What's next, squirt guns? LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIAiQ5zFgA4&mode=related&search=

What kind of gun shall we ban next, squirt guns? How about cap guns?

>>1
Ban politicians who sell out the human right of the 2nd amendment.

Anything that resembles a gun should be banned.  That includes the state of Florida.

>>2  Win!

>>2
Ban all politicians for great justice.

>>5
Some people have to be politicians.

>>2
Hardly a human right, just something government gives you, can be taken away, through constitutional amendment. 

>>7
Its a human right, any logic you use to refute this right will in turn question any human rights. Shooting or shooting someone however, is not a human right. But the right to gun ownership is and always will be

>>8
Why should owning a gun be a human right?
If owning a gun is a human right, is owning anything else then also a human right? Child porn? Other things which are illegal to own, ie. drugs?

>>9
Child porn can’t be compared to guns for obvious reasons that I won’t explain. But drugs are in the same moral category, that’s why I support drug legalization (almost everything). Another common concern is where does it end? If you can justify a population with guns why not just make it nukes? Well the difference is nukes are a public good, or a public evil depending on your world view (this may sound familiar if you took economics in college). A nuke cannot be used in a way that only benefits or harms you and/or your enemy (even if no one dies you still get fallout) that’s why it can only exist under public control and not private.

owning a gun is in the american consitution. american constitution != the human rights.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html

this is a link to the human rights. the one you'll most likely refer to is article 17:

Article 17

   1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
   2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

now, if there is a law, set down by a government etc. which lives up to the human rights, banning guns, then you will not be arbitrarily deprived of the property which is your gun.


 

>>10
We are talking about human rights, not about what's good for society or not.
Human rights must be absolute or they have no fucking meaning.
Anything less than an absolute can be taken as flawed, meaning there is good reason to discredit it.
Restricting the "human right" to own a gun is compromising it, making it not absolute, thus, fucking meaningless.

Kinda funny how the USSR was a member of the UN for it's existence after WWII huh? Kinda how that collectivization of property that violated "human rights" wasn't under the Soviet System a violation of their constitutents human rights.

Crying "human rights" is an appeal to an authority history has proven the powerful care little about.  QQ nub, you don't have a right to your guns as much as you have a right to breathe clean air, although that latter one will be written off as a "choice".

I could go on but your fucking face got fucking pwned by
>>11.

>>12
The USSR was a vicious totalitarianism, it violated human rights as a means of exercising control.

Look, dumbasses with BB guns make my health insurance rates go up. I have to PAY when they shoot someone in the eye.  Either fine idiots extraordinarily for shooting someone (intentionally or not) or outlaw BB guns.  I'll accept either solution.

>>9
Yes, they all are, imo.  The only exception is possibly CP (child porn), because some could argue that you must violate someone's rights in order to get it.  I'm not sure about this one.  As for something that you don't need to violate someone's rights to own? Yes, it's a human right (such as guns or drugs). 

>>14
Then don't buy health insurance you stupid faggot.  Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to.  On the flipside, in the case of a gun owner, politicians would essentially be putting guns to the person's head, or using force or coercion of some kind to keep them from exercising their right to own bb-guns.

>>15

Guns kill people. That's what most of them do, and why most of them are made. Isn't that a severe violation of other person's rights? Anything whose sole purpose is to kill (and I mean another human being, sport hunting weapons would be alright to own) should not be legal to own.

>>17
Guns don't kill people.  People kill people. 

>>17
"Isn't that a severe violation of other person's rights?"

Peaceful gun ownership does not violate anyone's rights.

>>17
"Anything whose sole purpose is to kill (and I mean another human being, sport hunting weapons would be alright to own) should not be legal to own."

I disagree.  There are indeed times when killing someone is legitimate, at least to give you one reason.  Self-defense is entirely justified.  If I have a concealed firearm, and some nut that just jumped in through my livingroom window comes running at me with a knife, I have every right and justification in blowing his brains right out with my trusty .45 in order to keep him from harming me or my property.

>>18
People don't kill people.  Frogzilla kills people.

If guns kill people, pencils mispell words.

>>20

But then, if guns were legal to own, anyone breaking into your house is probably going to be holding a gun himself. Granted, there is an illegal weapons black market, but petty thieves performing burglary, and any of your average everyday criminals would not have access to them. The only possibly legitimate reason for owning a gun for self-defense is for self-defense against an oppressive government, or any other tremendous force that the average human being cannot stand up against; however, I think we could set up something so we could only have access to guns only during times of crisis. I simply don't think guns are necessary for everyday situations, especially when there are alternative, non-lethal methods for self-defense, and that by banning guns you reduce access to them for the irresponsible, stupid masses.

