The Anti-Gun Nuts and what they really want..

http://www.nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/Read.aspx?ID=2283#

"handguns have no legitimate purpose in civilian hands"

--Bitch

Watch out folks, your 2nd amendment rights are under fire.

>>1
Oh, something I forgot to add in... there are four videos there to watch.   Just scroll down, and watch. 

If you think that is frightening, you should see this film: 

http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/

>>1 That girl was such a bitch.. seriously.  Who the fuck does she think she is trying to dictate what items of property people in other countries can or can't own. 

Fuck the U.N. and fuck her.

>>4
UN conference and all the world leaders are there. Would be incerible awesome if say 500 or so gun nuts would storm there. Although I'm pretty sure it would lead to just more gun laws, so don't go doing it even though it would be true justice.

No ive got it. We storm the place using only coconuts for weapons. This will draw attention away from guns and lead to a ban of coconuts, this will protect gun rights AND cripple africa's economy. Its a win win

>>6
But how can you kill with coconuts?

I agree. Civilians and ordinary police have no place carrying firearms.

>>8
Enjoy your police state.

>>7 Well you see its quite simple you just hurl it at whoever you are trying to kill and hit their nose at an upward angle shoving their nosebone into their brain. If this technique is too advanced to learn before the conference, perhaps you could hire chimpanzee mercenaries?

>>9 second and thirded

>>1-11

Gun nuts.  amerikans.

They should disallow handguns, but let us keep rifles.

>>14
gun nut

>>8
>>12
>>14
goverment loving security fetishists.

>>15
Yeah, really.

"OH SHIT MY KID GOT SHOT IN A SCHOOL SHOOTING LETS AMEND THE FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS LOL!!!!!!!"

Seriously, who gives a fuck? I sure don't.  What I DO give a fuck about, is my right to bear arms. 

Fuck the U.N., and fuck gun control.

>>13
Actually, studies show that in situations where that is done, the death toll from crimes actually goes up.  Long guns are so much more powerful than handguns, and statistics show that in crimes committed with longguns rather than handguns that the death rate is very, very significantly higher.  Long guns are far more powerful than handguns... far more.

You should all see the movie Innocents Betrayed. 

http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/

>>1
A rifle that can shoot over a hundred yards? LOL

>>17
As said in some very classic western(was it Once Upon a Time in America?), I'm ashamed for not remembering what movie it was or how quote did really go. Anyway it was something like "If you want to kill a man bring a rifle" and it was about superiority of rifles over pistols and shotguns.

>>20
I ofcourse meant west not America(that was mafia movie).

>>1 Okay, so gun control bad, I feel that. So, I take it that the level of murders/capita in the US is actually the result of social factors rather than lax gun legislation? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm simply assuming the gist of what I've gathered so far. My real concern with it all is that somehow the limit of the 2nd is an offense that damns the entire left. Come on, the rightwingers are even worse on the constitution and Bush has stepped over more legislation than all other presidents combined.

>>22
That's true. While gun control might reduce murder it's so small amount it's not worth it. Murders are already very rare. Also no-one kills because of gun. Removing tool does nothing to problem itself. Also depends on what you mean by right wingers. Libertarians are right wing, but they're probably only party in America that actually cares about constitution.

>>5 LOL

>>22
Yeah.. the libertarians will protect the constitution.

But back to the main two parties, and what you think of them..  The problem with that line of thinking, is that not ALL republicans are for violating the constitution.  There are a few of them, such as the members of the RLC (Republican Liberty Caucus) that are kinda halfways between Libertarians and Republicans. 

http://www.rlc.org/

So, not all republicans are bad... but the elections have "primaries."  In these, various republicans and dems run for who is going to be the "runners" for each party.  So, really, you could vote for RLC type republicans rather than bush-type neo-cons. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-conservative

The other thing to consider, is that, in the past, the 2nd amendment has shown itself to be the freedom that defends and preserves the rest.  All (or a lot) of the revolutions of history, (most notably the american one) couldn't have happened if the populous was not armed. 

If the people get too discontented with things, they can change things with bullets rather than ballots if it comes to it... not the case if the Democrats have their way.

There is a reason that red flags should go up when they start violating the second amendment in particular.... it's the people's last and final means of defense against despotism.

http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/

In that movie, it examines the historical link between tyranny, despotic/tyrannical regimes, and gun control.  It's a really scary movie... and is definitely something you should keep in mind as your politicans start speaking of the benefits of their "gun control."

oddly enough
"That's true. While gun control might reduce murder it's so small amount it's not worth it. Murders are already very rare. Also no-one kills because of gun. Removing tool does nothing to problem itself. Also depends on what you mean by right wingers. Libertarians are right wing, but they're probably only party in America that actually cares about constitution."
sums up the pro gun argument pretty well.

some problems I have with the pro gun arguments.
american per capita criminal gun death rate is 20 times higher then englands.

for whatever reason, gun nuts LOVE LOVE LOVE to point out that violence and robbery and murder trends up in england, and down in the US.  well two things, it's still 20:1 US : england criminal gun death wise (non criminal gun death it's higher) and now it's trending up in the US too, so stop with that dumb stuff please, it never made sense, now it no longer true.

another point on that... it's 20:1 vs england, it's even higher vs japan.  something like 25,000 people are killed with guns in the US, it barely breaks 2 didgits in places where there's strict gun control.  I forget if 25000 is gross, or criminal or whatever.

as for "it's a tool.  nuclear weapons, napalm, chem/bio weapons, tanks, helicopter gunships, land/sea mines.  these are all things that should be given out like condiments at mcdonalds or milk at starbucks.  what person in their right mind would nuke hiroshima or nagasaki if they had two nukes, I mean, why not blow up an uninhabited island or something.  I'm mixing arguments, but here's the killer.

it turns out guns do kill people, and I don't mean that the confinement of rapidly expanding gasses in a tube propel a slug of metal to a velocity on a trajectory that intersects someone's body.

