If you analyze both positions on this debate, if you're smart you'll begin to realize that there is no common factors that will solve it. Both sides disagree with each other; one says keep them, it's the American people's right and is written in the constitution; the other side says hell no they're killing school kids, citizens or criminals don't need them. When someone uses a weapon to harm another person do they charge the weapon with the crime or the person? Also, no matter what laws or bills are passed, you cannot get rid of guns. If you banned guns here it will cost us a lot of money in the long run. Even law abiding citizens will be thrown in jail and that's more American tax dollars being used to support their life in jail or prison. The American people nor criminals will not give up guns; especially criminals. Hell it might even cause a civil war, definitely more riots and protesting for sure. Who the hell would wanna do that?? Just quit it already. It makes no sense.

Edited October 25, 201411 yr by xxKINGxTRaGiCxx

Well for starters, if you're going to shout and support the 2nd amendment, then I hope you know that it was meant for states to maintain a milita (our Nat'l guard now). 

 

However, I support and also encourage every citizen to own a firearm. Gun control doesn't mean shit; if a criminal wants a gun, he's going to get a gun. But we don't need to own m240's .50 BMG, mini-guns, or the various explosives (FPSRussia is a prime example of what our country SHOULD NOT BE). 

 

Personally, I own 5 guns (3 hand guns,  .30-06 rifle, and a shotgun). Guns are a part of our tradition, heritage, and culture. We've depended on guns for survival since our inception, and no they're a favorite pastime and hobby.

And yes, blame the US for the recent trend of gun crimes and how they're finding their way into the hands of criminals. Operation Fast & Furious was giant fuck up of a job by our gov't. We still are experiencing the affects of that cluster-fuck.

 

 

Not designed as a tool of war eh? Here's a History Lesson for you..  "The term assault rifle is a non-direct translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", "storm" as in "military assault"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler^{[11]"  Further More: "}The Germans were the first to pioneer the assault rifle concept, during World War II, based upon research that showed that most firefights happen within 400 meters and that contemporary rifles were over-powered for most small arms combat"

 

Eventually Assault Rifles we're Designed to Kill as many of the Enemy as Possible with Reload Times as short as possible (hence the "Box Magazine)

 

 

also you're right the average citizen likely Does not have an Assault Rifle However its not the Average Citizen Going around Shooting Random People at will 

 

However the Assault Rifles we have on the market here aren't Designed to be Tools of war? yet the Popular AR-15 is essentially a Photo Copy of the famous M-16 (A tool of war)  Also note that AR-15 stands for Assault Rife - 15  you can go ahead and look back at the Source of that term and tell me that Assault rifle's weren't designed to kill people

 

just to add some Fact's to my argument here, here are some guns being sold on the USA Firearms Market that are specifically Designed to kill and some used in our own Military

 

- FNH Scar Being Sold in Arizona - http://www.gunsinternational.com/FNH-Scar-Heavy-17S-7-62X51.cfm?gun_id=100495961&CFID=8901322&CFTOKEN=c12601b6e9521692-D9C8C42C-90B1-1C3E-AE807A81F9F53E7A

 

- 7.62x39mm AK-47 Being Sold in Delaware - http://www.gunsinternational.com/ARSENAL-SA-M-7-AK-47-7-62x39mm-Milled-Receiver-w-custom-quad-rail-.cfm?gun_id=100490905

 

- Colt M4 Carbine Being Sold in South Dakota - http://www.gunsinternational.com/Colt-M4-Carbine-5-56mm-NATO.cfm?gun_id=100489775

 

NOTE: there was also a .50BMG M97 Barrett Sniper Rifle on sale in Delaware didn't add it into the list since it isn't an assault rifle But damn

 

anyway these 3 guns are designed to kill people and do a damn good job at it.. so you may want to reconsider your stance.. 

 

Sorry to make this so long but im just showing that getting guns like that IS possible here just pretty expensive

 

 

First i am not debating the origin of the assault rifle and what its intent was for. To be more specific by the market i mean the civilian market and the common semi-automatic rifles that are usually demonized as "assault rifles". The rifles you posted are the rifles i am exactly talking about none of those have the full capability that the original military version has (selector switches, different internals ect..); These rifles may be nearly identical in every way to the original but they are not being sold with the intention of being used to harm another human being or fight a war.

Secondly the AR in AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle it stands for ArmaLite the company that first manufactured the rifle before selling it to Colt.

