yah but most robberies arent committed with an ak47. There committed with concealable weapons such as a pistol.

Concealed Firearms without a license is illegal too. But they still do it, go figure?

[quote="redhawk_six":11ef1]Having a gun DOES NOT make you safer.

To (roughly) quote the movie "bowling for columbine":

"If more guns made it safer, than America would be the safest country in the world, and it is not."

Take LA for example, there are probably billions of guns in that city, and the crime rate is through the roof. So, PsychoMerc, you don't really have a point there, because outlaws are still robbing stores, whether there's a gun in the store or not.
[/quote:11ef1]

This is actually a pretty STUPID point of view... Bowling for Columbine was a decent flick, but information can be twisted to appeal to any point of view, obviously this trick worked on YOU.

The shear amount of guns in America has nothing to do with safety. There are millions of guns in Washington DC, unfortunately all of them are owned by criminals because law abiding citizens in that city cannot legally own firearms for protection.

Federal and State law are the only tools which can make gun ownership and use safer and ultimately the streets of our country as well.

O live in Virginia and I have a concealed carry permit, I can carry any handgun of my choice concealed to mos tplaces in the state. I'm the responsible owner of many, many firearms and frankly the streets ARE safer because of people like me and laws like the ones we have here...

[quote="Simo Häyhä":ed51d]good luck trying to get the guns back from the rednecks, they'll fight to the death mwah:[/quote:ed51d]ill join em *picks up mauser* Heil Billy Bob!

Oh btw, I can own full-auto M4's, MP5's, HK 53's, you name it, here in Virginia, with two simple forms... For that matter I could own a full-auto M4 with a silencer, night-vision scope, laser and flashlight mount here with the same two forms... (one is ATF the other form is local law enforcement)

Why would I want such a weapon in my home here in suburbia, just 15 minutes outside of Washington DC? Not for home protection, not for hunting, not for the coming of the second revolution (lol) and frankly not anyone's damn business... (ahh freedom...)

Maybe I own 50 acres of waterfront property on the Shenandoah River and I like to go down there and camp and shoot with my friends... Either way, it's noones business but mine... =)

[quote=CyberSEAL]This is actually a pretty STUPID point of view... Bowling for Columbine was a decent flick, but information can be twisted to appeal to any point of view, obviously this trick worked on YOU.

The shear amount of guns in America has nothing to do with safety. There are millions of guns in Washington DC, unfortunately all of them are owned by criminals because law abiding citizens in that city cannot legally own firearms for protection.

Federal and State law are the only tools which can make gun ownership and use safer and ultimately the streets of our country as well.

O live in Virginia and I have a concealed carry permit, I can carry any handgun of my choice concealed to mos tplaces in the state. I'm the responsible owner of many, many firearms and frankly the streets ARE safer because of people like me and laws like the ones we have here...[/quote:cb914]

ehehehe.........the streets are safer because of people like you and the laws you have.

I want to hear you say that the day you snap and kill 6-9 people in your office just because the boss took your parking space again evil:

You could never outlaw guns in America. It would be a violation of our 2nd Constitutional Right.

wich was written 100 years ago or something like that. Don't you think such an old thing should be ignored?

Well that makes sense.

Lets just ignore our Bill of Rights completely becuase it was ratified 216 years ago. That means we should completely ignore our freedom of speech, religion, expression, assembly, petition, judicial rights, as well as our protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and just about everything else the United States was built upon.

Despite how long ago the Amendment was approved the thought upon which it was written still exists today and will continue to exist for god knows how many years.

[quote="Sicilian_Summers":38f59]Well that makes sense.

Lets just ignore our Bill of Rights completely becuase it was ratified 216 years ago. That means we should completely ignore our freedom of speech, religion, expression, assembly, petition, judicial rights, as well as our protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and just about everything else the United States was built upon.

Despite how long ago the Amendment was approved the thought upon which it was written still exists today and will continue to exist for god knows how many years.[/quote:38f59]

Agreed.

the 2nd Amendment is from revolutionary times, it really isn't relvent today


the writers of the 2nd amendment meant it as a way for the country to defend it's self from the British, it has been taken grossly out of context and should not be at all relevent in todays world, what it is being used for today is not at all what it was intended for

[quote="redhawk_six":41cf0]
the 2nd Amendment is from revolutionary times, it really isn't relvent today[/quote:41cf0]

So are the other amendments of the Bill of Rights, but the relevancy of those have driven men and continue to drive men into extraordinary places. The free world which prides itself upon the liberties they enjoy, most of which are contained within the Bill of Rights, has fought for the liberty and freedom for others as well. Many, many men have died for the very things the Bill of Rights stands for, from the 18th century till todays 21st century.

