...Also note that AR-15 stands for Assault Rife - 15  you can go ahead and look back at the Source of that term...

 

As someone else mentioned above, "AR" does NOT stand for Assault Rifle. It stands for "Armalite Rifle", the company that originally patented the design. I felt this was important to reitereate since many people in the world don't know that and use the "assault rifle" terminology incorrectly.

 

 

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). 

 

I'll respectfully disagree with this interpretation. Personally, I don't consider the National Guard to be the equivalent of the Colonial Militia. When I think back to my history lessons on the revolution, we had a small standing army of "regulars", and then we had the "minute men" who were basically any able bodied man who could grab a rifle and run out the door to defend their town and augment the regular's numbers. In my opinion, the "militia" referred to in the second amendment was the general populous of able bodied fighting men.

 

There are some people that say a big factor in our victory during the revolution was the minute men and their guerilla warfare tactics. The British Regulars were so used to line combat against a disciplined, uniformed enemy, they never stood a chance against the rapid and spontaneous attacks offered by the civilian population.

 

I believe the value of civilian fighters was recognized by the founding father and is one of the reasons the second amendment was written. My personal interpretation for today's world is that our National Guard is our "regular army" and our able bodied civilians are meant to be armed as a "militia".

 

That's my personal opinion anyway.

 

 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. 

 

That is correct. I've always been taught and believed that the intent of the second amendment was to ensure that the civilian population remain armed and capable of defeating a tyrannical government or foreign military attempting an invasion. The Constitution even makes it the right of the people to overthrow the government and start again.

 

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

 

As we learned during the Revolution, sometimes the process of abolishing a form of government requires force to be used. While I don't trust our government whole heartedly, I also don't believe it's time for another violent revolution nor will it be anytime soon. However, I do believe the intent of the second amendment was to ensure that the people had the ability to exercise their right to abolish the government, by force if needed, and that right is not something that should be given up lightly.

 

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.  

 

I've been saying this for years. Getting a driver license is ridiculously easy. And when they expire, I don't even have to go retest... I simply give the government more money online and they mail me a new license. It's absurd.

 

 

 

My only compromise on gun control is assault rifles i can completely understand them getting outlawed people don't need AR-15's for hunting..

just hunting people, thats what assault rifles we're designed for after all to be Tools of war, i don't think they belong in american homes we're not the middle east we don't need AK-47's to protect ourselves.. 

 

 

I disagree. As I explained in some of my responses above, I believe the entire purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the civlian population has the weapons needed to safeguard the county and preserve liberty.

We also have to think about the time the amendment was written. Back then, those fancy single shot, muzzle loading, black powder muskets were military grade assault rifles. If it was important for the people to be armed with military grade assault rifles at the time, then why wouldn't that continue to be important today?

 

Now I'm not taking that as a literal interpretation, only making a point. I do not believe that civilians need large capacity magazines or fully automatic rifles. But semi automatic rifles are perfectly reasonable and serve a legitimate defensive purpose.

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

From a law enforcement perspective, there would also be serious ramifications for any type of restrictive gun control legislation, especially prohibiting semi automatic rifles.

 

My local Sheriff's Office for example, does not have the budget to issue patrol rifles or shotguns. Instead, Deputies are authorized to utilize personally owned weapons.

 

That's part of why the people who cry about the "military surplus" items going to police departments makes me laugh at their ignorance. Many of the rifles carried by police officers around the county, including my local agency, are purchased and owned by the Deputy or Officer through their rights as a civilian to have that weapon; they were not military surplus weapons, they are not military grade weapons, and prohibiting civilians from purchasing weapons like the AR-15 would lead to police officers having a disadvantage all over the country since many of them own those rifles as civilian weapons, not police weapons.

Edited October 26, 201411 yr by johnclark1102

Even if they do take guns away it won't solve anything. People and criminals are going to find a way to get firearms if desperate enough. Yes I own a gun, yes I know how to use it, and yes if anyone breaks into my house they'll get shot in the ass.