>>20


you seem to be getting things mixed up a tad.

self defense != shooting someone in the face with your gun.

if some nut comes running towards you with a knife you could also punch him in the face, grab your own kitchen knife, pick up the nearest bar chair and hit him with it, any of these things which hurt him, would be done in self-defense and thus be justified. this has nothing to do what-so-ever with owning guns.

>>24
No, he just wants to see the criminal not dead, but arrested, guns have no gradient for "force submission" only "shoot/don't shoot"

>>22  Classic.

>>17
"Anything whose sole purpose is to kill (and I mean another human being, sport hunting weapons would be alright to own) should not be legal to own."

Defense of liberty and freedom becomes nearly impossible without private ownership of firearms.  It is a necessary deterrant to tyrannical and or genocidal governments.  You should see this movie: 
http://www.jpfo.org/ib-orders.htm

>>24
Right, and doing any of those risks my life, health, and property.  I should not have to take that risk, nor should anyone else.  Shooting someone as a means of self-defense is totally justified. 

Oh, and to spice up this debate, here's a nifty little fact sheet I came across: 
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

>>24
You are a 65 year old female with a replacement hip and a 22 year old male nut comes running at you with a knife. How do you intend to dodge the blade, wrestle the knife off him and whack him over the head with a chair?

>>27 I should not have to take that risk, nor should anyone else.

YES LETTING PEOPLE OWN GUNS INCREASES THE GENERAL SAFETY OF THE POPULATION BY OVER 9000%

>>28
Mace? A taser? We have the technology to disable a person without doing permanent injury, or killing someone. The self-defense argument is ridiculous. Think about it. If guns were legal, why would he be holding a knife? He would, in all likelihood, have a gun himself. Now you have a 22 year old male with a gun already drawn and pointed at you while the lady would be fumbling in her purse to get her own out. Who is the winner there?

>>26
Yes, weapons are a deterrent to bad governments. But do we necessarily have to keep guns in a home, do we have to let the general public have access to guns at all times? Couldn't we store them in a local privately owned armory? Couldn't we ban people from owning guns outright, yet have a way to make it available in times of crisis?

>>3
ha ha ha

>>30
Your statement is based on the assumption that I am an idiot and I find that offensive. Of course if there were non-lethal alternatives then they would be more popular for home defense

Mace doesn't drop someone to the floor, tasers hurt like fuck but only drop someone 10% (usually not adrenaline and crack fueled nutcases) of the time, cannot penetrate hardenned leather armour (as thick as a belt) and cannot be heard from 500 metres across the entire neighbourhood. It is also larger and more clumsy to operate than the best snub nose or medium size handguns. You also forget that if someone is violating someone's liberties it doesn't matter if they die or not, as long as the victim's liberties are not violated to any greater extent. This is called justice.

>>32 *claps*

>>30
Good luck protecting your freedom from an abusive government with a taser.

>>33
>>32
WAY TO FUCKING READ ONLY 10% OF MY POST

>>30
"Yes, weapons are a deterrent to bad governments. But do we necessarily have to keep guns in a home, do we have to let the general public have access to guns at all times?"

If you don't have it in your home & ready to go at any time you might be about to be harassed or violated in some way, it can't really help you much.

"Couldn't we store them in a local privately owned armory? Couldn't we ban people from owning guns outright, yet have a way to make it available in times of crisis?"

Not really.  There are numerous problems here.  If all the guns are stored at local privately owned armories, rather than in homes, this means people are: 

1.  Less likely to be able to access them in an emergency (what if they aren't expecting it? If one had used that logic in Nazi germany, I could easilly see Hitler stationing troops just outside the armory, preventing any of his citizens from getting their guns to protect themselves from the coming mass murder.

2.  In general a nuisance.  Sports shooters and others shouldn't have to drive to an armory just to shoot off their guns. 

3.  Due to the nuisance factor, there will likely be far fewer people involved in shooting sports, and thus fewer people with firearms proficiency, and thus fewer people who are going to be an effective deterrant to tyranny.  Having a populous that is proficient with and uses firearms regularly is better than one that simply has them, although granted, simply having them would be better than an flat-out ban.