I mean that in a society where gun ownership is low, there are fewer suicides.  guns make suicide fun... apparently, so anyway.  guns kill.

as for the constitution.
something like "for the safety of the nation the right for a well regulated militia to bear arms shall not be infringed"

no sane fuck says that that absolutely means that every citizen should be allowed to bear whatever arms he/she wants.  so again.  when you winge on about "our rights" "our rights" when did you join a well regulated militia might I add?

back in the day, the principle military force was the militia.  today it's the army navy and airforce.  they have replaced the well regulated militia.

so do the math.  is the bill of rights carte blanch for you to carry guns?  sorry, but no.

as for "machine guns are never used in crime"
yes it's rare, but it happens.  stop lying.  you're arguments are shit enough as is.

>>26
Plz, stop trying to act like you have any semblence of credibility.  Comparing crime rates between the United States and the UK is ridiculous.  Crime is more based on economic and cultural factors than whether or not a person simply has a gun.

As for this... that is wrong, the second amendment reads: 

"as for the constitution.
something like "for the safety of the nation the right for a well regulated militia to bear arms shall not be infringed"

That is quite a perversion of what it actually says.  Here is the actual 2nd Amendment, folks: 

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It clearly implies that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is for the preservation and protection of a "free state."  It is, at least in part, to deter despotism and tyrrany.  The argument that it is a collective right vs. the argument that it is an INDIVIDUAL right (meaning the military argument is completely wrong, since that is 'collective'), is really quite old, and hardly anyone who is anyone follows it anymore.  In all the other 10 amendments, "the people" refers to an individual right.  Don't you think it might in this one too, dumbass?

http//www./...

"I mean that in a society where gun ownership is low, there are fewer suicides.  guns make suicide fun... apparently, so anyway.  guns kill."

People should be able to commit suicide if they want.  If their lives are that shitty that they'd want to, to keep them from doing it would be equivalent to torture.  Seriously, if some 90 year old guy is sitting on his deathbed with terminal cancer, but will likely have to live through another 3 months of agony before he dies, wouldn't you rather just let him shoot himself, and give him a quick and relatively painless death?

You don't own other people or their bodies.  If they want to kill themselves, and it doesn't cause physical injury to others, there is no fucking reason not to let them do it.  

"it turns out guns do kill people, and I don't mean that the confinement of rapidly expanding gasses in a tube propel a slug of metal to a velocity on a trajectory that intersects someone's body."

Oh, shit, guns can kill people? Damn, that's news to me.  Good thing you let me in on that little secret.


You want to take my guns? Come pry them from my cold dead fingers you fucking commie punk.

>>26
GB2UK if you prefer to trade freedom to safety. Not all people want goverment to baby you like you seem to. Not all people fear terrorists, robbers or even death. America was build to be truly liberal(in real sense) society and should return more to it's roots. You can get out if you don't like it. Good going also for ignoring cultural differences in Japan that keep crime rate low and the fact that about 80% of crimes in US are done by poor minorities living in hellholes like NY and the fact that those places have strixt gun control has changed nothing.

Enjoy live and enjoy guns don't live in world of irrational fears. If you have common sense(ie. don't be asshole, don't go to slums or shady bars) the change of you being shot is comparable to change that you'd win lottery, lightning would strike at you.

Guns make it harder to murder, because then people can protect themselves. Take away guns and men aged 18-35 have an advantage over everyone else, give the people guns and everyone is on equal terms.

>>29
Exactly.  And women are especially vulnerable.  Without guns, they are so much easier for large men to rape, assault, kill, etc.

>>26
Move to China if you prefer Socialism.  There are plenty of Socialist countries in the world.  Stop polluting the United States with your garbage.

>>29
Not exactly. Guns aren't that effective in hands of untrained person, but this is not argument for control it's more argument against it. For a person who has never shot gun it's much easier to kill unarmed man with axe than gun. Don't have that much range, but in home invasion scenario that doesn't really matter.

>>26
Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it state that you MUST BE IN A MILITIA to actually keep and bear the said arms.

>>33
If you read it carefully you see that militia actually refers to whole people of state meaning that armed people would form militia in case needed and people's right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed.

>>26
Stop relying on the nanny state.  Buy a pistol and handle your personal defense yourself.  Studies show it takes the cops 20-30 minutes to get to your home.  This could be much longer if you live in rural areas. 

>>26
Enjoy your police state.

>>26
The 2nd Amendment is an individual right. 

http://www.nra-ila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=192

a pistol for personal defense?  I thought it was to keep uncle sam inline, because sure, he may have the army, navy, and air force, but for instance a place with a lot of guns like Iraq could easily fight off... lets see, about 75,000 combat troops iirc... with more tanks really then pistols... but still, they held against the US military for hours.  HOURS... sure that doesn't really bode well if instead of T-62's you have pistols and sks' like the US citizenry...

uhhh.  please take this message from me, to your leader, the NRA. 


"you're a fucking boob"

>>38
That poster was talking about the uses of firearms for self-defense at the time.  His current argument had nothing to do with repelling tyranny and despotism.

>>38
There's so many reasons to own a firearm...

A deterrant to tyranny
self-defense
sport (hunting)
shoot stuff in the backyard just for the fuck of it

Take your pick.  There's plenty, not just a single.  I'm sure the founders had in mind many reasons why the populous should be armed, not just one. 

Nevertheless, it is safe to say that deterring tyranny was a big part of it.