The 2nd amendment: Is it really necessary?

[Riddle]

Riddle, anything can be used incorrectly to harm others. I can stab you with a pencil and kill you but that doesnt make a pencil dangerous. Making sure that the people who own guns know how to be safe with them is very important and controls like that on weapons distribution would prevent a lot of accidents.

Also, smoking is not a hobby, its an act that people often enjoy, but it isnt the same as a hobby. Not that that really matters too much.

I used the word hobby because CK did and I put in quotes for a reason.

My point and Delorted's I think is that a pencil would not help you in robbing or killing someone, but a gun would. I would be willing to sacrifice hobbies and acts to protect the safety of human beings. pacmansays presents a good idea as well. Renting out weapons and keeping close track of them would also help gun control.

 

[manhunter098]

And keeping guns away from law abiding citizens will not keep them out of the hands of criminals. Guns will still be obtained and used by criminals and innocent citizens will be in a slightly greater danger overall if none of them have guns, which are extremely effective in preventing unarmed criminals from harming or stealing from a legal gun owner.

Keeping close track of all legal firearms is something I certainly support, but I do not support taking away guns from people who are not going to use them to harm others and only intend to use them for hobby and/or personal protection.

 

[Crimson King]

Are these activities a risk to others though? I dont't care what people do if they could hurt themselves, but I do care if they are a risk to others. This is why I oppose somking (Second-hand Smoke) and other similar harmful "hobbies".

Sky diving, bungee jumping, drag racing, racing, group sex, S&M, paintball, and a few others can, if used incorrectly, result in the deaths of not only the initial participant, but also spectators.

The fact is just because accidents CAN happen doesn't mean they will. Do any of you people even own a gun, legally? In order to get a license here, you have to undergo psychological background test as well as attend several safety courses AND take shooting lessons. If you aren't a passable shooter (ie you hit what you intend to hit), you will be declined.

Many of the people I know who are into firearms do not even remotely joke about guns. When I was a freshman in high school, we went shooting with some friends and his dad. One of the guys in the group made a joke about shooting someone (really, really passive), and the dad blew up saying to not even joke about that.

Point is if you are a legal gun owner, you have to prove you will be responsible.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Well give the public access to potentially life threatening equipment for the sake of a few sports seems a bit ridiculous....if they like hunting or clay shooting so much they could rent possible rifles from a local club or something

Economic nightmare (for these people). So, I have to pay a recurring royalty to some business that has to cover its own costs, when I could just buy my own gun and ammo and save tremendous amounts of money in the long run?

Banning guns provides the illusion of safety in society.

 

[Pr0phetic]

Fact is if you get rid of the second amendment, and illegalize gun ownership, you aren't doing anything but taking guns away from people who wish to follow laws. The people would use guns for defense/protection will give up weapons (and the ones who do not become criminals) where as the people who will use the weapons for murder and robbery will likely still use the guns for it.

Also, yes, the second amendment is in place to protect the citizens from being pawns of the state. As Thomas Jefferson said, the second amendment exists for us to overthrow the government if it gets to powerful.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Guns will still be illegal, and now even more innocents, such as store owners, public service workers, and even house owners, will lose means of protection while criminals will still have their weapons.

 

[Riddle]

Sky diving, bungee jumping, drag racing, racing, group sex, S&M, paintball, and a few others can, if used incorrectly, result in the deaths of not only the initial participant, but also spectators.

The fact is just because accidents CAN happen doesn't mean they will. Do any of you people even own a gun, legally? In order to get a license here, you have to undergo psychological background test as well as attend several safety courses AND take shooting lessons. If you aren't a passable shooter (ie you hit what you intend to hit), you will be declined.

Many of the people I know who are into firearms do not even remotely joke about guns. When I was a freshman in high school, we went shooting with some friends and his dad. One of the guys in the group made a joke about shooting someone (really, really passive), and the dad blew up saying to not even joke about that.

Point is if you are a legal gun owner, you have to prove you will be responsible.

Fine, my devil's advocate fails. I don't really support gun control and I will stop trying to argue that case.

 

[Deleted member]

Are you people insane? Guns and pencils are not analogous. Pencils have a function - to write. They could be used as a rudimentary shiv, but that's not their function. Guns have a function - to shoot. That's what they're for, that's what they're used for.