Also, if people can't keep them in their homes, they can't use them for self-defense in a time-sensitive emergency.  If a crackhead with a knife jumps in through the window, you can't tell him 'oh wait just a minute while i drive down to the armory to get my gun, then we can finish this little dispute.'

Telling someone where they can keep their gun also amounts to an infringement upon their property rights.  Property rights entail the right to both use and disposal as the individual sees fit.  If he owns a gun, he should be able to keep it where he wants.  I see little issue with people keeping guns in their homes anyways.  What do you have against it?

>>35
I have problems with viewing it as an effective defense against home invaders -- as stated, letting the home owner own a gun means letting criminals have guns too, so you end up with an even worse situation than a society that has banned guns, and as stated, I don't think black market weapons will end up in the hands of petty thieves and other unprofessional criminals.

I said in an earlier post that sport hunters should be allowed to keep their guns, since they aren't using it to commit murder.

I don't really see a problem with the armory idea, besides you pointing out technical problems that could be dealt with if it were actually implemented. It would obviously be heavily guarded to prevent the scenario you predicted. Besides, it wasn't a heavily thought out idea, just a plausible solution to the problem concerning the freedom to defend against the government that would also improve the safety of everyone within society.

It is simply the idea of a gun, and any other lethal weapon, that bothers me. To have it available to the public is to have it available to bad-minded people who would only use it to hurt others. And what would be its purpose outside of that? What is it going to do besides hurt other people? Is a gun useful for anything else? Not really.

>>36
"I have problems with viewing it as an effective defense against home invaders -- as stated, letting the home owner own a gun means letting criminals have guns too, so you end up with an even worse situation than a society that has banned guns,"

Um, the USA has allowed people to keep guns in their houses, and I don't think we are worse off than we would be with an outright gun-ban. 
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

"I said in an earlier post that sport hunters should be allowed to keep their guns, since they aren't using it to commit murder."

The problem there is that after you are done passing god knows how many irritating laws (like your idea of keeping guns at some sort of collection point for pickup when you want to use them), nobody (or hardly anyone) will be interested enough in the sport that they will want to go through all the bureaucracy that they will want to do it.  Even as it is, there are a lot of people who don't own guns because it has become too much a pain in the ass thanks to gun control laws.  Adding more laws will only add to this, and this is one reason not to add more laws, but to take laws away.

"I don't really see a problem with the armory idea, besides you pointing out technical problems that could be dealt with if it were actually implemented."

I don't see any suggestions for dealing with said problems yet.

"It would obviously be heavily guarded to prevent the scenario you predicted."

If the government can prevent criminals from getting them, it can prevent YOU from getting them in an emergency.

"Besides, it wasn't a heavily thought out idea, just a plausible solution to the problem concerning the freedom to defend against the government that would also improve the safety of everyone within society."

Plausible? Not in this country in this day and age.  I have little doubt that there would be a revolution in the USA if some political party told people they were going to have to store their guns in a government facility rather than their homes.  (Not necessarilly a violent revolution, but more likely a political one.)  I can only imagine how resoundingly the party who imposed that idea on the nations gun owners would be defeated in the following election.  Not only would it be a nuisance, it is indeed implausible.

"It is simply the idea of a gun, and any other lethal weapon, that bothers me."

That much is evident.  A lot of gun-control advocates are those with irrational fears of guns, much like you describe.  I'd like to recommend you go to a firing range sometime... buy or rent a gun, and try firing off a couple rounds.  Many find that, following this experiance, guns are no longer so frightening, but are actually quite fun to use.  Become acquainted with guns.. go to a firing range a few times.

"To have it available to the public is to have it available to bad-minded people who would only use it to hurt others."

Bad-minded people who would use them to hurt others are likely to find some way or other of hurting who they really want to hurt whether guns are legal or not.  If you make guns illegal, there are always other ways.  Almost anything can be turned into a deadly weapon depending on how it is used.

"And what would be its purpose outside of that? What is it going to do besides hurt other people? Is a gun useful for anything else? Not really."

This is just the typical sort of attitude I have come to expect from the anti-gun side.  You say that guns aren't useful for anything much but hurting people. 

Lets pretend for a minute I don't like the taste of ice cream.  Your comment above is like me saying I don't see much of a use for ice cream, and given the number of people who suffer heart trouble every year, we should ban ice cream.  From my standpoint, ice cream doesn't do much but serve to hurt people. 

