Surely the gun ban must be working right? I mean it worked so well they are on their way to banning pointy kitchen knives....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

SURELY the next ban will be baseball bats and large pieces of lumber.

Check out the top countries in the 21st century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

Are we really comparing the military of the United States to some insurgents in Iraq and some guys living in a jungle?

The difference is weaponry. The U.S. has nukes. They have other big ass bombs. You can't beat them if they use them. I just don't see how you could possibly find a way for some guys armed with shotguns to defeat a government that can kill everyone in the country in a matter of minutes.

Uhm, yes, our military is fighting in Iraq right now, so that does seem a worthy comparison :thumbsup

Now under some circumstances in which the gov't was willing to render our entire countryside uninhabitable for the next several millennia or more with nukes, then yes in that case they would undoubtedly "win", if you want to call it that.

However that set of circumstances seems extremely unlikely. People who want to gain an undue amount of power, probably would want to have power over something other than a nuclear wasteland. Which leaves them to conventional warfare such as is taking place right now in Iraq, with the exception that we have a much larger population that would be better armed than the Iraqis :2 cents:

Do you believe our citizens should be allowed to have bombs and nuclear missiles? Serious question. It would make the fight more fair, right?

If someone wouldn't already know how to make bombs from readily available materials, then they definitely shouldn't have one made by a weapons manufacturer. You do understand what the term 'improvised explosive device' means, don't you? You know, those IED's that have been killing our servicemen overseas for the past several years? What do you think they're made of? That said, if there ever was a need for such an item, they could be manufactured quickly & easily, so there is no legitimate need for anyone to stockpile the damn things or even possess one of them.

As to the question about the nukes, no of course not.

Why not though? Constitution says "right to bear arms". A nuclear weapon is considered arms.

How about you post an article by professionals that says that guns are great ....

The more guns, the more deaths.... A bit like the more traffic, the more sales...

Thread is about guns ..... you post a link to statistics about deaths by homicide .....
Do you want me to post one about deaths by aids ....

Amazing how to spin you can take any off topic article ... plain amazing.

for the same reason that the general public - and the world's militaries - should not be permitted to possess germ warfare capabilities.

those type of weapons kill indiscriminately.

when our nation was founded weapons technology was limited mainly to projectile weapons (yes, armor piercing ones in some cases, if the gun was big enough) and cutting instruments, so we can assume those are the type of arms they were referring to, weapons that a person is able to control and direct towards a particular target. modern firearms may look a bit different, however they function based on essentially the same principles as used back then.

the nightmare that is germ warfare and nuclear annihilation was inconceivable at that time, and is of little practical use in a battle of any nature on land that one intends to occupy after using it. it serves no purpose in the interest of preserving the republic against a rebel government and would provide no benefit in peacetime.

now please quit trying to be a smart ass :winkwink:

Its that simple! Even a child can think that up. But American gun owners wont read this and if they read it they will reject it. They dont want to know about it or will simply call it bs. Its crazy.

Are you intentionally trying to misinterpret what I wrote? Obviously my point was that the United States military has had trouble defeating well armed insurgencies who are fighting on their own territory such as the Viet Cong and the Sunni militias in Iraq.

Furthermore the idea that the military would follow orders to drop nuclear weapons on US cities or carpet bomb US civilians without a major split in the military command structure is ridiculous. As I stated before, in the case of a major civil war the military would split among similar partisan lines as the population. Study your history.

How fucking hard is it to understand that if there are more guns in houses and on the streets they are more likely to be used and its more dangerous then when there are no guns around.
Look at the damn police in the US. They pull people over while holding their hand on their gun or even already pulled the gun in certain areas. Why? Because theres a big chance the dude has a gun on him. Here in Holland in a whole year there are less police deaths than in certain areas in America in 1 week. Geesh, why would that be? Because the police gets fucking shot after pulling over a car maybe? Oh wait, guns dont kill, people do. It has nothing to do with the gun :1orglaugh
People who use that sentence are thruly the most retarded dumb brainless fuckfaces i can think off. Guns were made for killing and nothing else.

Right. And just as in the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, the 2nd wouldn't reasonably allow you to own a nuclear weapon.

Interesting statistic there, considering that Canada has more guns per capita than the USA.

gotta love the continuous display of ignorance on this forum by people educated beyond their intelligence

http://www.issf-shooting.org/

Can i just plead the 5th on this seeing as the 2nd is complicated

How fucking hard is it to understand that the majority of Americans don't give a fuck about the danger of having guns around or the accidental deaths caused by guns or the intentional deaths caused by guns. America was forged by the gun and Americans love the right to own a gun and will not give up that right...and do not care what some foreign twink has to say about it. :321GFY

Another Urban legend .....

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

Now, americans can buy a car and get a free handgun as premium .... :1orglaugh

Its because you are a retard living in a retard country. And theres nothing you can do about it :1orglaugh

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/rt_re...070709_ssh.jpg

Do you realize that the way you think is simply because you are white trash. Youre a result of constant inbreeding. Generation after generation of sisters fucking brothers and you are the result. A retard who loves gun :1orglaugh If i had a gun in your case i would use it to shoot myself.

Or could that have to do with a small sea being in the way :1orglaugh

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/rt_re...070709_ssh.jpg

Theking, seriously, do you realize why you are thinking the way you are? Do you realize you are 100% pure white trash with a low IQ and thats why you love guns and think you live in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Do you realize you are a very, very simple person with very small brain. That everything you do and all the bullshit you post on gfy is simply because of that?

