The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Palpatine001

You say America is complex and we outsiders could never understand.

Ok since 1995 how many School or University Shootings have you had

Then how many have the 4 main commonwealth nations (UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) had.quote>

Trouble is, you're oversimplifying the issue here. School shootings and whatnot are only one small part of the picture. It's also worth pointing out that schools are places where you're not permitted to carry a gun- making them ideal places for a maniac to go and shoot up since they know that no one there will be able to shoot back.

The other hole in that argument is that it's using this kind of logic:

Fact #1- Most developed countries have stricter gun control than America

Fact #2- Most developed countries don't have dramatic violent incidence as often as America

Conclusion- Most developed countries don't have dramatic violent incidence as often as America because they have stricter gun control than America.

And that conclusion is not necessarily valid. Just because X is true and Y is true does not mean that Y is true because X is true. Correlation does not imply causation.

Really, the fault here is that it's an apples to oranges comparison. America and the commonwealth are different animals. What solves a problem in one country may just make it worse in another. It's not the measures taken that matter, but how people react to them.

Sure, it might seem logical that banning guns would reduce gun violence, but just because it seems logical doesn't mean it's true. After all, banning guns doesn't mean that there won't be any more guns, it just means owning one is illegal and that law-abiding citizens won't have them- but criminals will. Therefore, a gun ban could either increase or violent crime. And which effect it has will vary from place to place. If a country bans guns and crime drops, then great, let them do that. However, general consensus is that a gun ban in America would only increase violent crime- we've never banned guns (many would argue that that's unconstitutional), so we don't know for sure, but that's certainly what it looks like would happen.

Originally posted by: your_adress_here Solving violence with violence... sounds a lot like something else I've heard of... what's it called again... oh, right, war.quote>

A serial killer comes up to you on the street, points a gun at you, and demands for you to step into a nearby alley. Do you:

a) Step into said alley where he'll then rape and kill you (not necessarily in that order)

b) diplomatically try and negotiate with him

c) try and run away, and probably just end up getting shot

d) pull out your gun and shoot him

Think quick!

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

A serial killer comes up to you on the street, points a gun at you, and demands for you to step into a nearby alley. Do you:

a) Step into said alley where he'll then rape and kill you (not necessarily in that order)

b) diplomatically try and negotiate with him

c) try and run away, and probably just end up getting shot

d) pull out your gun and shoot him

Think quick!quote>

Not quite the example you gave but close . . .

I was in one of those police sponsored self defense classes, mostly directed at women but men were welcome to attend as well.  The question came up as to what to do if a guy in a car comes by, points a gun at you and tells you to get into the car.  The guy running the class said he has thought long and hard about this question and finally decided to really study this statistics.  His recommendation was this:   walk away.

He says the guy is in the car might shoot you but odds are good he won't.   But, if you get into that car, it's pretty much a certainly that he will make your life miserable before he shoots you.   So your best chance is to simply walk away.

The issue of shooting him back didn't come up since this was a classes based on not having a gun but on having legal concealed weapons.  (The class included getting one of those ice scraper key chains.)

[hummer0328 6]

Originally posted by: Palpatine001

As for keeping you gun, you do that, just hope you don't hit an innocent person on the way out when you discharge that weapon against a "criminal." quote>

In the US police are more than 5x as likely to hit an innocent person when discharging a weapon against a criminal than armed civilians.  The point is the chance of an armed civilian hitting an innocent person is vary rare.

Originally posted by: Palpatine001

Ok since 1995 how many School or University Shootings have you had

Then how many have the 4 main commonwealth nations (UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) had.quote>

As duke already pointed out that argument is flawed.  For one thing, the US has an equal incident per capita of school shootings as Australia and Canada.  Schools are considered gun-free zones in the US, so shooters know there victims will be unarmed.  School shootings are extremely rare in the 1st place and only make up an extremely minute portion of US gun crime.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hummer0328

For one thing, the US has an equal incident per capita of school shootings as Australia and Canada. 

quote>

Really?   It doesn't seem that way.  But I have to admit that I don't always heard about shootings elsewhere.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: hummer0328

For one thing, the US has an equal incident per capita of school shootings as Australia and Canada. 

quote>

Really?   It doesn't seem that way.  But I have to admit that I don't always heard about shootings elsewhere.quote>

The key words being "per capita". There are 21 million people in Australia and 33 million people in Canada. There are 304 million people in the US. So if you hear about such things happening in the US ten times as often as you hear about them happening in other such places... well, that means the rate is about the same. This is why crime statistics are generally reported as incidents per 100,000 people and not just as a number of incidents. That denominator is important.