[quote:41cf0]
the writers of the 2nd amendment meant it as a way for the country to defend it's self from the British, it has been taken grossly out of context and should not be at all relevent in todays world, what it is being used for today is not at all what it was intended for[/quote:41cf0]

I believe you are partially correct. Yes the 2nd amendment was meant as a way for the country to defend itself from the British, but, in my opinion it also continues to hold relevancy as it provides a safety from a hostile facist take over of sorts. So we just continue to hope that it provides a check in case Hitler the II decides to move to Washington.

[quote="redhawk_six":8c1b0]the 2nd Amendment is from revolutionary times, it really isn't relvent today


the writers of the 2nd amendment meant it as a way for the country to defend it's self from the British, it has been taken grossly out of context and should not be at all relevent in todays world, what it is being used for today is not at all what it was intended for[/quote:8c1b0]

Seeing as the popular majority is pro-gun, and that the US is a representative democracy, and that there is no political desire to repeal the 2nd amendment, I would have to say that is still very relevant. The purpose was for an armed populance for protection against foriegn govenrments as well as protection against our own government. But of course no one would ever need protection from their own government. Not in this day and age or peace and stability.

civilians owning guns will prevent goverments from ruling the people with an iron fist. you take away the guns and the people are defensless against the government.

dont get me started about guns and there laws. people in jain shoulnt have em but good people should........oh yea up here is washington were i live those damn indians can catch all the freeking salmon and fish the want when we can only keep 2!!!!!!

[quote="hops!":3b465]dont get me started about guns and there laws. people in jain shoulnt have em but good people should........oh yea up here is washington were i live those damn indians can catch all the freeking salmon and fish the want when we can only keep 2!!!!!![/quote:3b465]


Someone who speaks Down Syndrome, please translate.

You do know who are president is...right?

[quote="hops!":57d1e]dont get me started about guns and there laws. people in jain shoulnt have em but good people should........oh yea up here is washington were i live those damn indians can catch all the freeking salmon and fish the want when we can only keep 2!!!!!![/quote:57d1e]

You need to die.

[quote="Simo Häyhä":2058f]civilians owning guns will prevent goverments from ruling the people with an iron fist. you take away the guns and the people are defensless against the government.[/quote:2058f]

(I picked this one quotation out but it's not the only one of its kind here. Nothing personal, you understand...)

We've managed to keep ourselves safe from our own government quite well for many years and guns are banned here. What kind of country do you live in if you fear an attack from your own government by which firearms would be your only defence?

Also, in response to someone saying it's good to own and learn to handle guns at a young age to prepare you for war:
Our armed forces seem to be equiped quite well at handling fire-arms and a huge proportion of them would not have handled a live ammunition weapon before they joined the forces.

And as for preparing kids for being drafted into war....

Are your lives so focused around conflict, war and defense/attack?

Bizarre reasons why guns are a good thing, guys, very bizarre.

I completely disagree that guns work in a society. I am perfectly happy that guns are banned here and I live in the worst city for shootings in the UK (Nottingham). More people are shot here in a year than anywhere in the UK but hey, less people per 1000 are shot here than most cities in America.

So, we manage quite well without guns being allowed.

I understand why America allows them. I respect that. It's something that is ingrained in your culture and I'd never wish for that to be taken away from you.

But for any of you to say your laws make your country safer is utter bullshit.

Locking up all the nut-cases would do that. Taking away or allowing the use of guns won't make a blind bit of difference.

However, it's a lot easier to get another person to do something when you have a live gun pointed at their face.

Pull out a knife or a baseball bat and try to get the same reaction they at least have the option to run.

Or gang up on you and batter the shit out of you.

Granted both of those weapons can be lethal but guns are lethal even in the hands of the incompetant. Even in the hand of a child... In a school perhaps?

Give that child a knife or a stick and he'd not do as much damage.

Many reasons why gun laws these days should be very much stricter.

I don't see that "constitutional rights", "Defence against our government" and "Prepares us for war" are great reasons at all.

Facts of your lives, perhaps, but not particularly good reasons to keep guns legal.

Come on now...

Bottom line is this: Guns will not be out-lawed in America because you're too used to having them and more than 50% of the population would disagree with it.

May as well try to legalise cocaine.

There are your reasons.

im gonna get an AK-47 to go moose hunting