Cinema4D wrote

Hilton wrote Its not about banning guns, america just need to have better laws for them (like the UK).

With regards to people saying "I have a gun to protect myself and my country" thats why you have the millitary, I can assure you if a capable army managed to invade the US you would not last long with out them. From my point of view the people who are "pro guns" seem to be VERY paranoid about an "uprising"? Who is going to rise up?

tl;dr Guns are fine, US just needs better laws.

---

Try not to let it get too heated guys.
Staff bit done

But you miss the whole point. The point of the 2A is to protect you from a tyrannical government. What good is a military going to do protecting YOU from the people who are in charge? It gives the people the right to bear arms so if needed they can form a militia, and a militia is not the National Guard. A militia is not a state sponsored agency. Also, the UK is far from having good gun laws. The US has ok gun laws. The laws ARE NOT the problem. Gang violence is the problem. Mass shootings make up such a small percentage they are irrelevant. Gang violence is the leading cause of gun violence. Socioeconomic factors play into being the cause of that, but that is not a cop-out for the people in those situations. A study in Philadelphia found that homicide victims had an average of 3.7 arrests prior to their murder. In Indianapolis, it was found that 53% of gun homicides were drug related. The problem seems to be criminals doing what they do best. 67% of homicide suspects have felony arrests meaning they cannot own a firearm. Meaning they get them from private sales. Background checks are impossible to enforce and nobody would be willing to comply since you are charged extra to do it. Stop blaming guns and the laws when it is criminals who are the cause of the gun violence. Most of them are inner city youth who had a chance at education, and chose a life of crime. There are kids in these same neighborhoods going to Ivy League schools. That means growing up in the ghetto is no excuse. It is the sole desire of many people to live these lifestyles. Especially when drug dealing/hitting licks is seen as easy money, that doesn't require you to work a 9-5.

Not trying to flame anybody so don't take this the wrong way, just trying to get a point across.

Oh I see, so its in case you wish to fight against your own goverment? The average US citizens vs your highly trained fighting force?.... I see that going well.

Jokes aside,

I am in no way blaming guns, like I said its not about banning guns I just feel the US needs stricter laws.

In my opinion the 2nd amendment could maybe do with an update lol it was written in 1791, we had only just invented the early bicycles then. We have some silly old school laws too, such as it is still legal in certain towns of England to shoot a Welshman or a Scotsman with a longbow or crossbow. However it can only be done within the city walls and after midnight. Although in Hereford it is illegal to shoot a Welshman in a cathedral on Sundays.

I can assure you we do not live by these laws though.

Hilton wrote

Cinema4D wrote

Hilton wrote Its not about banning guns, america just need to have better laws for them (like the UK).

With regards to people saying "I have a gun to protect myself and my country" thats why you have the millitary, I can assure you if a capable army managed to invade the US you would not last long with out them. From my point of view the people who are "pro guns" seem to be VERY paranoid about an "uprising"? Who is going to rise up?

tl;dr Guns are fine, US just needs better laws.

---

Try not to let it get too heated guys.
Staff bit done

But you miss the whole point. The point of the 2A is to protect you from a tyrannical government. What good is a military going to do protecting YOU from the people who are in charge? It gives the people the right to bear arms so if needed they can form a militia, and a militia is not the National Guard. A militia is not a state sponsored agency. Also, the UK is far from having good gun laws. The US has ok gun laws. The laws ARE NOT the problem. Gang violence is the problem. Mass shootings make up such a small percentage they are irrelevant. Gang violence is the leading cause of gun violence. Socioeconomic factors play into being the cause of that, but that is not a cop-out for the people in those situations. A study in Philadelphia found that homicide victims had an average of 3.7 arrests prior to their murder. In Indianapolis, it was found that 53% of gun homicides were drug related. The problem seems to be criminals doing what they do best. 67% of homicide suspects have felony arrests meaning they cannot own a firearm. Meaning they get them from private sales. Background checks are impossible to enforce and nobody would be willing to comply since you are charged extra to do it. Stop blaming guns and the laws when it is criminals who are the cause of the gun violence. Most of them are inner city youth who had a chance at education, and chose a life of crime. There are kids in these same neighborhoods going to Ivy League schools. That means growing up in the ghetto is no excuse. It is the sole desire of many people to live these lifestyles. Especially when drug dealing/hitting licks is seen as easy money, that doesn't require you to work a 9-5.

Not trying to flame anybody so don't take this the wrong way, just trying to get a point across.

Oh I see, so its in case you wish to fight against your own goverment? The average US citizens vs your highly trained fighting force?.... I see that going well.

Jokes aside,

I am in no way blaming guns, like I said its not about banning guns I just feel the US needs stricter laws.

In my opinion the 2nd amendment could maybe do with an update lol it was written in 1791, we had only just invented the early bicycles then. We have some silly old school laws too, such as it is still legal in certain towns of England to shoot a Welshman or a Scotsman with a longbow or crossbow. However it can only be done within the city walls and after midnight. Although in Hereford it is illegal to shoot a Welshman in a cathedral on Sundays.