 

Guns may cause a lot of damage but people can still do lethal and crazy things without them. Like the NYPD officers attacked with an axe. Basically I don't think it would solve anything.

I see your point. Definitely, but the problem with what you said about us not having the right to own an assault rifle and how they aren't used for hunting is far fetched. As for hunting, I use an ar-15 to pig hunt, and deer hunt. I have more rounds to hit whatever i'm shooting, simple as that. Also, can hold more rounds. Always keep one loaded in the house too, just incase someone gets stupid. I have more rounds to hit them, instead of using a bolt action which takes more time to throw out the last round, and shift the new one in. The 5.56 is a much smaller round than say a .243, or .270 (both hunting rounds and will do much more damage than an AR-15 round) I think the only reason people don't want AR-15's or ak-47's to be legal for citizens to own is that they think they are "scary looking". Many people that say this have never shot one before. I'd rather be shot with a 5.56 than a .270, .338 lapua. or a 308.  (not the same as the ak 47 round, the ak 47 round shoots a 7.62x39, while a regular .308 round used in springfield m1's are 7.62x51)  

Gun's cant Kill people, its the People that aim and pull the trigger..   tougher background checks are needed, more common sense is preferable...

 

as for gun control, here's a quote i love by a country singer named Charlie Daniels (you may have heard of 'em)

 

"Now they're tryin' to take my guns away

And that would be just fine
If you take 'em away from the criminals first
Ill gladly give ya' mine"

 

there's my opinion on it in a very short form 

 

My only compromise on gun control is assault rifles i can completely understand them getting outlawed people don't need AR-15's for hunting..

just hunting people, thats what assault rifles we're designed for after all to be Tools of war, i don't think they belong in american homes we're not the middle east we don't need AK-47's to protect ourselves.. 
 

 

I'll respectfully disagree with this interpretation. Personally, I don't consider the National Guard to be the equivalent of the Colonial Militia. When I think back to my history lessons on the revolution, we had a small standing army of "regulars", and then we had the "minute men" who were basically any able bodied man who could grab a rifle and run out the door to defend their town and augment the regular's numbers. In my opinion, the "militia" referred to in the second amendment was the general populous of able bodied fighting men.

 

 

I see where you're coming from. To me, back in the 18th century, we had militia from each state (Rhode Island, New York, Philadelphia, etc) that were still officially a part of the Continental Army. They received pay and were treated as such by Washington and his generals. Today, we have the same thing, albeit more modernized and uniform. Each state maintains there own militia (National Guard) who live a normal, civilian life. They report to the U.S. Army (As the state militias did to the Continental Army), but are also under the direct command of their state government (Just as the state militias were). 

 

From how I remember history:

Regulars (Line infantry of the Continental Army)

Militia (Official supplement to the Continental Army and were tasked with defending their respective states and reinforcing where needed)

Minute men (Not officially sanctioned by the Continental Congress, but defended their homes and towns from the British. But still remained out of the war; acted in self defense)

 

But there are many open interpretations to our BoRs depending on which side of the spectrum you're on.

I see where you're coming from. To me, back in the 18th century, we had militia from each state (Rhode Island, New York, Philadelphia, etc) that were still officially a part of the Continental Army. They received pay and were treated as such by Washington and his generals. Today, we have the same thing, albeit more modernized and uniform. Each state maintains there own militia (National Guard) who live a normal, civilian life. They report to the U.S. Army (As the state militias did to the Continental Army), but are also under the direct command of their state government (Just as the state militias were). 

 

From how I remember history:

Regulars (Line infantry of the Continental Army)

Militia (Official supplement to the Continental Army and were tasked with defending their respective states and reinforcing where needed)

Minute men (Not officially sanctioned by the Continental Congress, but defended their homes and towns from the British. But still remained out of the war; acted in self defense)

 

But there are many open interpretations to our BoRs depending on which side of the spectrum you're on.