Here is an excerpt: "AR does NOT stand for Assault Rifle, as is commonly believed. AR stands for the original company that manufactured it, ArmaLite. ArmaLite sold their rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 designs in 1959 to Colt." sources - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=AR-15 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

My stance remains unchanged as these weapons are not sold to civilians with the intention of being used for combat as the original was. I refuse to let emotion and fear dictate my stance on personal freedoms; furthermore In school it was a great annoyance when the entire class is penalized for the actions of a lone individual, and i believe that idea remains true for nearly anything within moral reason.

Lets agree to disagree but i respect the fact you took the time to post links to explain your stance.

I believe gun ownership in the US shouldn't be tolerated, like in many other countries. You believe that guns can prevent crimes or help defend yourself? I answer that: since when answering to violence by violence is the answer? If someone threatens me with a weapon to get my money, I give them my money, what's the point of trying to be a hero by defending yourself with a weapon if it's to end in the obituaries of the newspaper?

 

It's simple actually, many US states allow people to have gun, we always hear about shootouts over there. Here in France, people need a permit to have a gun (with many restrictions), and need to register their guns to the officials and, strangely enough, we almost never have shootouts like in the US. Facts are there. If you trust your police, then you don't need a gun. If you have a gun, then you don't trust the police to help you when you need it. Do you consider that your police officers are incompetent to the point to force you having a gun to defend yourself?

I believe gun ownership in the US shouldn't be tolerated, like in many other countries. You believe that guns can prevent crimes or help defend yourself? I answer that: since when answering to violence by violence is the answer? If someone threatens me with a weapon to get my money, I give them my money, what's the point of trying to be a hero by defending yourself with a weapon if it's to end in the obituaries of the newspaper?

 

It's simple actually, many US states allow people to have gun, we always hear about shootouts over there. Here in France, people need a permit to have a gun (with many restrictions), and need to register their guns to the officials and, strangely enough, we almost never have shootouts like in the US. Facts are there. If you trust your police, then you don't need a gun. If you have a gun, then you don't trust the police to help you when you need it. Do you consider that your police officers are incompetent to the point to force you having a gun to defend yourself?

First the idea that every single person just because they have a gun will try to be a hero is silly. I carry my glock 23 with me every day and if someone came up to me and had me already at gun point there is, exactly, no point in trying to be a hero for 2 reasons: 1 you yourself could be killed before you even draw your weapon. 2 most robbers have no intent of harming anyone but the goal is to scare them into giving them what they want. In that aspect i agree with you however you have missed the point. Criminals will still have weapons even though now us citizens do not, so hypothetically speaking lets say  2-3 guys start walking down my street shooting everyone, going into their houses and shooting at the police; what you are saying is i should just hide and wait for my police to hopefully save me? When in fact it could be the police that now need help?

I strongly trust in my police and i intend to become an LEO, but even the police admit they may not get to you in time. Many police agencies have been pro-gun in saying that the citizens very well should be armed in case of an intruder. Another hypothetical question lets say a young mother of 2 is alone by herself in the middle of nowhere and the police are 15 minutes away AT BEST, in the united states currently she is allowed to own a firearm and defend her children from harm. You however believe that she should hide herself and her kids in a closet or something and pray to god the police get there in time?

You also overlooked that there are states that require carry permits or that wont issue them. Not ever inch of the US has gun violence. Also needless to say firearms are a huge part of our culture and history in the US. So to entirely remove that would be detrimental to everything our forefathers have bled and died for so we could be here today to enjoy the freedoms we do.

And i answer you with this - The 1940s when Adolf Hitler was conquering Europe, murdering millions of people and imprisoning almost an entire culture. The idea that violence is never the answer in most cases is true until it becomes a matter of life and death..especially when its multiple lives involved.

We would all love to live in a world where no one raised a gun or even a fist but the sad reality is we live  far from a world anything like that and until that day comes i will not lay down and die a victim who could of stood a chance. I don't know about you but i intend to live until i die of old age or what have you and until then any person who wishes to do me harm is an obstacle of that goal and they will be overcome or i will die trying.

First the idea that every single person just because they have a gun will try to be a hero is silly. I carry my glock 23 with me every day and if someone came up to me and had me already at gun point there is, exactly, no point in trying to be a hero for 2 reasons: 1 you yourself could be killed before you even draw your weapon. 2 most robbers have no intent of harming anyone but the goal is to scare them into giving them what they want. In that aspect i agree with you however you have missed the point. Criminals will still have weapons even though now us citizens do not, so hypothetically speaking lets say  2-3 guys start walking down my street shooting everyone, going into their houses and shooting at the police; what you are saying is i should just hide and wait for my police to hopefully save me? When in fact it could be the police that now need help?