Clay shooting and casual hunting need to be investigated. Everything needs to be investigated. Why is it reaching when I question activities that inherently involve sadism?

Go ahead and be super Libertarian. Draw the ****ing line, though.

Edit: Skydiving, rock climbing, any other "dangerous" hobby... they are self-involved. You decide whether you want to risk your life. Activities involving guns are completely different. Especially when you're an animal that is being hunted mindlessly by some guffawing redneck.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Clay shooting and casual hunting need to be investigated. Everything needs to be investigated. Why is it reaching when I question activities that inherently involve sadism?

... What?

I have a neighbor who invites us shooting periodically throughout the summer. I have been shooting multiple times as a young Boy Scout.

How is shooting a clay disc sadist?

How is shooting an animal sadist? While I'm sure there are some sadist individuals out there, most hunters I've gone with do it either for food or for the sport of tracking a creature that uses evasive maneuvers. It has nothing to do with the pleasure of slaughtering a creature.

 

[Deleted member]

If you were to go hunting and not find anything, you would go home upset. However, if you come home with a good kill, you are pleased. That means you are pleased with kills. That's sadistic.

If P (no kills) then Q (upset)

-P (kills) then -Q (pleasure)

Therefore, -P.

 

[manhunter098]

Isnt it kind of our nature to be pleased when we accomplish something we want to do and be upset when we fail?

To call it sadism just because it involves killing and joy when we are successful is a bit of a stretch. Were humans sadistic when we hunted for food (and what about those who still do)? How is it different now? Isnt is natural for humans to hunt other animals, it is most certainly a part of our nature. Not to mention the moral relativism involved, I mean insects are animals too, and most humans would agree there is nothing that wrong with killing an insect that bothers you, or bites you. So does this apply to mammals only? What about reptiles, fish, and birds? How exactly do we determine the value of the life of an animal, with a human we can at least compare their life to our own life, with animals it is much more difficult to do.

 

[Deleted member]

Well, it's how I see hunting, and I eat meat.

(Imagine a role reversal - if you were being hunted for sport. You would undoubtedly call the hunter a sadist)

Hunting for food and hunting for sport is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT HOLY ****

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

As manhunter stated so well, coming home without a kill leaves a hunter upset due to the overall failure of the situation, not the fact that he lost the opportunity to watch a creature fall over, squirm, whine, and bleed to death.

We should ban martial arts. It lets people violently abuse fellow human beings. I'm sure that stirs up some twisted emotions inside the combatants.

 

[Deleted member]

As manhunter stated so well, coming home without a kill leaves a hunter upset due to the overall failure of the situation, not the fact that he lost the opportunity to watch a creature fall over, squirm, whine, and bleed to death.

Poetic. Who knew a Republican was capable of human emotion

We should ban martial arts. It lets people violently abuse fellow human beings. I'm sure that stirs up some twisted emotions inside the combatants.

Martial arts are SELF INVOLVED

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Poetic. Who knew a Republican was capable of human emotion

I'm not even sure what you're getting at with this. I just find it funny that when people run out of things to say, they just attack my political alignment with weird jabs like this. What am I supposed to do?

Uh... uh... you Canadian idiot!

Martial arts are SELF INVOLVED

You sound more like you're more in favor of animal rights than in opposition of guns. Just a second ago, you were opposing hunting on the basis of sadism. Why is clay shooting so bad? You said that needs to be investigated.

 

[Deleted member]

I'm cranky. Sue me. <3

Trust me, I just think hunting is ********. Animal rights is a separate discussion. Technology helps us avoid any sort of inhumane slaughter, and we don't need to hunt any more for food. (Rarely.) For-sport hunting is just cruel.

The only reason I bring up sadism is because it's one of the reasons why I'm questioning your pathetic excuses for gun ownership. You say you use guns for hunting... okay? I also question hunting. It's related.


You don't need a gun. Stop acting like you do.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

You skipped the clay shooting part. That is an Olympic sport, even. Is that bad?

By the way, I agree that hunting just for sport is quite ridiculous.

 

[Deleted member]

Sorry, I guess you ninja'd your post. I don't see a problem with clay-shooting, but don't jump down my throat yet. Those are different terms. Go ahead and shoot plastic ****, just do it under governed control.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Go ahead and shoot plastic ****, just do it under governed control.