 

Fair point.

 

The law really is all about interpretation. Unfortunately, when it comes to the second amendment being interpreted as granting an individual right to own firearms versus a military/state right to own firearms, the supreme court has ruled both ways.

 

Most recently in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the supreme court ruled that it should be interpreted as granting an individual right to own firearms.

 

On the topic of gun control laws, like all constitutional amendments it may be reasonably regulated, but not completely infringed. So, I suppose the issue with gun control legislation is really how far we are willing to let things go before we consider it an infringement and not a reasonable regulation.

Fair point.

 

The law really is all about interpretation. Unfortunately, when it comes to the second amendment being interpreted as granting an individual right to own firearms versus a military/state right to own firearms, the supreme court has ruled both ways.

 

Most recently in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the supreme court ruled that it should be interpreted as granting an individual right to own firearms.

 

On the topic of gun control laws, like all constitutional amendments it may be reasonably regulated, but not completely infringed. So, I suppose the issue with gun control legislation is really how far we are willing to let things go before we consider it an infringement and not a reasonable regulation.

 

 

Exactly. I agree that gun control is needed, but to limit severely or take away guns, is crossing the line in my opinion. 

Guns may cause a lot of damage but people can still do lethal and crazy things without them. Like the NYPD officers attacked with an axe. Basically I don't think it would solve anything.

 

Just like that kid who took a knife to school and stabbed and slashed those 21 other kids/teachers...I didn't hear anyone talking about "Knife Control"

 

Just like that kid who took a knife to school and stabbed and slashed those 21 other kids/teachers...I didn't hear anyone talking about "Knife Control"

 

Or ''Sharp Objects Control'' You have a pencil and a pencil sharpener. Put both together and you've got a thing you can stab with.

"We're proud to be young, we stick to our guns!" - Luke Bryan

Plus this is why I love Stan Smith! Pro gun and a strong believer in the Republican Party!

I also believe the constitution has been grossly misinterpreted but here we are today. At this point in the game there is not much the Government can or will do so im not even sure why we are debating this. There are so many guns legal/illegal on the streets in the US thats in not even funny. So its not like Obama is going to come round up all the guns thats not going to  turn out too good. Furthermore we have all these lobbyists that squash any bill that even mentions gun control. So even after sandyhook and all the other countless mass shootings and everyday gun violence that occurs in every major city in the US nothing has been done to control gun violence. I find it pretty sad that people are dieing in the US everyday due to gun violence over nothing and the Government is doing nothing about it.

 

Obviously there is no way for the Government to stop anything from getting on the streets from drugs to guns but we need to atleast make an attempt to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

 

I dont think that law abiding citizens shouldnt have guns, its the felons that im worried about. We need stricter gun control and i think people in the US need to open their eyes because the system we have is not working. 

 

I personally own a gun, because im concerned about the safety of my neighborhood but i dont dare carry my gun on my person or in my car, I don't want to risk my life or the lives of others. 

 

The naysayers will say that every person has the right to own a gun for protection 2nd amendment  blah blah blah...... but if you need to have a gun in your home, car, or on your person just to feel safe than i think there is a larger underlying issue and that is crime. The US has a crime issue and guns are just an instrument of crime, and until we deal with the causes of poverty and crime we cant even began to control guns. 

Why would you want to simply give up what you worked for...and pretty much pussy out? The police aren't by our side 24/7. And yes, guns do prevent crimes. And I definitely feel more protected having my Remington 870 combat shotgun loaded with all 6 shells sitting in my room in case something goes bump in the night. Who knows, they might have a gun, I'm not taking the chance of them killing me, or a family member. 

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?

 

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".

I was not trying to say that all the weapons come through crooked gun dealers. My point was that many of the weapons in Mexico come from the US and that it is extremely easy for us to get access to these weapons. There are people who go make purchases at legitimate gun stores and the owners do everything they are supposed to but they still end up in Mexico.