I can assure you we do not live by these laws though.

*Cough* Afghanistan *Cough Cough*

Lets face it, the US military is a conventional warfare force, not meant for guerrilla warfare, except in small numbers (special forces -which are largely pro-2A). Plus, there would be great numbers of defectors. War is not won with bullets or bombs, but hearts and minds. Tanks can't enforce curfews or no protest ordinances. Fighter jets can't convince little jimmy that the government is good even though they just killed his father. This is a big problem in the middle east we have right now. We are dominating when it comes to the warfare part, but the hearts and minds, not so much. Which is why we will never win the war on terror. People have to do that. American people, with families. Many military men are the same ones who are "gun nuts". I could go on about reasons why a civil war in modern times would never work out for the government, but I digress. I am not opposed to people attempting to change it if they feel fit, after all that is a plus side to our government, being able to amend it as we see fit. But for one, an amendment like that would never pass or get ratified, let alone be complied with, and it opens a "can of worms" that is very risky. The Bill of Rights are arguably the most important amendments. Who is to say next, that we shouldn't just change them all? Why not make it where you need government permission to protest or petition? Or make the right to privacy not apply to certain people? Make no mistake, the constitution is a "living document", but the founding fathers were not stupid. They had clear intentions when writing it. It may have been written in the 1700's, but the founding fathers had already seen the first automatic rifles appear by then. They could foresee changes in technology. If we want to go that route and use that logic, then the 1st Amendment should only apply to printing presses and parchment paper, as surely, they would never have known we could reach hundreds of millions of people within seconds with media.

Miss wrote

Motioncorey wrote I don't support them. Why? You don't NEED them. They are a want. Guns have killed more people than animals.

For self defense you don't need a gun.

Any kind of firearms or bombs are pointless in my opinion.


Want them for hunting? You don't need a fully automatic Assault Rifle to kill an animal.

They teach Mixed Martial Arts for a reason. Weapons are for "wimps" anyways and self defense by hand on hand combat is safer anyway.

I'd like to see you say this when either someone robs you at gunpoint, or the government takes over by force, like Nazi Germany did. Let's see if you still don't support guns.

Use your head. Robbed at gunpoint doesn't mean I NEED a gun. Fighting fire with fire only creates a larger flame. When I was still in school, my ROTC class taught me how to use hand on hand combat in case I had a gun barrel in my face.

Like Nazi Germany? My home country was never affected by the Nazis so your example has no affect on me. And no, I don't support guns because it ISN"T a necessity.

Motioncorey wrote

Miss wrote

Motioncorey wrote I don't support them. Why? You don't NEED them. They are a want. Guns have killed more people than animals.

For self defense you don't need a gun.

Any kind of firearms or bombs are pointless in my opinion.


Want them for hunting? You don't need a fully automatic Assault Rifle to kill an animal.

They teach Mixed Martial Arts for a reason. Weapons are for "wimps" anyways and self defense by hand on hand combat is safer anyway.

I'd like to see you say this when either someone robs you at gunpoint, or the government takes over by force, like Nazi Germany did. Let's see if you still don't support guns.

Use your head. Robbed at gunpoint doesn't mean I NEED a gun. Fighting fire with fire only creates a larger flame. When I was still in school, my ROTC class taught me how to use hand on hand combat in case I had a gun barrel in my face.

Like Nazi Germany? My home country was never affected by the Nazis so your example has no affect on me. And no, I don't support guns because it ISN"T a necessity.

Alright, so you don't need a gun to take down an armed attacker. If he knows what he's doing, he has every advantage. I'm not Bruce Li, so I'll take the "easy way out" and use the best tools available. Cheat to beat.

His point also stands, of course you weren't in Nazi-occupied Europe. A militia is always relevant. Also, the fire analogy doesn't really work like that. Guns stop and/or deter threats in the right hands.

Hilton wrote

Cinema4D wrote

Hilton wrote Its not about banning guns, america just need to have better laws for them (like the UK).

With regards to people saying "I have a gun to protect myself and my country" thats why you have the millitary, I can assure you if a capable army managed to invade the US you would not last long with out them. From my point of view the people who are "pro guns" seem to be VERY paranoid about an "uprising"? Who is going to rise up?

tl;dr Guns are fine, US just needs better laws.

---

Try not to let it get too heated guys.
Staff bit done

But you miss the whole point. The point of the 2A is to protect you from a tyrannical government. What good is a military going to do protecting YOU from the people who are in charge? It gives the people the right to bear arms so if needed they can form a militia, and a militia is not the National Guard. A militia is not a state sponsored agency. Also, the UK is far from having good gun laws. The US has ok gun laws. The laws ARE NOT the problem. Gang violence is the problem. Mass shootings make up such a small percentage they are irrelevant. Gang violence is the leading cause of gun violence. Socioeconomic factors play into being the cause of that, but that is not a cop-out for the people in those situations. A study in Philadelphia found that homicide victims had an average of 3.7 arrests prior to their murder. In Indianapolis, it was found that 53% of gun homicides were drug related. The problem seems to be criminals doing what they do best. 67% of homicide suspects have felony arrests meaning they cannot own a firearm. Meaning they get them from private sales. Background checks are impossible to enforce and nobody would be willing to comply since you are charged extra to do it. Stop blaming guns and the laws when it is criminals who are the cause of the gun violence. Most of them are inner city youth who had a chance at education, and chose a life of crime. There are kids in these same neighborhoods going to Ivy League schools. That means growing up in the ghetto is no excuse. It is the sole desire of many people to live these lifestyles. Especially when drug dealing/hitting licks is seen as easy money, that doesn't require you to work a 9-5.

