control spouting fucks try and sweep aside the second amendment by denying me the right to bear arms, they'll learn very fast what it means to take on someone from a military family that has handled (and learned to respect) firearms from an early age.

Besides, all this attention to firearms is *mostly* undeserved. Cars cause far more deaths than any firearm ever could, and yet vehicle related deaths are seen as being *normal* and are thus not given consideration that guns are being given.

Don't even get me started on the actions of a few psychopaths like the ones responsible for Newtown and Aurora being the reason to clamp down on millions of law abiding gun owners (most of whom only wish to be left alone).

>>29 Think of all the shootings that have been happening lately for a minute. I understand that it's not completely by fault because the person had access to a firearm, but it sure helped. By regulating gun control the united states could cut down on unnecessary deaths such as the ones that happen at those schools. The deaths of children and teachers alike, I might add. I'm from Canada, and though we have a strict law against citizens baring arms that are regulated for hunting; Murders do still exist, but on a much lesser scale. Stricter gun control, while it wouldn't completely stop all incidents from occurring, may lessen the death tolls. Also, I would like to add that it's small fraction of car accidents that are due to mechanical malfunctions. Most accidents are by human error, not by malfunction of the vehicle. It's not unimaginable as to why it is seen as 'normal', as you stated. However, the same goes for injuries and homicides involving firearms. It's not the gun making the person shoot someone, it's the person themselves. Without access to them, however, it's likely that the sense of empowerment that a gun provides won't be a leading factor in firearm related crimes.

>>30 Nope. It's because of the media. They made the man famous, so others tried to get fame too. Had he burned the school, other schools would have gotten threats for that instead.

>>31 Agreed, same as if his mom was a sword fanatic rather than a gun fanatic, she would have taught him how to handle it, and he would have slashed everyone instead,.... just look at Aniken.
If he would have used knives, then should we ban ALL kitchen knives in the U.S. as I've said before, the gun was a SMALL part of the equation as to why that happened. You can put as many gun laws as you want, it still would have happened.

In fact, the only way to guarantee this will not happen again is to clip everyone's spinal cord so that everyone is paralyzed from the neck down. Everyone, just to be sure

Just ban assault rifles. No one needs an assault rifle to 'defend their home'. Not unless you decided to join the military should you use an assault rifle to 'defend your home'. Sure people go hunting, but its not like they need to go hunting seeing as there ARE grocery stores. But even if they do ban them, criminals will still find ways to get them.

>>33
So what gives you the right to say they don't need to go hunting, just because we have stores?

>>33
Plus hunting is not just a way to get food. It's an actual, officially documented sport.

>>34 35 hunting isn't necessary and it's a blood sport, and how many deer would a person hunt? A person couldn't hunt by the hundreds so assault style really isn't necessary.

I live in an area where guns are really really common, as is hunting. Down here chances are 1 out of every 5 people you run into is or is related to a gun nut. Honestly I'm for a bit more gun control. It's scary to me to see people brandishing deadly weapons like toys.

My mom even wants me to learn to shoot a rifle for 'protection', despite the fact I've told her repeatedly I don't want to. I came home the other day and she had left the rifle on my bed for god-knows-what. Not to mention the idiots around here who drink while hunting and pose a danger to their hunting party and others who might be in the woods. My family lost a dog who had been with us for over a decade because of someone with a gun.

I'm not saying we're ready to ban guns completely, I'd just like to see some damn control and safety precautions issued. There are some people who really can't be trusted with those things.

>>36 Literally the only difference between a "hunting rifle" and an "assault weapon" is that one is scary looking, and one is made out of wood. The internals are literally exactly the same.

Also, hunting isn't just a sport, for some it's a way of life.

>>36 Hunting is necessary, It's to control population, and also, for those who DO LIVE IN THE WOODS, a source of food.

Really, back to the matter at hand, the stance people take on gun control are linked directly to where they live: ex, in the city, most people oppose guns, while in the country areas, people are for guns.

The main problem though is not guns being good or bad, but it's human stupidity. If people would use common sense, all accidents related to guns would be reduced greatly.

I would as I would like to say the "As much as I agree with all of you" line...