[krbe 193]

What about European school shootings? (c. 450m)

[hawkpride147 1]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Trouble is, you're oversimplifying the issue here. School shootings and whatnot are only one small part of the picture. It's also worth pointing out that schools are places where you're not permitted to carry a gun- making them ideal places for a maniac to go and shoot up since they know that no one there will be able to shoot back. quote>

there is the best argument of why gun control won't work in america...people who abide by the laws don't carry guns into schools because there are laws against it...yet we still have people shooting up the schools.

banning guns would result in something like the bootlegging of alcohol during prohibition. guns would still be around, just on the black market. they couldn't stop the sale of alcohol when trafficking stuff wasn't as easy, and when the country was smaller...why do we think we could stop guns now?

besides...to remove the 2nd Amendment, it would take 2/3 of the US Senate, then 2/3 of the US House of Representatives, ratification by 3/4 of the states...meaning that if 12 states vote it down, it fails...

also it would likely not be touched due to the fact that it is part of "The Bill of Rights" something that has not successfully been amended since its writing...

the constitution has only been amended 27 times in over 200 years...in fact, on average, each session of congress (lasting 2 years) has averaged around 100 proposed amendments...there have been 110 congressional sessions in the history of the US...this means there are somewhere in excess of 11000 amendments that have failed to make it to the States. only 6 have made it to the states and failed. one of the 27 successful amendment attempts was actually amended with a later amendment, leaving effectively 25 amendments and 7 failures. out of 11000+.......

[screamingman12 30]

Still wouldn't happen. If I remember correctly, there's an ammendment in the bill of rights that says nothing can be deleted from it.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Still wouldn't happen. If I remember correctly, there's an ammendment in the bill of rights that says nothing can be deleted from it.quote>

  nothing can be deleted from what?

[wwetom1 831]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: screamingman12

Still wouldn't happen. If I remember correctly, there's an ammendment in the bill of rights that says nothing can be deleted from it.quote>

  nothing can be deleted from what?quote>

The Bill of Rights, I belive.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: screamingman12 Still wouldn't happen. If I remember correctly, there's an ammendment in the bill of rights that says nothing can be deleted from it.quote>

No, that's not correct.  ANY part of the Constitution can be amended.

[hymewales 13]

Palpatine:

Brother. We're related, you and I. Go back thousands of years and somewhere our DNA will come together. Don't appear to hate me so much. I love my country as do you. I bash no country. In fact, New Zealand is a place I'd like to visit. I'm not saying that's where you're from because I don't know, but maybe we can grab a beer or your drink of preference on me one day and you'll see we're not so different, you and I. At least I know we agree on the global warming issue.

"Name another country as complex as yours - America, sure thing, lets try every Western Commonwealth Nation, the EU nations oh and Japan, they are ALL complex societies with their own unique set of problems."

That's exactly what I was saying. Re read the portion of my post you highlighted without your emotion next time.

"You say America is complex and we outsiders could never understand."

You said that; I did not. Read my post again and point out those exact words. You won't find them. You are adding words that don't exist to change the context of what I said. Luckily, it's in writing for you to see. I still love you brother.

"So don't try that amercian-centric crap this end with me the same crap that has got America in a bind onthe world stage, AND especially after finishing a full doctrine thesis on Structuralism, Political Economy and the Abortion Debate in the USA."

Please point out where this "americian-centric crap" is in my post? Fact is, you're ASSuming way too much. The summary of my post is that the U.S. will deal with her gun problems. Our Constitution allows for gun ownership. The judicial branch of the U.S. will decide the fate of that Amendment. That's the cliff notes version. Of course you could immigrate here, join the political ranks, and try to make policy changes. I highly encourage that because <start sarcasm> we both know the current U.S. politicians are the best < end of sarcasm>.

"As for keeping you gun, you do that, just hope you don't hit an innocent person on the way out when you discharge that weapon against a "criminal." "

I'm a federal police officer. Of course I'll keep my gun. Who will fight the criminals if it's taken away? I'm highly trained with the weapon as are all federal agents. As is my father, uncles, cousins who are all former military and highly trained. Most people with weapons are trained to some extent. You take guns away from the citizens; the criminals will still have them. Why is that so hard to understand. Try this; The 2nd Amendment existed in the first place and the weapons are still accessible via the black market.  The faucet has already been turned on full blast. The water has soaked into the crevices and finding all of it will never happen. I also know Aussie police carry guns. I'm not uneducated. Let's get that beer and you'll find out.