We do. Laws govern how/when people can shoot... or do you mean we should go to a facility, check out a rifle, shoot stuff under supervision, etc.?

 

[Deleted member]

Laws govern how/when people can shoot.

Seeing as how we see gun-related violence every single day, this point doesn't apply. It's not good enough.

 

[manhunter098]

And would taking guns away from law abiding citizens actually reduce gun violence effectively Del?

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Seeing as how we see gun-related violence every single day, this point doesn't apply. It's not good enough.

But you've just hit the heart of the problem. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens doesn't magically cut off the supply of guns to law-breaking ones.

 

[Crimson King]

Del, in the last few posts, I am convinced you have no idea what you are talking about.

If hunting is sadistic for food is sadistic in anyway, then slaughter houses are the pinnacle of sadism. Do I or would I hunt? No. Is there anything wrong with people hunting? No. You have no valid argument against hunting or clay-shooting so you create a new argument that it is suddenly sadistic to do so. In some places, if you don't hunt for ducks or alligators or nutria (here for the last one), their numbers would become so over-saturated that they'd kill the ecosystem. Nutria are these otter-looking rodents that live in the water and do massive damage to the marshes and swamps here. They are completely out of control, population-wise, so the state of Louisiana offered a bounty for every pelt brought in. This was the only way to actually keep them "in control," and it's still not working that great. Is there anything wrong with this? According to you, it's sadistic.

Also, I'd love for you to answer manhunter's question as well as mine: what is wrong with me owning a firearm if I only use it for target practice and self-defense? Answer this with the knowledge that the police aren't there to protect you, but to solve crimes. If I am at home, and a burgler breaks in, then I am screwed if his intention is to kill me if I do not have a firearm. I will become evidence in his arrest, but that's about it.

 

[aeghrur]

And would taking guns away from law abiding citizens actually reduce gun violence effectively Del?

I'm pretty sure it has no effect.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
It seems pretty random. =/

^CK:
A burgler's intention is to kill you? Then he's a murderer not a burgler. Guns would more likely cause a burgler to shoot than not because both of you have weapons, and they're not to the point of M.A.D. Also, if you didn't have a weapon, he'd have no reason to shoot unless you became aggressive. However, if you did have a weapon, he might shoot out of fear.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I'm pretty sure it has no effect.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
It seems pretty random. =/

^CK:
A burgler's intention is to kill you? Then he's a murderer not a burgler. Guns would more likely cause a burgler to shoot than not because both of you have weapons, and they're not to the point of M.A.D. Also, if you didn't have a weapon, he'd have no reason to shoot unless you became aggressive. However, if you did have a weapon, he might shoot out of fear.

He doesn't lose his burglar status by becoming a murderer. >_>

If he came with the express intent to kill you, then he would be a murderer exlusively.

 

[Crimson King]

I'm pretty sure it has no effect.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
It seems pretty random. =/

^CK:
A burgler's intention is to kill you? Then he's a murderer not a burgler. Guns would more likely cause a burgler to shoot than not because both of you have weapons, and they're not to the point of M.A.D. Also, if you didn't have a weapon, he'd have no reason to shoot unless you became aggressive. However, if you did have a weapon, he might shoot out of fear.

Actually, you are wrong. If you are home when someone is robbing you, you are more likely to be attacked and/or killed because you are now a witness.

Also, it's interesting you chose to list by country versus by state:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html - by state
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_vio_cri-crime-violent - by state

DC, which has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, still has a higher crime rate than states like Alaska and Wyoming which has some of the highest gun ownership numbers.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Clay shooting and casual hunting need to be investigated. Everything needs to be investigated.

Let me start by saying that I'm all for animals' rights, I even donate to the Humane Society now and then. So I'm not being sadistic here; but your statements (and subseqquent arguments) are besides the point. We're talking about whether people should be able own the guns, not what they should do when they have them.

I do think people should have the right to own guns; just look at Florida's results when adapting a right-to-carry law. Between 1987 (the year the law was enacted) and 1996, the following changes occured in Florida and the US as a whole:

Homicide Rate
Florida: -36%
US: -.4%

Firearm Homicide Rate
Florida: -37%
US: +15%

Handgun Homicide Rate
Florida: -41%
US: +24%


Furthermore,

Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them.