Look at the guy in the pic below. I dont know him but i can guarantee you hes on your level and talks and thinks exactly the same.
Doesnt that scare you?

http://southchild.com/images/redneck_horseshoes.jpg

This is your family Theking. This is your people. 2 braincells away from hanging in trees like apes.

http://www.redneck-world.com/wp-cont...edneck-004.jpg

You are trolling twink...that is your claim to fame...and thats all folks. Back to work for me.

Have fun redneck.

http://www.redneck-world.com/wp-cont...edneck-003.jpg

Dirty F, why no pictures of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc. etc. etc.? Not to mention quite a lot of brilliant minds on the adult side: Steve Lightspeed, Tony Morgan, Ron Cadwell, Rick Latona, etc. etc. etc.
All Americans, AFAIK. Or are they all low IQ retards too? I bet most of the money you make is a direct result of smart Americans.

Please post some more random stats trying to defend guns :1orglaugh

Statistics don't matter to anti-gun zealots. Your post will be ignored.

Your post will be ignored by anti-gun folks. Iceland must be brimming with religious low IQ Americans since so many guns exist there.

Correct. Applying the Constitution requires discretion.

Guns are not "the answer" to any particular problem. Owning a gun does not gaurantee safety against criminals, it can - but doesn't have to - increase homicide rates (many American communities and countries with large quantities of legal guns like Iceland are more safe than those without), owning guns does not gaurantee that a government cannot tyrannize its citizens. Owning guns is simply a right. In America you have the right to do anything (within reason) so long as it's lawful and you do not infringe on the freedoms of others. If somebody wants to own a gun to go to the shooting range for fun, to hunt, because he/she believes (wrongly or rightly) that they're more safe with one and they practise proper safety procedures, what's the problem?

because it conflicts with the notions instilled in being raised under a socialist regime :2 cents:

Some posts just need to be pulled onto the next page, for maximum effect.

Too bad you are the one quoting them so any effect is instantly gone.

My name is Franck.

I insult people on a message board.




Talk to me about credibility. :1orglaugh

I was born in Washington DC and lived there almost all my life, the gun ban was a joke.

All it did was keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

The funny thing is, the same argument you made about why more powerful weapons should not be allowed under the 2nd Amendment is the same argument Washington D.C. made about handguns.

And this isn't part of the discussion, but germ warfare wasn't inconceivable. It's been used since ancient times when one side would catapult dead people infected with bubonic plague onto the other sides territory during battle. It even took place on our own land when Indians would poison lakes with sick, dead, animal hides. British soldiers near the time of our independence would hand blankets ridden with small pox over to the Native Americans. None of this was inconceivable, especially since many of the writers of our Constitution has dealt with close family members being infected with smallpox.

Actually using the "clear and present danger" argument is actually something that would favor the dissenting side in this opinion. It can be argued that a handgun in the wrong hands can cause a "clear and present danger" to other individuals. Just as yelling fire in a theater can cause a "clear and present danger".

Pew Pew Pew Bang! Bang!

Ok just seeing if this thread was still going. Proceed to debate the problems of guns in America.

every single argument by gun owners here is not why the US government won't ban guns... they don't give a shit about your 'freedoms' etc. Dont you realize every decision is about money? Arms is one of the biggest businesses in the US, that's why they will never ban them. Governments don't give a shit about the people, every decision they make is based on money. So you're just lucky guns are too important for the economy otherwise they wouldn't hesistate a second to ban them.

Partially flawed as both sides have oodles of money. Plus both sides have masses voting power that can put people in office where they can make money.

Yes the US loves dealing in arms. Though the government tries to not be to keen on its people having arms. Well not always the government but the elected officials and special interest groups sure in the hell do. Yet at same time dealing them outside of our borders is not an issue and is indeed big business.

Clearly there are a few things that even the staunchest pro-gun advocate can admit:

- The majority of guns used in committing crimes were, at one point, legally purchased.
- That the likelihood of someone in your home being killed or wounded by a handgun increases dramatically if you keep a gun in your home.
- That the ability for people to own firearms without at least some firearms and safety training can lead to careless and sometimes wreckless use.
- The right to defend your home is certainly a strong argument, but owning a small arsenal is not a necessity for home defence.

So for every gun legally bought by and individual, the odds that someone, somewhere will be shot increases. It's simple logic.

But since guns are everywhere, I completely agree that that stopping the legal sale of guns would (at least in the short term) leave home owners and citizens defenceless. In the long term, there would be no guns and then you wouldn't have any valid excuse to need them to defend your home (that is, in countries with gun control they don't suffer from home invasions nearly enough to be concerned about it).

So as a bit of a compromise, why not at least force people who buy a gun to:
1) Be interviewed by an agent (likely of the police) for a basic evaluation of the individual
2) Be required to take a gun safety course
3) Be issued a licence (very simple, just showing they completed the course, etc.)
3) Register the firearm with the police and check back, perhaps once a year, with the gun (basically renewing the licence)

A pain in the ass? Sure it is. But to drive a car, look what you have to go through - and although cars can be dangerous, lets be honest, a gun is designed to shot people and yet it's easier to get one than a licence to drive a car, truck or 18-wheeler?

Hey, agree or not but as someone is certainly pro-gun control, at least I'm reaching across the aisle :)

You're twisting my words, I have said nothing about 'powerful' weapons.

I spoke merely of weapons of precision as opposed to weapons which cannot be controlled or directed and that kill indiscriminately. Those are two very different topics, do not confuse them.

I think it's safe to say that catapulting corpses infected with common and naturally occurring illnesses is a bit different than the exotic man-made or refined strains of extremely weird and deadly shit that scientists have cooked up in modern labs :winkwink: So yes, modern germ/chemical warfare would have been inconceivable to them. The framers of our constitution were no doubt brilliant men, but I don't think they could easily predict 150+ years of scientific "advancement" into a field which did not even exist during their lifetimes.