"Ok since 1995 how many School or University Shootings have you had

Then how many have the 4 main commonwealth nations (UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) had."

I don't know; but I bet their constitution don't have a "Right to bear arms" provision in it either. If it does, point it out. That's just my point. That's why you can't compare the two. It's a societal problem brother. Maybe the parents there are better than they are here...The parents should have been more involved in those kids lives and prevented this kind of violence by preventing access to the guns. Every time, it was an arsenal; parents and/or friends had to know when things were getting delivered via the internet. Someone turned a blind eye. Stupid people do stupid things to glorify their lives whether it's a terrorist in Indonesia killing innocent Aussies or a dumb kid killing innocents for no reason at a school. A c

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: hymewales As a non American citizen, your civil liberties are not in jeopardy.

quote>

 

Au contraire, Australia and England have already taken away this civil liberty. They can't understand why we hang on to ours so tenaciously, as if they know better than we do about handing over rights willy-nilly for an illusion of security.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: hymewales

I love you too, brother. I'm a European genetic mutt, so I know we're related somewhere down the line. We can have a drink of your preference on me also. I like your quote of the great Thomas Jefferson...It just helps my point of argument.

"Any nations troops can be shot."

Touche. That was as dumb a statement as yours. My apologies. I should have asked, would you shoot the police when they come through your door legally? The police are government agents, are they not? You want me to be offended because you want to know if it is OK to shoot police in the U.S.?<because they are government agents; whether local, county, parish, federal, the police that is.> If you don't know the answer to that question, I'll assume you're naive. From reading your posts; you're far from that. You were just trying to stir the pot...quote>

I have of course no wish to offend you, though I understand my words can easily be considered ill-chosen. Though this "right" we're discussing is of course a moral value, affirming the founding fathers belief in the "more perfect union".

However much we disagree though, I think you'll find many on the pro-ban side, especially on the other side of the pond, quickly turn into pro-regulation only if they have more information on the issue—both on the European and American side. People are often surprised to learn that in most European countries there are no bans on ordinary rifles, shotguns, et. al—even in my home country of Norway, one of the most gun heavy in Europe. That 30-40% of all males attend military service, and thousands are a member of the Home Guard only adds to the numerous private shooters throughout the country. The National Shooting Competition is one of the biggest competition overall.

I agree there should be limitations on gun ownership. No Assault rifles, 50 caliber guns, Silencers, and whatever was in the law that never got renewed. I don't think our fore father's envisioned those kind of weapons being invented back then, but they wanted to be broad. However, a complete ban is against what the fore fathers of the U.S. wanted. I've read the brief and it appears the citizens of D.C. will be the victors to obtain their handgun rights. The questions asked by the judges and answered by the attorney's favors the citizens of D.C. Great questions were asked.quote>

Hearing questions from judges who are able to see both sides of a case is indeed something else than listening on pundits and populist on 24-hours news channels.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hymewales

Because the ACLU might get involved.  You may not know who they are or you may.quote>

Just a footnote for those not familiar with the ACLU:  it stands for American Civil Liberties Union.  Its mission statement reads:

The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

-  Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

- Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

- Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

- Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920. We are nonprofit and nonpartisan and have grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of more than 500,000 members and supporters. We handle nearly 6,000 court cases annually from our offices in almost every state.

The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding.quote>

[fern244 1]

NO guns, knives instead.

[Morfar_Toast 0]

Originally posted by: fern244 NO guns, knives instead.quote>

I can't really see how that should help.

Knifes are as dangerous as guns, exept that guns can kill from a distance.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek Just a footnote for those not familiar with the ACLU:  it stands for American Civil Liberties Union.  :

quote>

 

or Anti-Christian Liberals Union, American Criminal Liberties Union, etc. etc. etc. 

They left something out of that mission statement, one of their very first goals: The disarming of the American people.

"The ACLU's founder, Roger Baldwin, stated: "We are for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." (Source: Trial and Error, by Geo. Grant)

They are a lying, hypocritical, anti-American organization. It's startling how many people in Congress are 'card-carrying' members, and it helped defeat Dukakis in '92.

 This from a blogsite:

Baldwin showed much sympathy to the Soviet economic system in his statement in his Harvard classbook, and in the foreword he wrote to Letters from Russian Prisons (1924). He embraced the view that the Russia of his day was “a great laboratory of social experimentation of incalculable value to the development of the world.”