 

I will reformulate my opinion. I consider that only law enforcements should have the right to carry a gun, for the simple reason that they have the training, knowledge, psychological preparation and they know how, when, and why use a weapon. Citizens carrying guns don't have that. And no, I don't consider shooting regularly on paper targets as training and knowledge about guns. If it was, everyone could be a police officer.

Edited October 25, 201411 yr by Hystery

Do you have any sources to back this information up? It's caught my attention, and makes perfect sense.

It is after midnight here and I do not feel like digging up all the resources but I did a very quick search and here is one source that should give you some satisfaction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/atf-68000-guns-in-mexico-traced-to-us/2012/04/26/gIQAtSz9kT_story.html

 

I love the ignorance in your comment. Your average citizen does not own anything close to an "assault rifle." The rifles we have on the market are not "designed" to be tools of war. You could make the same argument for police officers, why the fuck do they need AR-15s, rifle plates, shotguns, armored vehicles ect.. After all we're not in the middle east right?

There are corrupted people that will do anything it takes to hurt someone if they determined enough, look what happened in Canada last week; To the contrary there are also Samaritans who have helped officers pinned down by shooters or who have be able to stop someone from doing more harm. 

Look at nations like Switzerland who have a .308 caliber battle rifle in damn near every home and you don't hear about any mass shootings over there.

Police officers need those weapons to counter what the criminals have. One of the most famous cases of law enforcement being outgunned by the bad guys is the 1997 North Hollywood shootout. I am sure you have heard of it so I won't bother explaining it, but it shows that law enforcement needs to be able to match what the criminals are bringing to the table. Now this would sound like a perfect reason for civilians to have the same weapons for the same reason but I would say no. Civilians are not expected to go out and stop armed bank robbers or other criminals with high powered weapons. A civilian just needs to protect himself/herself and they do not need an assault rifle for that.

 

Also I think it is unfair to use a Switzerland as a comparison. Many people like to use the UK or Australia as examples of countries that have strict gun laws and low gun violence, but pro-gun people would say "that isn't the same because it is a different country". I would say the same thing about Switzerland. I am stationed in Germany and have been to Switzerland. I can tell you that the culture is much different here in Europe than it is in the states, so things that work over here would not necessarily work back in the states.

 

It may "deter" them in the same way police presence should deter a threat but time and time again have shown that when these criminals step foot out their door with a weapon, with the intent to kill they will stop at nothing to harm someone; why the ***k would they even care about a death penalty when 9/10 the shooter ends up dead in these shootouts. It may stop a few people from wanting to commence heinous acts but it will never be an endgame solution and all you have accomplished is hurt your law abiding citizens in the process and make them more vulnerable.

To say that "they all" (Mexican criminals, gang members, cartel members ect..) get all their weapons from the US is naive. Sure one cannot debate that weapons from the US do leak into Mexico but the major cartels can get their hands on literally anything they want in fairly large shipments as we have seen they have everything from hand grenades to anti-take weapons... But to blame Mexico's gun violence entirely on the US is also naive.

I agree something should be done but turning our culture upside down is not the way to do it.

I never said that gun laws are the only solution. I believe it will take a combination of things to help stem firearms getting into the wrong hands. And I never said I want to take guns away from law abiding citizens, I encourage everyone to be familiar with a firearm and to keep at least one in the home for personal protection. I just think that owning assault rifles is unnecessary. There is a local gun store/range in Tampa that sold (I'm not sure if they still do or not) a .50 sniper rifle. What in the hell would a law abiding citizen need with an anti-material sniper rifle? My point is that handguns and shotguns are the best self defense weapons out there, so why does anyone need assault rifles, sub-machineguns, or anti-material sniper rifles?

 

And I don't believe that the US is the only one to blame when it comes to the violence in Mexico but we have played a large part in it. Of course the US is not the drug cartel's only source of weapons, but the ease of access to military grade weapons in the US doesn't help.

I will reformulate my opinion. I consider that only law enforcements should have the right to carry a gun, for the simple reason that they have the training, knowledge, psychological preparation and they know how, when, and why use a weapon. Citizens carrying guns don't have that. And no, I don't consider shooting regularly on paper targets as training and knowledge about guns. If it was, everyone could be a police officer.