Not trying to flame anybody so don't take this the wrong way, just trying to get a point across.

Oh I see, so its in case you wish to fight against your own goverment? The average US citizens vs your highly trained fighting force?.... I see that going well.

Jokes aside,

I am in no way blaming guns, like I said its not about banning guns I just feel the US needs stricter laws.

In my opinion the 2nd amendment could maybe do with an update lol it was written in 1791, we had only just invented the early bicycles then. We have some silly old school laws too, such as it is still legal in certain towns of England to shoot a Welshman or a Scotsman with a longbow or crossbow. However it can only be done within the city walls and after midnight. Although in Hereford it is illegal to shoot a Welshman in a cathedral on Sundays.

I can assure you we do not live by these laws though.

The USA was built by treason and yes, we do need to be able to fight our own government. 3% of the citizens actually fought in the Revolutionary war and it makes sense that the government could be replaced today if necessary. The founders of any new government would more than likely be called domestic terrorists (see: Bundy Ranch). The ability to overthrow the government is completely relevant today and the 2nd amendment protects our right to do so.

The USA was built by treason and yes, we do need to be able to fight our own government. 3% of the citizens actually fought in the Revolutionary war and it makes sense that the government could be replaced today if necessary. The founders of any new government would more than likely be called domestic terrorists (see: Bundy Ranch). The ability to overthrow the government is completely relevant today and the 2nd amendment protects our right to do so.

This gives no reason what so ever for the need to carry a firearm. Own one yes, but to carry one is pointless.

Hilton wrote

The USA was built by treason and yes, we do need to be able to fight our own government. 3% of the citizens actually fought in the Revolutionary war and it makes sense that the government could be replaced today if necessary. The founders of any new government would more than likely be called domestic terrorists (see: Bundy Ranch). The ability to overthrow the government is completely relevant today and the 2nd amendment protects our right to do so.

This gives no reason what so ever for the need to carry a firearm. Own one yes, but to carry one is pointless.

CCW isn't directly relevant to the militia part of the second amendment, but it goes along with the right to keep and bear arms. There's an ongoing legal battle between people who interpret the amendment and its limits differently.

Whether it should be legal or not, the effect has been positive and people that legally carry handguns are among the most law-abiding citizens. They commit almost no violent crime.

The only thing that really gets to me is that it is our constitutional right to bear arms. Now I totally agree with the idea of controlling who can have one for example an ex con or a 16 year old who is depressed, but trying to say we can't own a gun in general is like saying we can't stand for what we want. It's our right to express the second amendment or bash it. And thanks to our constitution we have the right to do both. But when the people who bash it try to take it away and the government starts to side with them, that's when our rights as US citizens have been violated by the ones who are supposed to uphold it.

Miss wrote You know what really grinds my gears? Is people who are against guns in general.

I heard the dumbest thing ever from one of these people earlier today at the beach. He said, and I quote; "Whoever created guns should be killed and is a mass-murderer."

I almost wanted to punch a wall in disgust.

I really wish everyone would own a gun, maybe then, just maybe, all these crimes would stop.

Click to View Content

"Blaming murder on guns is like blaming pencils for bad spelling."

I couldn't agree with you any less. I can't stand the anti-gun liberals, they're so ignorant lol.

Hilton wrote

The USA was built by treason and yes, we do need to be able to fight our own government. 3% of the citizens actually fought in the Revolutionary war and it makes sense that the government could be replaced today if necessary. The founders of any new government would more than likely be called domestic terrorists (see: Bundy Ranch). The ability to overthrow the government is completely relevant today and the 2nd amendment protects our right to do so.

This gives no reason what so ever for the need to carry a firearm. Own one yes, but to carry one is pointless.

How is it pointless? There's quite a bit of events that have been stopped by a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN who has a CCW, they just don't make news very often.

Hilton wrote

The USA was built by treason and yes, we do need to be able to fight our own government. 3% of the citizens actually fought in the Revolutionary war and it makes sense that the government could be replaced today if necessary. The founders of any new government would more than likely be called domestic terrorists (see: Bundy Ranch). The ability to overthrow the government is completely relevant today and the 2nd amendment protects our right to do so.

This gives no reason what so ever for the need to carry a firearm. Own one yes, but to carry one is pointless.

Why not though? It's legal here in California. I can walk around town with a gun and not get in any trouble at all. It just can't be loaded. I think that's perfectly fine honestly. I'm sure that'll prevent people from pulling mass-shootings if more people carried guns around.