Source
___________________________________

That said, I think some of the current laws should be more restrictive. For instance, I don't think that Antique guns should be exempt from the Brady Bill and neither should sales by those who don't possess a Federal Firearms License.

Also, in my humble opinion, I don't really think it's necessary to have a shotgun, rifle, etc. to defend yourself. A handgun is really all that's necessary.

 

[aeghrur]

Actually, you are wrong. If you are home when someone is robbing you, you are more likely to be attacked and/or killed because you are now a witness.

Hm, so be it.

Also, it's interesting you chose to list by country versus by state:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html - by state
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_vio_cri-crime-violent - by state

DC, which has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, still has a higher crime rate than states like Alaska and Wyoming which has some of the highest gun ownership numbers.

Yes, but Rhode Island, which has very low gun ownership also has lower occurrences of violent crimes. Notice I say occurrences of violent crimes because your source does not show violent crime per capita, nor a percent, but rather a total, thus it cannot be called a crime "rate."

Hawaii, with a very low gun ownership percentage has low crime occurrences as well.
However, West Virginia, which has a high gun ownership percentage has low crime occurrences.
Texas, which has a higher gun ownership rate than Connecticut, but lower rate than Wyoming, yet has more violent occurrences than both of them!

Let me start by saying that I'm all for animals' rights, I even donate to the Humane Society now and then. So I'm not being sadistic here; but your statements (and subseqquent arguments) are besides the point. We're talking about whether people should be able own the guns, not what they should do when they have them.

I do think people should have the right to own guns; just look at Florida's results when adapting a right-to-carry law. Between 1987 (the year the law was enacted) and 1996, the following changes occured in Florida and the US as a whole:

Homicide Rate
Florida: -36%
US: -.4%

Firearm Homicide Rate
Florida: -37%
US: +15%

Handgun Homicide Rate
Florida: -41%
US: +24%


Furthermore,



Source
___________________________________

That said, I think some of the current laws should be more restrictive. For instance, I don't think that Antique guns should be exempt from the Brady Bill and neither should sales by those who don't possess a Federal Firearms License.

Also, in my humble opinion, I don't really think it's necessary to have a shotgun, rifle, etc. to defend yourself. A handgun is really all that's necessary.

There... are many reasons why the crime went down. Just because gun ownership went up and crime went down doesn't mean it was the only factor in the equation. For example, another reason crime went down could be because abortion was legalized!
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

 

[KrazyGlue]

There... are many reasons why the crime went down. Just because gun ownership went up and crime went down doesn't mean it was the only factor in the equation.

True, there could be many reasons, but such a strong correlation between the right to carry policy and decline in violence during the 9 years after the policy was adapted seems to point towards the less restrictive laws. Unless there is some other major reason in Florida that caused firearm homicide growth to be 52% different from the national average, the right to carry policy would seem to have a strong relation.

If you're still not convinced, I'll go search for Florida's homicide rates before the policy.

For example, another reason crime went down could be because abortion was legalized!
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

True, this fact was actually brought up in a very interesting book called "Freakonomics". Good read. Still, this effected crime on a national level, which fails to explain why Florida's firearm crime rate decreased while the national level increased.

 

[aeghrur]

True, there could be many reasons, but such a strong correlation between the right to carry policy and decline in violence during the 9 years after the policy was adapted seems to point towards the less restrictive laws. Unless there is some other major reason in Florida that caused firearm homicide growth to be 52% different from the national average, the right to carry policy would seem to have a strong relation.

If you're still not convinced, I'll go search for Florida's homicide rates before the policy.

But 30 other states had this same law by 1998 as well, yet the national firearm homicide growth rate went up. If this law was the reason, wouldn't it go down because a majority of the states have this law? Well, at least after 1998. =/

True, this fact was actually brought up in a very interesting book called "Freakonomics". Good read. Still, this effected crime on a national level, which fails to explain why Florida's firearm crime rate decreased while the national level increased.

Written by the same guy
Yes, but this law doesn't explain why the crime rate didn't go down in the 30 other states. =/ Or at the time, the 9 other states because 9 states had them before florida. Did they see the same kind of decline in violent acts?