 

I agree with you to an extent. I commonly fear i will be shot by another citizen thinking that i am the criminal if a shootout ever happened. So in that respect i agree some people have no business near guns.

Some citizens do have training like that but you are right that the common citizen has 0 training.

#1 Also I think it is unfair to use a Switzerland as a comparison. Many people like to use the UK or Australia as examples of countries that have strict gun laws and low gun violence, but pro-gun people would say "that isn't the same because it is a different country". I would say the same thing about Switzerland. I am stationed in Germany and have been to Switzerland. I can tell you that the culture is much different here in Europe than it is in the states, so things that work over here would not necessarily work back in the states.

 

#2 I never said that gun laws are the only solution. I believe it will take a combination of things to help stem firearms getting into the wrong hands. And I never said I want to take guns away from law abiding citizens, I encourage everyone to be familiar with a firearm and to keep at least one in the home for personal protection. I just think that owning assault rifles is unnecessary. There is a local gun store/range in Tampa that sold (I'm not sure if they still do or not) a .50 sniper rifle. What in the hell would a law abiding citizen need with an anti-material sniper rifle? My point is that handguns and shotguns are the best self defense weapons out there, so why does anyone need assault rifles, sub-machineguns, or anti-material sniper rifles?

 

#3 And I don't believe that the US is the only one to blame when it comes to the violence in Mexico but we have played a large part in it. Of course the US is not the drug cartel's only source of weapons, but the ease of access to military grade weapons in the US doesn't help.

 

1 I know exactly why the police need that equipment i was just making the argument that if the citizens didn't need them, then neither would the police. I stated at the bottom that i am pro police, i intend to become a police officer myself and have taken a citizen police academy here in Vermont. Sorry for the confusion on that one.

2 I apologize if it seemed like i was accusing you of only suggesting new gun laws or not allowing law abiding citizens to have them. I was attacking the main idea of gun control in general again sorry if it felt like i threw you under the bus but it wasn't my intent.

3 i just read what you wrote and took it literally so i apologize if i took that  out of context.

I also agree that the cultural difference is huge, which is why the US has more violence then France as Hystery mentioned but i also feel that, that is a unfair comparison because France and the US have much different cultures. I don't think that because Switzerland is like that, that it would work in the US but my point was that guns are not the problem.

As far as actual assault rifles, machine guns and anti material rifles go me personally i agree its a bit overkill but i feel it should still be there to own if you have the money and in case our country ever is invaded which is unlikely but who knows. I personally would like to own some just to collect them for historical value or to go have fun shooting at an old washing machine.

Edited October 25, 201411 yr by SGT.Graison

I agree with you to an extent. I commonly fear i will be shot by another citizen thinking that i am the criminal if a shootout ever happened. So in that respect i agree some people have no business near guns.

Some citizens do have training like that but you are right that the common citizen has 0 training.

 

Glad we agree on that point =)

 

That's why I consider that a citizen -could- have the right to carry a gun, but it would require for them to be eligible to the permit/license for it. For example, a civilian wanting to own a gun would have to follow a detailed course about guns as well as training courses, how to use a gun, how to maintain, desassamble and reassamble it, as well as a psychological test and obviously with no police record. If all the requirements are met and if the person followed the courses correctly, then they could be allowed to have a gun.

I agree with you to an extent. I commonly fear i will be shot by another citizen thinking that i am the criminal if a shootout ever happened. So in that respect i agree some people have no business near guns.

Some citizens do have training like that but you are right that the common citizen has 0 training.

 

1 I know exactly why the police need that equipment i was just making the argument that if the citizens didn't need them, then neither would the police. I stated at the bottom that i am pro police, i intend to become a police officer myself and have taken a citizen police academy here in Vermont. Sorry for the confusion on that one.

2 I apologize if it seemed like i was accusing you of only suggesting new gun laws or not allowing law abiding citizens to have them. I was attacking the main idea of gun control in general again sorry if it felt like i threw you under the bus but it wasn't my intent.

3 i just read what you wrote and took it literally so i apologize if i took that  out of context.

I also agree that the cultural difference is huge, which is why the US has more violence then France as Hystery mentioned but i also feel that, that is a unfair comparison because France and the US have much different cultures. I don't think that because Switzerland is like that, that it would work in the US but my point was that guns are not the problem.

As far as actual assault rifles, machine guns and anti material rifles go me personally i agree its a bit overkill but i feel it should still be there to own if you have the money and in case our country ever is invaded which is unlikely but who knows. I personally would like to own some just to collect them for historical value or to go have fun shooting at an old washing machine.