I don't think it's neccassary( Sorry if spelled wrong). A gun, is a gun, is a gun. At the end of the day, it's the person that decides what to do with it. A law is not going to help that. I shouldn't say it that way. I'm sure it does help for people with stable minds and morals, but those who don't and quite afew of them out there don't will just keep doing it. And about the gun stores, people are always going to find ways to sell them. So in a way...

This law does nothing... people are just going to do what they want.

This particular does nothing, not the law in general..

I'm not sure about the particulars behind this, as I live in England, but I fail to see any argument that justifies keeping American gun laws as they are. Say that it's your constitutional right, but that's not an argument. Calling upon the constitution to justify your argument is a sign that you don't have a real argument in the first place, but I believe that many groups are still doing this anyway.
Here's some statistics. In America, the number of shootings last year was somewhere in the 1000s, close to about 10,000, if I remember rightly. In contrast, the number of shootings in England was barely approaching 50. Even considering the difference in population, that's an immense gap. Now, consider the difference in gun laws. In England, nobody is allowed to even own a gun. So saying that tightening gun laws will have no effect is rubbish.
There is not way to adequately justify keeping American gun laws the same. And I definitely agree with banning Assault weapons. What possible reason could anyone have to justify owning those?

Im not saying we should keep them as they are, but I'm just saying that people in general are stupid and crazy and people will find loop holes and exceptions so they don't get in trouble, they always do. So I just think we as America should do better in dealing with these loop holes, if our government can find them...

>>42 Are you fucking stupid? If you want a massive counter-argument, read the sandy hook thread. I posted a shit-ton of information on there.

Here are a few random facts. More people die from hammers than rifles annually in the US. Drunk driving kills exponentially more people than guns. The vast majority of violent crimes in the US occur without the assailant being armed, let alone with a gun. In the US, the vast majority of home burglaries occur when the homeowner is away, whereas in the UK, 48% (IIRC) or home invasions occur when the resident is home.

Also, we can call on the Constitution as it's the very FOUNDATION of our society. t's the supreme law of the land and is not subject to infringement.

Let me just bring up this movie:
Demolition Man, Would you want to live in this type of future?
with the BE Wells, the no touch high five, and vegan diet by law?
and worse- ROB SCHNIDER IS A COP!?!?

By the way that was a joke

ITS A VIOLATION OF OUR SENCOND AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!

<<48
The second amendment was made with the intent if the government ever went totalitarian which it hasn't. Also what does a person need with a lot of guns. It couldn't be for hunting because how many deer are you going to come across? Also, what would a couple of people with a bunch of guns do against the entire US army if the government turned bad?

Militias might have worked in colonial times but look at the technology offered to them. The English didn't have that much better weapons than the colonists. Also if everyone had a gun doesn't that mean more crazy people would have guns. In Mexico laws aren't enforced very well so even though they have strict gun laws doesn't that mean they aren't getting enforced. Also, that "foundation of our country" slavery was legal in America at that time and a bunch of the founding fathers were racist, sexist, and religious bigots. We have learned a lot and gotten better in the past couple hundred years. A bunch of these laws are necessary to restrict the number of deaths by shootings.

I'm not decisive on no guns period, but the restrictions Obama had preposed definitely look very reasonable.

>>49 No. The second amendment was made to prevent it from becoming totalitarian and/or tyrannical, not when.

Also, different guns for different game/circumstances. And not a couple people, but what could the entire US populace with guns do if the government turned on them? The short answer, a lot.

>>50 Look at things now. The Mexican drug cartels are stronger than the Mexican government. And no, it doesn't mean more crazy people would have guns. Do you read anything at all? Mental health is covered in background checks. Death's by shootings aren't that common, which is why they make the news so much. Death by DUI, strangling, suffocation, medical malpractice, and stabbings are all far more common. They aren't necessary to restrict shootings either. Look at Switzerland or Finland for example. They have very loose gun control.

As the Dollars shouldn't we try to be a little bit more creative when it comes to this? Gun control versus no Gun control, we can talk about this with art, and form. The Dollars abhore Violence, our weapon of self defense is numbers, and in mumbers we are supposed to stop violence, and also plots to take over the world.

