Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

Fuck no, I'd go stock up on more if they did.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30832809/

I gotta say I was surprised by that. But it's a good sign.

 

Your gun can kill me. That is why I want the government to take it away from you.

 

Umm, my gun can only kill you if I shoot at you, and if I wanted to kill you, I'd still find a gun even if they were illegal

 

Speaking as a Native American, after 500 years of warfare with the Spanish, French, English, and Americans, and being subjected to ethnic cleansing, and genocide, I can say without hesitation that I will fight to my last breath to keep my weapons - Cherokee Nation will survive!

 

Yeah, my gun can kill you... But so can any of my knives, and so can a rock, and so can a stick. Fuck you!

 

My pepper foam can take care of your knives, rocks, and sticks. You are obviously too unbalanced to be trusted with guns. I want the government to take your guns and raise your taxes. :hat:

 

Well I'm not saying I want to attack you... I'm simply saying that guns aren't that bad, since everything else can as well.

 

The government's guns are a lot more likely to kill you and no one would even be held accountable for it.

 

So can my Base Ball bat, do want the government to take that away too?

 

Like the guy in NY that didn't have a gun and was only reaching for his wallet, he was shot by the police so many times, they even stopped to reload and they weren't even punished.

 

That would be a useless endeavor. You obviously have zero understanding of the fundamental principles of this nation.

The right to arms is not granted or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment. As the Supreme Court said 130 years ago, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Deleting the words of the 2nd, upon which the right does not depend, will do nothing to empower government to impact the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms.

All the 2nd Amendment does is to redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it does not possess.

The declaratory clause only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army in times of peace and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to tyranny. That is essentially a statement of why the Amendment exists and as such it does not create the right, it only tells us why the pre-existing right is being forever shielded from government interference.

The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment holds no weight, it neither commands nor binds action and it has never been inspected to inform on any aspect of militia power (federal or state). It has never been held to demand any structure of organization or control be created or maintained nor does it mandate a level of training to be met or maintained -- so positing that the right is dependent upon conditions that are not created, is illegitimate.

Your theory is based on a purposefully deceitful re-definition (rendered invalid by DC v Heller) which has a singular object, to pervert the above mentioned universally understood and accepted principle and conjure governmental powers where none exist.

Wrong, the National Guard can not be the militia spoken of in the 2nd Amendment because it is a federalized force. It is exactly what the 2nd Amendment's declaratory clause speaks against and was intended to preclude.

Your position is so upside down, you think that the Amendment demands that which it denounces!

The Kellerman study has been so thoroughly debunked that even Kellerman himself turns his back on it.

Well then; you stand on scrapping just about the entire philosophical foundation of the US Constitution. Do you really think the basic principle of equal rights and equal application of the law should be discarded?

I understand your argument (but disagree vehemently), it has been around a while and many are familiar with it; you know we can't be so obvious as to re-enact Jim Crow Laws but we can be geographically discriminatory right (wink-wink)?

Those "City" people can't handle guns, is that what you are saying?

You do realize that your Utopia has been tried for nearly 40 years and those cities where strict gun control is in place, are like war zones with armed kids?

Really, all I can say about that is, you are a disgrace to the term "citizen."

 

Getting rid of the 2nd amendment is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of. If the only people with guns are the government and the criminals, the world will be a very scary place. The justification that you have to outlaw guns to protect people doesn't make sense, people will still get killed, look at England's knife crime problem.

I moved from Wyoming to California late last year. The difference is night and day. Wyoming has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. I was never any place in Wyoming where I worried about getting shot. California is the complete opposite. They have some of the Dumbest Gun Laws I've ever seen. So many guns are illegal here that the criminal element figures that if they are going to get an illegal gun that they might as well go whole hog and get a really illegal gun. There have been some places in South Sacramento, Stockton, and LA that I really don't like going to in the day time, but I wouldn't even consider going there at night.

 

Here's how I see it... If guns were outlawed, then nobody could legally keep a gun, of course. So good, law abiding citizens whom would normally have a gun for hunting of self-defense, etc would be gun-less. OF course, this won't keep guns away from criminals. having heroine is against the law but they do it anyways. So the only thing that would happen is more violence from gangs because of an increase in gun smuggling, more deaths of innocent people because they don't have a gun to defend themselves with, we'd only be causing more problems for the piggy's, (I know what I just said. I don't like them either, but they're helpful during a bank robbery or car-jacking, etc) and we'd lose money BIG TIME. No more guns, no hunting gear, ammo, turkey, etc. We'd lose at LEAST $1,000,000,000 a year because of it. So what's the point. Besides. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They will never take my guns. Now, as for an AK-47 or an Uzi... you don't hunt with those and self defense my butt. You can use a pistol or shotgun or rifle. Take the assault rifles. I don't care. Leave those for the army and national guard

 

California has tried to take away the assault Rifles. It hasn't really worked, it just provides another means for people to make illegal money by smuggling them in. You can get 30% to 50% more for selling an AR15 in California illegally than you can by selling it in Nevada where it is legal. Thats a good margin for something that really easy to do. I didn't bring any of my guns to California with me just because the laws here are so confusing that you don't know whats legal or not from one city or county to the next.

 

Do you really know what an "assault riffle" is? Civilian versions of the AK-47 and the uzi are semi-automatic. The AK-47 uses a 7.62x39 round very similar to the most popular deer hunting round the .30-30. The Uzi can be found in varying caliburs including .22, .40, .45, 10mm, but th emost common is the 9x19. Each and every one of these are common handgun caliburs.

 

I'm reading a book that is a statistical analysis of concealed carry laws in the US that shows more guns means less violent crime.

So how about we get rid of all gun laws?

That way law abiding citizens can have as much access to guns as the criminals already have.

 

i think all guns, assault rifles and handguns should be legal. because even if they were illegal, the people who would missuse them (gangbangers, mafiamen) would still have acces to them, but those who would use them appropriatly would not. and atleast people are running around with shotguns and uzis instead of RPGs and grenades like in some other countries

 

That was posted just a couple of months ago. Nice call, it took less than 2 months to accomplish.

 

i don't support banning the POSSESSION of ANYthing. THAT only creates opportunities for political harrasment and markets for organized crime. banning the sale, mass production and wholesale importation is entirely reasonable though.

if someone wants to keep and bare a nuclear tipped cruze missle that's fine with me, as long as they make it themselves in their own garage or basement, and don't make more then three of them.

same goes for whatever they want to grow, brew, cook, et c. as long as it doesn't exceed reasonable personal quantities and isn't actually bought and sold.

personally i think a lot of things a lot of people want to have and consume are really dumb. but that doesn't make banning possession of them smart.