No offense taken. I have no issue with what you have stated, you are entitled to your opinion. I was just stating my view on it based on my experience and knowledge on the subject.

If I was a robber, and I knew that one person had a gun and the other didn't....I would rob the guy without a gun.

 

Guns DON'T kill people, People kill people.

 

Every man/women deserves the right to own and carry a firearm for their protection, and the protection of others. Taking guns away won't keep criminals from getting guns...we live right next to Mexico and Canada...and Guns, drugs, and many other things cross the border unaware of the government and police. I believe people should be allowed to have Assault Rifles, shotguns, rifles, and handguns...

 

For people who say the government and criminals are far from different...you keep on thinking that, and continue being ignorant to the fact that our government is EXTERMLY power hungry and corrupt. If Government takes the peoples right to have guns, then they have the power to control us however they want...a person with a gun is a LOT more powerful than a person without one...if you don't believe me...then you got problems.

 

Now with all this said I think a better system needs to be created, that way we limit the amount of guns being sold to people who could possible use guns to harm others....do I know what this system is...no.....but I know that guns shouldn't be taken away just because they are "bad".

Every man/women deserves the right to own and carry a firearm for their protection, and the protection of others. Taking guns away won't keep criminals from getting guns...we live right next to Mexico and Canada...and Guns, drugs, and many other things cross the border unaware of the government and police. I believe people should be allowed to have Assault Rifles, shotguns, rifles, and handguns...

 

Though as I stated above, most men/women with a gun have no training. Meaning they are just as dangerous for society than the robber you talked about just above. If I was in front of a robber with a gun, and a guy with a gun with no proper training, I would be afraid of both, actually even more of the guy, because he could shoot me by accident.

I personally believe law abiding Americans should have a right to own any type of firearm they want that's already on the market. The government has them. With the direction the American government has been steering lately, it makes some people believe they're eventually going to need it. If I remember correctly, correct if I'm wrong, but that's what the 2nd amendment was created for; to allow American citizens to defend themselves from the government and other foreign aggression. All of these shootings and shit have been going on for the longest already and it happens in other countries as well. It's just started to be getting covered by the media when Obama took office. And the people in other countries are just jealous that Americans can own weapons and either they can't or is harder to get. Back in the day in New York and Detroit and all of those other places - when the gangsters were killing each other and shit did they ban guns then?? The murder rate in states like those were ridiculous.

Edited October 25, 201411 yr by xxKINGxTRaGiCxx

Though as I stated above, most men/women with a gun have no training. Meaning they are just as dangerous for society than the robber you talked about just above. If I was in front of a robber with a gun, and a guy with a gun with no proper training, I would be afraid of both, actually even more of the guy, because he could shoot me by accident.

 

Just because they have no training doesn't mean they have no right.

 

If we're going to talk about training being a factor, then the same thing applies to Driver's licenses. There are more deaths related to MVAs over firearms. Just because you have a DL, doesn't mean you have the proper skills, training, and know how, on how to operate a motor vehicle.  

If we're going to talk about training being a factor, then the same thing applies to Driver's licenses. There are more deaths related to MVAs over firearms. Just because you have a DL, doesn't mean you have the proper skills, training, and know how, on how to operate a motor vehicle.  

 

And people die from car collisions everyday...and I don't see anyone talking about Car Control...

 

I will reformulate my opinion. I consider that only law enforcements should have the right to carry a gun, for the simple reason that they have the training, knowledge, psychological preparation and they know how, when, and why use a weapon. Citizens carrying guns don't have that. And no, I don't consider shooting regularly on paper targets as training and knowledge about guns. If it was, everyone could be a police officer.

Buying a gun in the United States is not as easy as it may seem. You can't just walk into a shop and purchase an assault rifle. You cannot legally purchase a gun if;

• You're under indictment for a crime punishable by more than a year in prison
• A convicted felon
• User of a controlled substance
• Anyone who's been committed to a mental institution or deemed mentally defective
• An illegal alien
• Anyone who's been dishonorably discharged from the military
• Anyone who's renounced their US citizenship
• Anyone with a restraining order against them from an intimate partner or child of said partner
• Anyone who's been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor

There is no Federal Law that requires a license to own a gun, which is where a lot of people are mistaken. Most states require a license in order to carry a gun. As I've said before, it's easy for foreigners that don't reside in the United States to say that something should be changed or removed from government. Just as it's easy for me to say that UK Police should carry guns. I don't reside in the UK, so it wouldn't make much sense for me to form a complete opinion on UK Police carrying guns. Just an example. Owning a gun is a part of American heritage, culture, and our basic rights; Just as a monarchy is a part of the UK's culture. As I've said several times already, a gun puts my grandmother on equal grounds with a 6-foot, 200 pound attacker. The Police can't get to you instantly, and I need a way to defend myself until they arrive. If the criminals can purchase guns illegally, why shouldn't I be able to purchase guns legally to defend myself?