 

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)

 

I know why the 2nd Amendment was written, I took history class when I was in school too.

 

Notice how all those conspiracies took place back in the 50s and 60s for the most part? That is because back then we did not have policies put into place stating that intelligence agencies such as the CIA could not collect on US citizens. Notice how none of the conspiracy theories went into the 1980s? That is because in 1981 Executive Order 12333 (the policy I just mentioned) was put into effect by President Reagan.

Why would you want to simply give up what you worked for...and pretty much pussy out? The police aren't by our side 24/7. And yes, guns do prevent crimes. And I definitely feel more protected having my Remington 870 combat shotgun loaded with all 6 shells sitting in my room in case something goes bump in the night. Who knows, they might have a gun, I'm not taking the chance of them killing me, or a family member. 

 

Yeah, because people barging into your house with a gun are obviously there to kill you, and not just to scare you out to rob you. And then you'd play the hero with your gun, taking the chance -you- would get killed just to feel better with your big weapon? That's a bit silly IMO.

 

Besides, if you are so convinced that guns help people fighting crime, please tell me why in other countries where a simple citizen can't buy a gun so easily the crime rate isn't higher, and maybe even lower than the US for the same population mass?

 

Besides, if you are so convinced that guns help people fighting crime, please tell me why in other countries where a simple citizen can't buy a gun so easily the crime rate isn't higher, and maybe even lower than the US for the same population mass?

Because they don't have as much personal freedoms as the American people. They don't have a constitution that their government is obligated to abide by. And personally it looks like you're just a hater and you have no clue what it means or how it feels to be an American. You're just typing shit with no facts.

Edited October 26, 201411 yr by xxKINGxTRaGiCxx

http://www.bjs.gov/content/guns.cfm

http://americangunfacts.com/

Alright guys, some more facts on guns here in the U.S,

Another thing I want to add is, this has already been said but unless we put was into place about sharp object control and poison control, then we can talk about gun control.

The whole argument about how "knives are just as dangerous so why don't we ban knives too" is a load of BS in my opinion. For one, attacking someone with a knife is not as easy as using a firearm. Just recently there was a man in NYC who tried attacking some NYPD officers with a hatchet; luckily for the officers they were able to shoot him before he harmed anyone. If that man had a gun they might not have been able to stop him as quickly because he could just pull it out and start shooting, he wouldn't have to run up to anyone. Using a firearm is much quicker than using a knife against someone.

 

Secondly, knives serve a purpose and are used as a tool. Now people such as myself who believe in stricter gun laws are not saying we need to ban all guns. Just like knives are used as a tool so are firearms. Firearms are used for personal protection, hunting, and sports. I am not saying those firearms need to be banned. I am saying the weapons that serve no purpose other than to be able to lay down as much fire as possible and penetrate armor need to be banned. I don't need a sniper rifle that can go through three cinder blocks like a hot knife through butter. I don't need an assault rifle with a 100 round drum magazine and neither does anyone else.

 I find it pretty sad that people are dieing in the US everyday due to gun violence over nothing and the Government is doing nothing about it.

 

 

I find it pretty sad that more people die from vehicle accidents than from guns and no one seems to care about that, not even the general public. Heck, I saw a report recently that indicated that more people die from heart disease alone than from gun related incidents, and yet no one in this country seems to be on the bandwagon of reforming our ridiculous food industry and getting away from the garbage we call food.

 

...but if you need to have a gun in your home, car, or on your person just to feel safe than i think there is a larger underlying issue and that is crime.

 

 

You're right that crime is and always has been the issue. But, I don't carry a gun because it makes me feel safe. I carry a gun because I have the right to do so, and it's smart to be prepared for the crime problem that exists in this country.

 

Do you keep smoke detectors in your house because it makes you feel safe from fires? Maybe we should do something about all the houses that catch fire every year.