>>53 We are having a very relevant discussion over fun control. No one here thinks we should have no gun control, we're discussing how much we should have. Plus, considering how spread out we are and how few members we actually have (don't you dare point out that member counter up there, I know I am personally responsible for about 10 of those), our numbers aren't a good self defense at all. As far as abhorring violence goes, having guns can actually help stop violence.

>>52 This.

>>50 We don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we have. Like you said, Mexico has crazy strict gun laws, but they tend to be ignored and the very things they are meant to stop happen anyway. Why would putting more restrictions in effect help us if the ones we already have are not enforced properly? Our current laws, when correctly enforced, keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, so crazy people wouldn't have guns.

Also, a lot of the men who founded our country were religious, does that mean that we shouldn't be religious anymore? All of them were white, does that mean we shouldn't have white people anymore? You can't use a few bad things about people to completely discount the good things they have also done.

>>49 The Bill of Rights, including the second amendment, was written to keep the government from taking away the rights of individuals. If you begin infringing on any of those rights, you pave the way to infringe on others. If our right to own guns is taken away, how will we protect ourselves in the event that the government does go totalitarian? If that is the purpose of having weapons, how will we get them when we need them?

>>48 This.

>>46 This made me lol.

>>45 This so hard.

i think we as Dollars need to be prepared incase something breaks out from this debate. We should help all people who might get harmed if a situation breaks out

and we cant be picky about who we should protect. we protect all

What the government is overlooking, is 80% of the time in shooting events. Assault type weapons aren't even used. I give them about 2 more months, nothing will happen and we all can move on.

We should just raise the cost of bullets to something crazy high so bad people cant afford them XD

>>58 Again, Mexico. The good guys are poor, the bad guys have money.

>>58
Then good people wouldn't either. Though the 'bad' people would still get bullets.

my thought would be to take away all ARs.. and leave only handguns to the public... hunters dont complain,you still have crossbows. leave the ARs to law enforcement and millitary hands only.. ARs are weapons to kill ppl in a mass scale. protecting your home is one thing but you dont need a AR to do it, a handgun is just as effective or even a shotgun. again... this is just my opinion

>>61 The thing is, you can kill as many people with a handgun as you can with an AR rifle, They're SEMI-Automatic, not FULL Automatic. Basically, they're not the machine guns that fire 1000 rounds a second like the media portrays them to be.

Really, what bothers me about this topic is not the gun control issue or the taking away the guns, but rather,

It's that PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE SOLUTION, THAT IF THIS IS DONE, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, EVER AGAIN. which it is very possible that it may. It's the activists on both sides, they're manipulating people's fears to get them to side with them, and it's irritating.

A person who has decided to kill, will kill, and if they are going to break the law in the first place, they will also break the law to obtain these guns that the "public" aren't allowed to have. Yet they think it'd deter the population away from doing it at all when it only holds true to those who already won't do it to begin with.

Those who decide to kill aren't going to be scared and back down just because the law tell them too. If that was the case they wouldn't have the "killing" mind set.

>>61 Crossbow comparable to a rifle? Do you even know what you're talking about?

>>64 most likely the people who are 100% against guns have never even touched one, and probably don't know anything about them.

but take them to a shooting range and have them fire the heavy stuff and they will change their minds.

"I hate guns, no one should ever have one! EVAR!" click-click, BOOM!! "......okay, that was cool..."

Technically in NY a if a gun has a bayonette mount, not even the bayonette, it is considered a assault rifle. So if a pistol has a bayonette mount it's an assault rifle in NY state, really stupid right.

>>66 So you can't use knife guns? Cool, 'cuz one hit kill knifing is way too OP.

>>66 Good thing I'm not in NY. We have an old ass rifle that has a bayonet in it. Not that we could even fire the thing if we wanted to, it's old as crap.

>>61 Crossbows are comparable to rifles? That's one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. That's just the kind of bull Hollywood feeds you because crossbows look cool.

>>61 Crossbows are cool and seem badass, but they aren't ass strong as guns. I'd rather take an arrow to the knee then get a cap busted on my knee.

>>69 but arrows are more psychologically damaging, You feel a bullet go in you, you just see the hole, and freak out, You see an arrow/bolt, you freak out even more, cause you can now SEE what is killing you, adding to the trama.

>>70 Not really... Crossbow bolts deal less damage, as well as help plug the wound. Not to mention that you can remove a crossbow bolt or an arrow, but you need medical training to safely remove a bullet.