Might not be the best of examples, but that is really how I view your comments there.  *YOU* don't see guns as having many uses outside of hurting people.  Does this mean I don't see any uses for guns outside of hurting people? Just because you don't like something or don't see a use for something doesn't mean other people think like you do.  Not all people are the same.  Some people can't even express their reason for wanting a gun, they just do.  They just want it.  And to me, that is plenty.  Nobody should have to explain why they need a firearm in order to have one.  Should I have to explain to you why I need a baseball bat in order to have one? Baseball bats can be used to seriously injure or even kill people. 

Many people simply like to own guns.  Many people like to shoot recreationally (such as shooting soda cans or bottles in their backyard).  Some people just want to collect them.  Some people feel safer owning them, and just want them to feel safer. 

Believe it or not, there are literally millions upon millions of americans who fit into one or more of these categories, and just because a few bad people use their firearms in an irresponsible manner does not justify collectively punishing every gun owner in america with thousands upon thousands of irritating laws, regulations, and/or gun bans.

And what of the people who have died, not because of legal guns, but because of not having the 2nd amendment? No, I'm not talking about the 170 million ++ people who were murdered by their governments this past century.  I am talking about people right here in the USA - deprived of castle doctrine laws, and right to carry laws.  In certain states, such as wisconsin or illionois, with either severely restricted right to carry (almost never issued), or else 'no issue', there are of course, thousands upon thousands of crimes.  You see them on the news frequently.  Ask yourself:  had those victims had concealed firearms with them, how many might have survived? Granted, not all of them would have made the choice to carry, but I think that the very least we should do is enable them to carry if they want to.  Rather than campaigning for gun regulation, I think you should campaign to make sure those last states without right to carry GET right to carry.  Think about all the victims whose lives have been spared or saved by right to carry, and think about the massive injustice perpetrated against the populations of these states by  the politicians in their action of preventing their citizens the means to defend themselves from attackers.  THIS is where your energy should be directed - getting these people the means to free them from being victims - not campaigning for more gun control. 
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=18
http://www.nraila.org/images/rtcmaplg.jpg

>>34
Wrong. As I have already proven, you are an idiot. The reason you think we haven't coverred your entire argument is because you cannot be botherred to analyse our points in context to the points we are criticising. I will be nice an do the thinking for you, but don't expect everyone to be as nice and me in the real world.

1: Guns are easier to use, therefore victims are more likely to be able to defend themselves.

If we take your example into account... Fumbling around in your bag for a pistol to defend yourself is less difficult than fumbling around in your bag for a bottle of mace. For a start a makarov can shoot through a bag and if you hit his leg it will take him down. Mace can do neither of these.


2: Having a few privately owned armouries makes it easier for the police to destroy an entier region's arms supply. We should have 300 million privately owned armouries. 1 per person, if they want a gun. Also crime can be committed in public places so we must permit firearms to be taken into public places.

The bottom line is:  people die, and there isn't squat you can do about it.  This is a fact of life.  People die, and there isn't anything you can do about it.  Gun-control supporters just can't seem to get over this fact.

I thought that the 2nd ammendment gave the right for well regulated militias to carry arms, not private individuals.
Countries outlawing gun ownership (Sweden, UK, Japan etc) are generally safer (less violent crime) than the US.
Another way of looking at it is that the gun consumers should pay for the associated costs (accidents, pollution etc) of allowing guns. It could be a VAT on the gun and ammo price, but the gun lobby would prolly not like this, because they are in the pocket of the gun companies.
People kill people, but the gun helps.

>>39

alot less people die if you have gun control. gun supporters just can't seem to get over this fact.

>>38

1: Guns are easier to use, therefore robbers are more likely to be able to kill other people.

lol fix'd

>>39
>>41
The bottom line is that both gun-control supporters and gun supporters just can't seem to get over the fact that even if you ban or not ban the guns they will be around either way. Basically making this discussion a waste of time, energy and bandwidth.

In america it is too easy to get a gun,
all the retard has to do show driver license.
that is why they have such dumb asses getting killed

In Canada you actually have to get trained
on gun safety and use then apply for a license
and if no criminal backgroud then you can get he gun license.

>>42
1: Guns are easier to use, therefore victims are more likely to be able to defend themselves from robbers.*

fix'd

>>40
"I thought that the 2nd ammendment gave the right for well regulated militias to carry arms, not private individuals."