 

Do you keep a spare tire in your car because it makes you feel safe from getting stranded with a flat tire? Maybe we should do something about the causes of flat tires.

 

Do you wear your seat belt because it makes you feel safe from being hurt or killed in a car accident? Maybe we should do something about the incompetent drivers on the road.

 

The point is, we all have fire detectors and spare tires  and seat belts and various other safety precautions in our lives, not because we expect or are afraid that something bad will happen to us, but because we want to be prepared for the possibility that it could. That's why I choose to carry a firearm, because I could be a victim of a crime.

 

 

 

 

The US has a crime issue and guns are just an instrument of crime, and until we deal with the causes of poverty and crime we cant even began to control guns.

 

This, 1,000 times over. It's the old, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra. 

 

 

Yeah, because people barging into your house with a gun are obviously there to kill you, and not just to scare you out to rob you. And then you'd play the hero with your gun, taking the chance -you- would get killed just to feel better with your big weapon? That's a bit silly IMO.

 

 

If a criminal barges into your house, you don't know what they want or what they will do. And yes, I'd personally rather take the chance to defend myself and my family than to take the chance of being executed, watching my wife or daughters be raped, or any of the other heinous things criminals have been known to do. Whether you do something or do nothing, there is a chance you would get killed, and I'd rather have a fighting chance than no chance at all if things go that way.

 

Besides, if you are so convinced that guns help people fighting crime, please tell me why in other countries where a simple citizen can't buy a gun so easily the crime rate isn't higher, and maybe even lower than the US for the same population mass?

 

 

It isn't. 

 

The UK is frequently used as the model country for gun control, but statistics show that the UK has some of the highest violent crime rates in the world. The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa according to several news reports.

 

Based on a crime study conducted a few years ago, the UK had 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people, where the US had only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

 

The same study also showed that following the UK's firearms restriction legislation in 1997, the number of recorded violent crime increased by 77%. Criminals are cowards who look for weak, defenseless victims. They look for women, they look for people walking alone. They use the element of surprise and attack at night and where you feel safe like your home or the parking lot of your work place. They break into your car and your house when they know no one is home or around to stop them. When criminals know you are unarmed and defenseless, they will attack.

 

That's why, save for one case, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings.

That's why school shootings have become a thing in this country, schools are "gun free" zones so criminals know that no one will be able to stop them.

Even the movie theater shooting in Colorado could have ended differently.  In the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting, out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect's apartment, only one banned permitted concealed handguns. The suspect didn't go to the closest nor the largest, but to the one that banned self-defense. Time after time the story is the same; Killers go where victims can't defend themselves.

Edited October 26, 201411 yr by johnclark1102

I find it pretty sad that more people die from vehicle accidents than from guns and no one seems to care about that, not even the general public. Heck, I saw a report recently that indicated that more people die from heart disease alone than from gun related incidents, and yet no one in this country seems to be on the bandwagon of reforming our ridiculous food industry and getting away from the garbage we call food.

 

 

You're right that crime is and always has been the issue. But, I don't carry a gun because it makes me feel safe. I carry a gun because I have the right to do so, and it's smart to be prepared for the crime problem that exists in this country.

 

Do you keep smoke detectors in your house because it makes you feel safe from fires? Maybe we should do something about all the houses that catch fire every year.

 

Do you keep a spare tire in your car because it makes you feel safe from getting stranded with a flat tire? Maybe we should do something about the causes of flat tires.

 

Do you wear your seat belt because it makes you feel safe from being hurt or killed in a car accident? Maybe we should do something about the incompetent drivers on the road.

 

The point is, we all have fire detectors and spare tires  and seat belts and various other safety precautions in our lives, not because we expect or are afraid that something bad will happen to us, but because we want to be prepared for the possibility that it could. That's why I choose to carry a firearm, because I could be a victim of a crime.