In the 1930s Baldwin and the ACLU became linked to the Popular Front movement, which was engendered by Stalin to strengthen the Communist Party by allowing it to make common cause with socialists and other leftist groups. Baldwin himself made two trips to the Soviet Union, and in 1928 published a book entitled Liberty Under the Soviets, which contained effusive praise for the USSR.

In 1934 Baldwin authored a piece titled “Freedom in the USA and the USSR.” He wrote: “The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental. When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. … [There] I saw … fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not all be done by persuasion. … f American champions of civil liberty could all think in terms of economic freedom as the goal of their labors, they too would accept ‘workers’ democracy’ as far superior to what the capitalist world offers to any but a small minority. Yes, and they would accept — regretfully, of course — the necessity of dictatorship while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done.”

[Meg 368]

Well, I don't know all of the history.  I was just trying to explain the acronym to those who weren't familiar with it.

For what it's worth (and some may say it isn't worth much), Wikipedia has a slightly different take on it

In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. He later denounced communism in his book, A New Slavery, which condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny" [2]. In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members [3].

In 1947, General Douglas MacArthur invited him to Japan to foster the growth of civil liberties in that country. In Japan, he founded the Japan Civil Liberties Union, and the Japanese government awarded him the Order of the Rising Sun. In 1948, Germany and Austria invited him for similar purposes. quote>

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I'll bet he did an about face publicly... when it became dangerous to be a Commie in post-war America. Particularly after the first Soviet nuclear tests, when fear of the Red Menace was building and McCarthy was about to hit the scene. 

An aside about McCarthy...in KGB files opened after the fall of the USSR, it was revealed that McCarthy was right after all. Hollywood was indeed chock full of paid and volunteer Communist agents. His name has become odiously linked to witch hunts, but he was correct. They didn't put that in the history books!

[JanYpe 17]

Oh give me a break. Want to produce any kind of proof to support that revisionist lunacy? All McCarthy ever did was foster paranoia and conduct "investigations" by traipsing around like an elephant in a porcelain cupboard. If anything he helped the USSR.

[hawkpride147 1]

so back to the topic about gun control...

the thing no one seems to want to address, is that criminals don't abide by the laws in the first place. so you make a law banning guns, it really won't hold sway. i kinda think it would just result in the exact same thing as prohibition...people would still try to get around it...and if they couldn't control it then, when it was much more difficult to traffic illegal stuff, what will stop the trafficking of guns. i mean, drugs are illegal, but people still use them...

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: JanYpe Oh give me a break. Want to produce any kind of proof to support that revisionist lunacy? All McCarthy ever did was foster paranoia and conduct "investigations" by traipsing around like an elephant in a porcelain cupboard. If anything he helped the USSR.quote>

 

Sorry JanYpe, but you are way wrong. No break for you.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200711/POL20071107b.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/06/then.now/

http://www.darrenweeks.net/documents/mccarthy/acceptedasfact.html, quoted:

Pulling all the latest evidence together was luncheon speaker Professor Arthur Herman. His new book, "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator," and featured in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, shows the vindication of most of McCarthy's charges. Herman, who is also coordinator of the Smithsonian's Western Heritage Program, said that the accuracy of McCarthy's charges "was no longer a matter of debate," that they are "now accepted as fact." However, the term "McCarthyism" still remains in the language.

www.aim.org/media-monitor/joe-mccarthy-was-right/

 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Meg 368]

Taken from the second link in manticorefan's post:

This new evidence is forcing the revision of many of the prevailing myths about the internal communist threat to American democracy in the postwar era. None of it exculpates McCarthy. He remains a political bully who hurt a number of people. But his exaggerated and baseless charges also harmed the anti-communist cause. In a variant of Gresham's Law, his bad charges trivialized and weakened good ones. Genuine Soviet spies portrayed themselves as victimized by McCarthyism. They found sympathetic listeners, convinced that anyone accused of espionage or communism must be innocent because some innocent people were accused. quote>

I don't see that as McCarthy being "correct".   It sounds like, yes, there were spies but his overreaction made it more difficult to flush them out.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Back on topic: I support access to weaponry. Do I think it needs to be controlled? You bet. There is no justification to hunt with an AK-47 and no reason to fish with grenades.quote>

I agree.     As hawkpride147 says, banning guns won't keep criminals from having them.  but I've said that before.

[MrFingers 0]

My two cents:

My opinion on guns can be summed up as:

'If you cannot guarantee that the bad guys will never be armed, then you have to empower the good.'

I think that is fairly self-explanatory. By good I mean your average, population majority, law-abiding citizen who just wants security for his family and to mind his own business. By bad people I mean anyone who aims to harm the good people, be that petty criminal or tyrannical government or foreign invasion.