 

[KrazyGlue]

But 30 other states had this same law by 1998 as well, yet the national firearm homicide growth rate went up. If this law was the reason, wouldn't it go down because a majority of the states have this law? Well, at least after 1998. =/



Written by the same guy
Yes, but this law doesn't explain why the crime rate didn't go down in the 30 other states. =/ Or at the time, the 9 other states because 9 states had them before florida. Did they see the same kind of decline in violent acts?

Well, here's a quote from the conclusion of an objective study on all the states that had a similar law by 1994 (which is when they did the study):

It is also important to recognize the dramatic effects that a small number of murderers can have in some of the smaller states from year to year. The murder rates of West Virginia, Idaho, and Montana, are all dramatically variable from year to year, because the populations are small, and one serious criminal can dramatically raise the murder rate one year, followed by a dramatic drop when he is caught or moves on. As a result, the experience of the larger states is more useful for judging the effects of the non- discretionary issuance laws.

Are there any conclusions to be drawn here? In Florida, carry reform appears to have done some good, and perhaps saved a number of lives, although much more detailed statistical analysis would be required to isolate with certainty the carry reform law as a factor in the homicide rate decline. In Virginia, where some judges subverted the clear intent of the legislature, the reform law appears to have not been effective. In Georgia, where the change resulted from an Attorney General's reinterpretation of the law, the evidence suggests that carry reform perhaps might have reduced murder rates. In West Virginia, the results are inconclusive. In Oregon, the new law took effect with murder rates already in decline, and it is impossible to determine whether or how much the new law contributed. In Pennsylvania, legal reform might, arguably, have done some good in Philadelphia, and apparently done no harm outside of Philadelphia. In Idaho, Montana, and Mississippi, the results are inconclusive.

In several of the states, the positive results would seem to have been most dramatic the year of adoption, with results tapering off afterwards. This may be a result of publicity about the law discouraging criminals, or the result of publicity encouraging a short burst of law-abiding citizens applying for permits.

In neither large or small states do we see evidence of obvious long-term increases in murder rates after passage of these laws. This is the most significant, certain conclusion that can be drawn from the data presented above. The experience of the carry reform states plainly shows that homicide rates will not increase as a result of crimes committed by persons with carry permits. Carry reform legislation may or may not reduce the homicide rate, but reform legislation clearly does not raise the homicide rate.

Whole study (very long)

I just see it as an unnecessary restriction of freedoms to over-control guns, especially considering it has never shown any negative effects, and sometimes has even reduced violence.

 

[aeghrur]

Well, here's a quote from the conclusion of an objective study on all the states that had a similar law by 1994 (which is when they did the study):



Whole study (very long)

I just see it as an unnecessary restriction of freedoms to over-control guns, especially considering it has never shown any negative effects, and sometimes has even reduced violence.

Hm, yeah. That's basically what I was hoping it said, which is it's inconclusive, lol.
It's interesting that it never has a negative effect though. =/

 

[manhunter098]

Its not really all that interesting (well maybe interesting, but not really surprising). A gun that you purchase legally is going to be much easier to trace than a gun that you purchased illegally. So basically its better for criminals to get their weapons illegally, rather than legally, even if they have no criminal record and could pass a background check.

 

[Aesir]

Its not really all that interesting (well maybe interesting, but not really surprising). A gun that you purchase legally is going to be much easier to trace than a gun that you purchased illegally. So basically its better for criminals to get their weapons illegally, rather than legally, even if they have no criminal record and could pass a background check.

Which is why law enforcement should be more focused on shutting down gun trafficking, I just don't see how restricting legal purchases is going to stop criminals from getting guns.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Which is why law enforcement should be more focused on shutting down gun trafficking, I just don't see how restricting legal purchases is going to stop criminals from getting guns.

^Yes​

Instead of restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens, the government should crack down on the activities of those who purchase guns illegally.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Banning guns might have been effective back when they were first invented; at least then there was a chance of preventing them from entering circulation. Today, though? Not a chance.

 

[Crimson King]

NO SIGS, NEWBIE!

What I would love to see is a statistic on how many of the firearm homicides are related to illegally purchased or unregistered guns. Chances are that if you are going to commit a crime with an unlicensed weapon, restricting or not restricting them will have no real affect.