 

 

 

This, 1,000 times over. It's the old, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra. 

 

 

 

If a criminal barges into your house, you don't know what they want or what they will do. And yes, I'd personally rather take the chance to defend myself and my family than to take the chance of being executed, watching my wife or daughters be raped, or any of the other heinous things criminals have been known to do. Whether you do something or do nothing, there is a chance you would get killed, and I'd rather have a fighting chance than no chance at all if things go that way.

 

 

It isn't. 

 

The UK is frequently used as the model country for gun control, but statistics show that the UK has some of the highest violent crime rates in the world. The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa according to several news reports.

 

Based on a crime study conducted a few years ago, the UK had 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people, where the US had only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

 

The same study also showed that following the UK's firearms restriction legislation in 1997, the number of recorded violent crime increased by 77%. Criminals are cowards who look for weak, defenseless victims. They look for women, they look for people walking alone. They use the element of surprise and attack at night and where you feel safe like your home or the parking lot of your work place. They break into your car and your house when they know no one is home or around to stop them. When criminals know you are unarmed and defenseless, they will attack.

 

That's why, save for one case, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had three of the worst six school shootings.

That's why school shootings have become a thing in this country, schools are "gun free" zones so criminals know that no one will be able to stop them.

Even the movie theater shooting in Colorado could have ended differently.  In the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting, out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect's apartment, only one banned permitted concealed handguns. The suspect didn't go to the closest nor the largest, but to the one that banned self-defense. Time after time the story is the same; Killers go where victims can't defend themselves.

You seem to be the only sane person as far as this debate goes so far. I agree with everything you've said, because it's common sense and common knowledge. Not sure why people continue to compare the US to the UK. They are nowhere near related to each other.

Because they don't have as much personal freedoms as the American people. They don't have a constitution that their government is obligated to abide by. And personally it looks like you're just a hater and you have no clue what it means or how it feels to be an American. You're just typing shit with no facts.

 

Actually a lot of countries have a constitution, including mine, with a specific council that studies every law to make sure they do not violate it. We just don't have anything about guns. And if you decide to go on the "It's because we freed ourselves with guns and arms", I'd like to tell you that in my country, France, we had one of the bloodiest revolutions in Europe. Louis XIV, does it ring a bell to you? Guillotine on public place. And even with that bloody period of our era (1789), we learned to live -without- guns, because they aren't necessary. That, my friend, is the fact. But thanks for judging me and what I'm typing without knowing anything of me. And you talk about having no facts? Makes me laugh quite a bit.

 

 

 

It isn't. 

 

The UK is frequently used as the model country for gun control, but statistics show that the UK has some of the highest violent crime rates in the world. The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa according to several news reports.

 

Well to be honest I wasn't specifically refering to the UK, since I am totally not interested in that country, so I wouldn't take the risk to compare the US to the UK on this. I was mostly talking on a general basis compared to where I live. Besides paybacks with guns we have now and then (like, 4 or 5 times a year, probably 10 at most in the whole country, 70 million inhabitants), people don't fear to be shot, mostly because it is -forbidden- to carry a gun in public places.

 

EDIT:

 

I just found a website comparing stats on crime rate and all, comparing the US to France. Here are the results: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime

 

I think it talks for itself.

 

Edited October 26, 201411 yr by Hystery

I know why the 2nd Amendment was written, I took history class when I was in school too.

 

Notice how all those conspiracies took place back in the 50s and 60s for the most part? That is because back then we did not have policies put into place stating that intelligence agencies such as the CIA could not collect on US citizens. Notice how none of the conspiracy theories went into the 1980s? That is because in 1981 Executive Order 12333 (the policy I just mentioned) was put into effect by President Reagan.

 

Yeah....sure.....like the government plays fair now.

 

It's because first, they got good at hiding stuff...and second, the media won't report anything.

 

Our government should NEVER be underestimated, they have way more power and secrets then you think.