It is after midnight here and I do not feel like digging up all the resources but I did a very quick search and here is one source that should give you some satisfaction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/atf-68000-guns-in-mexico-traced-to-us/2012/04/26/gIQAtSz9kT_story.html

 

Police officers need those weapons to counter what the criminals have. One of the most famous cases of law enforcement being outgunned by the bad guys is the 1997 North Hollywood shootout. I am sure you have heard of it so I won't bother explaining it, but it shows that law enforcement needs to be able to match what the criminals are bringing to the table. Now this would sound like a perfect reason for civilians to have the same weapons for the same reason but I would say no. Civilians are not expected to go out and stop armed bank robbers or other criminals with high powered weapons. A civilian just needs to protect himself/herself and they do not need an assault rifle for that.

 

Also I think it is unfair to use a Switzerland as a comparison. Many people like to use the UK or Australia as examples of countries that have strict gun laws and low gun violence, but pro-gun people would say "that isn't the same because it is a different country". I would say the same thing about Switzerland. I am stationed in Germany and have been to Switzerland. I can tell you that the culture is much different here in Europe than it is in the states, so things that work over here would not necessarily work back in the states.

 

I never said that gun laws are the only solution. I believe it will take a combination of things to help stem firearms getting into the wrong hands. And I never said I want to take guns away from law abiding citizens, I encourage everyone to be familiar with a firearm and to keep at least one in the home for personal protection. I just think that owning assault rifles is unnecessary. There is a local gun store/range in Tampa that sold (I'm not sure if they still do or not) a .50 sniper rifle. What in the hell would a law abiding citizen need with an anti-material sniper rifle? My point is that handguns and shotguns are the best self defense weapons out there, so why does anyone need assault rifles, sub-machineguns, or anti-material sniper rifles?

 

And I don't believe that the US is the only one to blame when it comes to the violence in Mexico but we have played a large part in it. Of course the US is not the drug cartel's only source of weapons, but the ease of access to military grade weapons in the US doesn't help.

That is deceptive information. It deliberately omits mention of the fact that upwards of 25% of the weapons provided to Mexican military and police end up in the hands of the cartels. The U.S. State Department has approved the sale of many thousands of U.S. made firearms through direct sale to Mexico. It is known to the ATF that many of those firearms end up in the wrong hands, yet they are counted as "U.S. sourced", giving the impression that they all came through "crooked gun dealers" in the U.S. 

There is a word of deliberately deceptive information, it is called "Propaganda".

And people die from car collisions everyday...and I don't see anyone talking about Car Control...

I just want to add to this, teenage girls are getting pregnant everyday, I don't see anyone promoting birth control.

I just want to add to this, teenage girls are getting pregnant everyday, I don't see anyone promoting birth control.

 

We need to ban teenage boys because they are a danger! (sarcasm)

 

Government and criminals are nowhere near the same. People who actually believe that those are two things are similar need to look up the definition of "criminal". While I support every person's right to own firearms (and it is something I encourage). I think there needs to be certain restrictions on what kind of firearms people can buy. Nobody needs an assault rifle. Nobody needs a huge .50 anti-material rifle. The fact that those weapons are freely available to people concerns me. I believe there should be tighter requirements to own firearms, more thorough background checks, and harsher penalties for people who break gun law or commit a crime with a firearm.

 

And you say our Government isn't dangerous...

 

 

The whole reason why the American government wrote the 2nd amendment was because the US had just fought a revolutionary war with a VERY powerful government.....and the new American government wanted to make sure that if their government became too powerful (like it has) that the people could fight against them. (Just learned about this in American History 1)

 

Edited October 26, 201411 yr by MasterTrooper

I feel strongly that we should keep our guns. A gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen has the potential to save lives, all a gun ban will do is take away the guns from the good people, the people who break the law will find ways to get guns illegally so in the end all that it would do is make it easier for criminals to hurt the law abiding citizens, while the law abiding citizens rights are invoked, and have no other way to defend themselves.