No, the 2nd amendment gives the right to keep and bear arms to 'the people', not to 'well regulated militias'.  'The people' are the same 'people' in the rest of the bill of rights, so if you are going to say they don't have the right to keep and bear arms, that would also mean the bill of rights doesn't protect: 

the right of 'the people' to peaceably assemble

the right of 'the people' to be secure in their person's, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,  shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

the powers not delegated to the United states by the constitution, which would otherwise be delegated to the states, and/or to the people (important for all you pro-choicers.  without this amendment, it would mean abortion is NOT guaranteed under the bill of rights, so suck it.)


So yeah, if you are going to tell me the bill of rights doesn't give me an individual fucking right to keep and bear arms, that means the bill of rights doesn't protect those above rights for everyone else.  Beginning to realize how full of shit you are yet?


"Countries outlawing gun ownership (Sweden, UK, Japan etc) are generally safer (less violent crime) than the US."

And the parts of the US that have very lax gun control are safer on average than the countries you mention, generally.  Vermont, for instance, the state with some of the most lax gun laws in the nation, has been given the 'safest state' award or whatever for several years in a row for lack of crime. 

As for the UK? LOL! Since their gun ban, crimes involving firearms have actually INCREASED by 40%.  Good job you gun control faggots.

Sweden? Yeah, the crime rate is lower because nobody needs to steal - the government is your personal fucking nanny, and does the stealing from people for you.

"Another way of looking at it is that the gun consumers should pay for the associated costs (accidents, pollution etc) of allowing guns."

Explain to me why I should pay for jack shit, considering I haven't done anything.

"It could be a VAT on the gun and ammo price, but the gun lobby would prolly not like this, because they are in the pocket of the gun companies.
People kill people, but the gun helps."

People kill people, and guns help stop that. 

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

>>45
Exactly.

Lets compare murder rates you fuckers.

Washington, DC (25years after their gun ban):     46.4 per 100,000

Arlington, VA:       2.1 per 100,000

RELEVANT FACT SHEET:

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

gunz r evul

>>50
Yeah, because inanimate objects are capable of taking on human characteristics, right? Dumbass.

>>44
Correct. People should have the right to bear arms, but getting one should require background checks, no criminal record etc.

>>44
"In america it is too easy to get a gun,"

What would you prefer, forcing gun owners to proove they can do a few hundred pushups before purchasing or something? Jump through a few fiery hoops? Do a backflip or two? There is nothing wrong with the USA and its gun laws.  If anything, they are too restrictive.  Background checks are fine, but gun bans and bullshit bureaucratic gun laws & gun bans are not.

"all the retard has to do show driver license.
that is why they have such dumb asses getting killed"

No, we have 'such dumb asses getting killed' because of the drug war.  (Gang warfare, turf battles and whatnot.)

"In Canada you actually have to get trained
on gun safety and use then apply for a license"

So the fuck what? What if I don't fucking want to take gun safety or apply for a license? I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  Suck it bitch.

"and if no criminal backgroud then you can get he gun license."

More bullshit.  Actually, in many parts of Canada, gun owners are arbitrarilly denied gun licenses, sometimes for as little reason as that the license distributer just doesn't want you to have a gun, or doesn't think 'self-defense' is a good enough reason to have one. 

>>52
We have background checks in the USA already.  >>44 was asking for a hell of a lot more than a simple background check.  Gun licensing? Fuck off.

>>53
What is wrong with gun licensing?

"So the fuck what? What if I don't fucking want to take gun safety or apply for a license? I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  Suck it bitch."

You also have the right to freedom of speech, that doesn't mean you can yell "fire" in a movie theater or "bomb" on an airplane.

>>53

You think people should be able to drive without a license?

>>54
"What is wrong with gun licensing?

What is wrong with banning ice cream? What is wrong with licensing baseball bats?

Ok, aside from the fact that you simply shouldn't have to apply for a fucking license from some government bureaucrat to live your life or own something as basic as the means to defend yourself, there is also that little fact of how fucked up the gun licensing systems are in other countries.  In canada, among others, you must apply for your gun license from a government authority.  If the authority, for whatever reason, thinks you shouldn't have a gun (it could be they just don't want you to have one, or think 'self-defense' isn't a good enough reason), you flat out can't have one. 

Aside from that can of worms, there is also the whole point that gun registration is a slippery slope which tends to lead to confiscation.. which is somewhat substantiated by empirical evidence.