Also, it was mentioned that we should tighten up the illegal gun trade. This maneuver is completely pointless. When you tighten up the means for something, you make the product more valuable. If I want a gun to rob a bank, I'd spend a good bit to make sure it's A. untraceable, B. easy to use, and C. easy to get. If I have to spend a few grand to do this, I would. The criminal MAY not be able to avoid guns for the sake of buying guns, so you'd clean up the streets somewhat, but in the end, you'd make the crimes they do commit more violent and more costly.

This issue, along with the drug issue, comes down to the fact that our borders are easily crossable. Unless you build a large wall around all of the United States, blackmarket goods will still get in, and the more illegal they are, the more they will cost, and the more the cost, the more money they will grant the criminals who are selling it.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

LOL! Wow, how did that happen? I thought the Debate Hall had a fancy trick that banned all sigs automatically. As a result, I never gave it any thought. Is it because I'm an admin that it slipped through? Or did the room change?

Don't make me slap you, CK.

Anyway... gun control sux.

 

[Aesir]

Also, it was mentioned that we should tighten up the illegal gun trade. This maneuver is completely pointless. When you tighten up the means for something, you make the product more valuable. If I want a gun to rob a bank, I'd spend a good bit to make sure it's A. untraceable, B. easy to use, and C. easy to get. If I have to spend a few grand to do this, I would. The criminal MAY not be able to avoid guns for the sake of buying guns, so you'd clean up the streets somewhat, but in the end, you'd make the crimes they do commit more violent and more costly.

Uh what? you're joking right?

So working to crack down on illegal gun trafficking, which basically keeps guns out of the hands of criminals is pointless? Great argument.

We could do so much in cracking down on illegal gun trade by just removing several limits that ATF has to obey.

Such as but not limited to:
Inspecting gun dealers
Removing the licenses of corrupt gun dealers, along with fining and suspending licenses.
ect...

This issue, along with the drug issue, comes down to the fact that our borders are easily crossable. Unless you build a large wall around all of the United States, blackmarket goods will still get in, and the more illegal they are, the more they will cost, and the more the cost, the more money they will grant the criminals who are selling it.

Yeah lets just blame the Mexicans. A wall isn't going to solve anything, if crime easily crossing over is such a huge problem to you maybe we should stop support with NAFTA and WTO, since it basically strangles farmers. If farming was a profitable business in Mexico they wouldn't need drug cartels to keep their economy afloat.

 

[Xsyven]

You realize that prohibition is just a fairy tale, right? When an object becomes illegal, it usually just makes it impossible to get... legally. Illegal merchandise is everywhere. Its pretty much impossible for guns to not exist in the United States.

Those committing crimes aren't afraid to obtain a gun illegally. In fact, they usually already do. Restricting guns will most likely take guns out of the hands of responsible gun owners. It's kind of like how its easier for kids to find marijuana than beer.

And of course we can blame Mexico! Its the only country that borders the United States with lax laws. It's not that it's a racist statement, its just that it's much, much easier to get away with things there.

 

[Aesir]

I somehow knew this would happen, I'm now being confused with anti-gun people now. AWESOME.

You realize that prohibition is just a fairy tale, right? When an object becomes illegal, it usually just makes it impossible to get... legally. Illegal merchandise is everywhere. Its pretty much impossible for guns to not exist in the United States.

When did I say I was in favor of prohibiting gun usage? I'm in favor of cracking down on illegal gun trade, when did that become synopsis for banning legal guns?

Those committing crimes aren't afraid to obtain a gun illegally. In fact, they usually already do. Restricting guns will most likely take guns out of the hands of responsible gun owners. It's kind of like how its easier for kids to find marijuana than beer.

Are you done with text book responses? do you actually wanna read my post now? Because I really hate repeating myself.

My position isn't about restricting guns, it's about enforcing laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and gun traffickers. Where you're getting the idea that I'm restricting gun rights is beyond me.

And of course we can blame Mexico! Its the only country that borders the United States with lax laws. It's not that it's a racist statement, its just that it's much, much easier to get away with things there.

Which is a problem that a wall can't solve. If our drug laws were more lax do you really think Mexican criminals would becoming here? Of course not our drug laws in many ways play a role in the increased crime rates associated with drugs. But this isn't about how evil Mexico is.