The Constitution states that citizens hold the right to a well regulated militia, and thus to bear arms.

Anyone with a head on their shoulders can understand that, taken in the context of the founding fathers having just fought a revolution against a tyrannical government, the point of allowing citizens to bear arms is to guard both against external threats, as well as guarding against an overreaching potential governemental threat.

To the people saying 'Ban the AR-15! It's a millitary weapon!', horseshit. If you knew anything about firearms, or god forbid actually ever fired an AR, you would know that AR's are almost identical to almost every other non-assault rifle chambered in .223 in existance. The only difference is they are black, scary looking...and OMG they have a PISTOL GRIP!!

Frankly, the language of the Constituition because it is permiting a civilian militia, suggests that we SHOULD have access to millitary grade firearms. That's what a millitia is, and that's also why we managed to win the Revolutionary war, because we had an armed citizenry.

>>71 "Not really..." what? I said that crossbows do less damage.

>>70 You should be really psychologically damaged since it's much more easy to take out an arrow and treat all wounds. Guns are scarrier since more people die bullet wounds than arrows.

>>73 Mine was a response to "The Doctor" who said a crossbow bolt would be more traumatizing...

*cough* fuck gun control

>>73 have you ever tried to take out an arrow? If it's a hunting tip, you can't just yank it out, it will destroy more tissue, and when you see it, you will be a natural reaction to yank it out, thus causing massive blood loss. I should know, I got hit in the shoulder with a crossbow bolt, and it does more damage physically and mentally.

>>76 Wrong. It's much easier to patch an arrow wound. If it's a field tip (more common than broadheads), then you do just pull it out. If it's a broadhead, you break the shaft, then keep the arrowhead in until you have ample time to follow it's path back out of the body. They also enter the body with less force behind them.

>>76 I didn't say to yank it out or anything. It should be common knowledge to leave it in and let the medical professionals take care of ya. Don't be like that croc hunter that got stabbed in the chest by a sting ray and yank shit out; wait until the doctor. I do know it might seem intense, but hey, at least it's not a gun shot wound and you have more of a chance to survive.

>>78 if you got shot with an arrow, I'm sure you wouldn't say "oh, look at that, I better leave it in, no biggie"

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, My main problem is Not that the government is taking away guns, that will never happen,
but what bothers me is the attitude about it, people believing that "If these new laws pass, there will never be another school shooting EVAR AGAIN!"

No, you can put all these limitations on it, and it can still happen, 10 round clip limit? "I have 50 clips" you see where I'm going with this.

For the person who said that they should ban semi-automatic guns but let people keep small firearms such as a pistol. You're assuming that just because it is small, it's not semi-automatic. In which you are incorrect. I can almost guarantee you that nearly any hand gun you think of that isn't a revolver of some sort is semi-automatic. A lot of this whole debate is people who are afraid of guns and don't understand as much as they probably should about them. Such as making assumptions about different kinds of guns simply because it looks scary. Rash actions based on fear are not usually actions that should have been made.

One such thing that people should be able to differentiate between is an Assault Weapon and and Assault Rifle. An Assault Rifle can be an Assault Weapon, but that doesn't make an Assault Weapon and Assault Rifle. In addition Assault Weapon is a very vague term. An Assault Weapon can be anything from a rifle, to a pistol, to a shotgun. An Assault Rifle according to Wikipedia is "a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."

Basically when it gets down to it. People need to stop making decisions based out of fear and educate themselves a little bit.

bump

Fuck gun control if Obama does this I have no respect for him and did you know more people were killed In the US by hammers than guns in 2012

>>83More people were killed by hammers than "assault weapons"

What's the point even thinking about it

>>85 The point is that we should be aware of something that may infringe upon our freedoms as Americans. If you aren't American, then there really isn't a point in thinking about it. Most of this site, however, is American so it is completely relevant and worth thinking and talking about.

People being crazily overeactive to increase in gun laws.
It is not infringing on your freedom it is simply an attempt to maintain the peace better.
The right to bear arms was thought up in a time when they still lived in frontier villages and were in danger of bear/other wildlife attacks. People only need so many guns now because America was allowed to be flooded with them in the 80's/early 2000's.
Bogans and hillbillies need to get off their fucking high horses and accept a compromise for once.