As Americans we now have little risk of foreign invasion, a tyrannical government, and a police force to help protect us, so I should explain why it is still important to keep the right to bear arms.

1) A foreign invasion on American soil is very unlikely, but without question that is at least in part because there are more private guns in America than adults, making oppressive occupation almost as uninviting as Switzerland.

2) We are more at risk of tyranny than I think most people realise. It would be very wise to consider the following before making a judgement on America's chances of falling to tyranny; Not only are there many many cases of democratic societies becoming victims of tyranny and facism in the last couple centuries, but it is happening in real-time right now, and, without exception, one of the first steps of all these tyrannical governments was to disarm the populous. It would be a blind mistake to assume our current system of governance is so perfect that tyranny is impossible.

3) Whilst the police force is a privilege of our relatively advanced civilisation, it is not without flaws. I think you'd have to be a very naive person to think that the police will always protect your family for you, or always be doing the right thing.

Basically, the right to bear arms is synonymous with the right to protect yourself. It empower individuals to protect themselves from criminals and governments, domestic and foreign. It is a vital characteristic of freedom that each individual has the power and responsibility to help themselves. It should not surprise you that all the worst gun crimes in America happen in gun-free zones, where the good people have been disempowered. It should not surprise you that gun control laws are ineffective in fighting gun crime when the definition of a criminal is someone who breaks the law. Nor should it surprise you that when people start blaming the tool for murder rather than the person responsible that our morality starts to fray.

Gun laws hurt law-abiding citizens by infringing on their ability to protect themselves, and I will illustrate with a case-in-point;

A woman, who is now a Texas congresswoman, went to a diner a couple years ago with her parents for lunch. By law the woman had to leave her gun in her car. A man entered the diner and started executing people. This woman watched both her parents die. Her reaction is one of logic and not blind passion. She recognised that the law preventing her from carrying her gun fatally crippled her ability to defend herself and her family, with devastating effect.

As Adolf Hitler once said:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."

[owenluby 1]

Ban all weapons. Period.

But once again, we come to this:

It's easier said than done...

Why do we complicate things so much?

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: owenluby Ban all weapons. Period.

But once again, we come to this:

It's easier said than done...

Why do we complicate things so much?quote>

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but I think the answer to that is because the issue isn't as simple as simply banning them.  The solution really is easier said than done.  For example:

First, what constitutes a weapon?  Depending on how broad a definition you want, "weapon" could be used to describe everything from guns to a person's fists.  However, I agree that most would answer with a "gun," so I'll limit it to that.  But guns have legitimate uses and certain individuals have need of them, like the military.  Outside of the military, other government officials need guns to effectively perform their duties.  Game wardens and other such officials still need weaponry of various kinds and what if one of them went psychotic while carrying a high powered rifle?

Second, even if we rounded up all estimated 200 million guns in the US, what about gun smuggling?  The US has scores of people illegally enter the country every year, and the human traffickers that assist in this could potentially make smuggling a gun into the US as part of the package.  As has been said earlier, courtesy of the Prohibition movement, the US has a deeply entrenched black market that will transport anything that has a market but isn't legal.  For example, heroin has no legal use in the US.  Despite that, it is still fairly accessible to those that want it.  Thanks to the black market, banning something only ensures that it goes underground.  It's no longer legal to use, but those who are dealing in the black market don't really bother with what the law says.

Third, we have to deal with the US Constitution.  The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own weapons, usually interpreted as meaning "guns."  Because the Constitution is the highest law of the US, the only law that can modify it is a constitutional amendment, and the process of amending the Constitution is purposefully designed to be difficult.

So, as was said earlier, banning guns really is easier said than done.  Just writing a slip of paper saying "Guns are henceforce banned in the United States" doesn't cut it.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I say, if murderers can't kill with guns, they'll kill with knives. And guns are more easily traceable than knives -- they make more noise.

So, therefore, in my opinion, a gun ban would only increase killings, not reduce them.

Also, American civillians have the right to possess weapons -- it's in the Second Amendment. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to pass a law repealing this amendment.

So, let the law as it is continue.

- Patricius Maximus

[pepsi71ocean 2]

Its almost impossiable to have guns takes away from american civilians. Its like teenagers, the more you tell them not to do something they will defy you. The more that the goverment tries to take my guns away the more i'll go hide in the woods, and hide them and then cherish them for when my goverment becomes to powerful, which is what the real reason is to allow the people to disband the goverment if it becomes to powerful.