I think that banning all guns is wrong, however, assault rifles are not used for self defense or hunting, so why should we be able to freely buy them?

>>87 No. The right to bear arms comes from the fact that Britain stopped treating the colonies with any respect, and denying them the rights of the average British citizen. It was decided that should a government become a tyranny unto the people, it was the people's duty to overthrow and install a new government or leaders in place. However, the people must have the ability to do this, thus, the second amendment. Dumbasses like you need to think before you speak. This also isn't just about guns. It's about "twisting" our rights. If they can twist this one, what's to stop them from distorting the right to free speech, or freedom of the press? They could twist freedom of religion.

>>88 Read the fucking thread, and you might learn that they are used for hunting.

>>88
I hunt with a 'Assault weapon' (which is a bullshit, made up term, but I wont go there) all the time.

In fact, the .223 round that most AR's are chambered in is possibly the best round for hunting game thats say, smaller than a deer, but larger than a squirrel (such as coyotes, cougars, maybe even boar).

>>90 Thank you for someone who actually uses guns for commenting on this thread.

>>87 As Crisis said, it does in fact infringe upon the rights of American citizens. The second amendment gives American Citizens the right to bear arms. And in spite of your excellent analysis as to why we have the right to bear arms, I am inclined to say you are incorrect and more inclined to agree with Crisis. The second amendment wasn't put into the Constitution because they wanted to defend themselves from wild animals. I'm not just going to repeat what Crisis said because it would be redundant. Instead of attempting to reduce this discussion to name calling, referring to people who are attempting to defend their right to bear arms as "Bogans and hillbillies" why not try saying something intelligent.

Truthfully the government can abolish an ammendment, or create a new one. The prohibition of alcohol was abolished after it became an ammendment. If enough people rally for it then the ammendment could be in fact abolished. If it isn't then there will be loopholes for the government to take. Whle bush was in command he found a loophole that allowed the government to tap into any phone, or search any house, for the sake of finding terrorists without a warrant. He found a loophole that takes away part of our rights given to us by the 5th ammendment. So it is possible for the government to take away our rights, but they might not directly do it.

However I do agree that by having a gun people would be safer. If everyone has a gun then one would think twice about doing minor crime, since they might get killed doing it. For if every person had a gun while they were being shot at the attacker would have gone down a lot faster. Yet most of the big planned shootings had a bomb set up to kill even more than the gun. So people could turn to bombs and kill more that way if they don't have acces to a firearm. The movie theater guy rigged his whole apartment to blow and blow up the whole apartment complex while the police were distracted by him shooting. The Columbine shooters set up bombs in the cafeteria and rigged them to blow. If they spent more time on those bombs then more people would have died from that. If people don't have guns they find other means to do so. Also all it takes to make a bomb could be some gasoline and a switch rigged to spark a contianer of it. So anyone has access to gasoline, a container, and some wires. Should we start banning those as well?

>>91 ... I own several...

>>93 To abolish the 2nd amendment (like prohibition), it would have to be painfully obvious that the vast majority wanted it gone, which isn't going to happen any time soon.

This is all bloody stupid just make it so everyone that buys a gun has a good safe that their kid can get into but I do like background checks that was a good idea but why didn't we have this before

bumping this because opinions of the gun laws. Which I call bullshit.

I don't really think that it matter even if u do have a good back round check what make you so sure that this person wont snap n end up killing more people I think that it does matter caise people how want to kill will find a way to kill wether with a gun or some other weapons

Ok, the new American project Gunsheild (placing armed guards with large guns out the front of every school in the country) is litterally fighting fire with fire. That is exactly what they are doing, canceling guns with more guns will not fucking work. On the other hand, the flow of guns should not be stopped all at once. What America needs is a gradual recession of gun sales nation wide so that people are not defensless all at once but the levels of dangerous arms is still decreasing. Also >>95 Trusting the system way too much and >>97 Please make more sense next time and I live in Australia where we basically have no guns (Not even police except for federal) and killings are a hell of a lot rarer.

>>46 Good point, lol. I love that movie... I hate to admit it, but being a badass in a world of wimps could appeal to just about anybody. That's why we all need to level each other out.