There is a difference between background checks and gun licensing/registration.  You can have background checks to prevent repeat-offending criminals from owning firearms without registering everyone's guns or licensing them.  Just make sure you have a law of some sort that mandates the destruction of records pertaining to who owns guns in a timely manner from the time at which the background check is completed.

"You also have the right to freedom of speech, that doesn't mean you can yell "fire" in a movie theater or "bomb" on an airplane."

If I own the movie theater or the airplane, I certainly can.  If someone else or the government does, they dictate what activities can or cannot go on there, clearly.

>>55
Yes.  Just this last century, we didn't have bullshit driver's licenses and got along fine without them.  We also didn't have gun control laws up until then, and we got along fine without those too. 

now this is getting sorta retarded be because gun people keep playing the "LOL SECOND AMMENDMENT" card, so let's instead talk about gun control - DISREGARDING THE SECOND AMMENDMENT!  or  if you had to write a new constitution, should the current second ammendment be in it?

>>56
Well, no drivers license were okay when there were to traffic rules (or are they also infractions on your rights?) and cars were slower than horses. And yeah, the wild west were a veritabel utopia thanks to the nonexistance of gun control laws.
The reason why we anti gunners want gun licenses is because you gun nuts seems so triggerhappy. I mean, if i accidently bumped into a person who were drunk, i would prefer that that person were unarmed than that he would be armed and ready to defend his mortal coil.

>>58
"Well, no drivers license were okay when there were to traffic rules (or are they also infractions on your rights?)"

Traffic laws are fine because you are on public property.  However, when you are on private property, such as inside a gun shop, you are not on public property.  When you are sitting in your lawn shooting tin cans with your remington, you aren't on public property. 

"and cars were slower than horses. And yeah, the wild west were a veritabel utopia thanks to the nonexistance of gun control laws."

http://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543/sr=8-1/qid=1168485671/ref=sr_1_1/104-4668493-6087905?ie=UTF8&s=books

"The reason why we anti gunners want gun licenses is because you gun nuts seems so triggerhappy. I mean, if i accidently bumped into a person who were drunk, i would prefer that that person were unarmed than that he would be armed and ready to defend his mortal coil."

You are a fucking idiot.  Taking away the basic human rights of an entire nation based on irrational and factually unsupported fears is bullshit.  Privately owned firearms lower crime rates & save victim's lives, while making society safer for dumb fucks like you.
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

>>56

No license for writing prescriptions, either? No license for flying an airplane?

>>59
"You are a fucking idiot.  Taking away the basic human rights of an entire nation based on irrational and factually unsupported fears is bullshit.  Privately owned firearms lower crime rates & save victim's lives, while making society safer for dumb fucks like you."

First of all, the 2nd amendment is not a "basic human right", it is a constitutional right, a government sanctioned right, which is very different. While it is true that societies with gun ownership laws are generally safer than ones where it is illegal to own a gun, that doesn't mean that "lol gun rightz absolut" is the very best way to keep society safe. Gun control laws could make society safe, or more dangerous. Just because one end of the graph is less safe than the other doesn't mean that safeness doesn't peak somewhere in between.

And if someone cites that gunowners source one more time I am going to shoot somebody.

>>56
"What is wrong with banning ice cream? What is wrong with licensing baseball bats?"

Well, ice cream is not even a hint like guns, and a baseball bats sole, or even primary purpose isn't to harm other living things, nor can it kill many people very quickly and easily, nor does it have a long range, nor is it very difficult to defend against. So neither of those analogies make much sense.

"Ok, aside from the fact that you simply shouldn't have to apply for a fucking license from some government bureaucrat to live your life or own something as basic as the means to defend yourself, there is also that little fact of how fucked up the gun licensing systems are in other countries."

lol loaded words. Look, I have nothing against law-abiding gun owners, I plan to be one, but you have to face the fact that there are many who use guns to break the law. Gun licensing can help make sure that it is only the first group that receives the guns.

>>59
Am i stupid if i ask for an indipendent source? gunowners.org doesnt sound quite fair and balanced.
The balkans (kroatia, serbia, bosnia, kosovo etc) is flooded with weapons as you prolly know. Has it low crime rate and is it a more free place than germany for example? If your arguments are universifiable it should, somalia to btw.
And laws is only to be obeyed on public property? Because i interpreted your answer that driving lisence were okay on public roads, because the state owns the roads. But shouldnt this refer to all laws then, or how is these laws special?
And why draw the line with guns. Isnt it a basic right to own a M1 Abrahms? A C-130? A tacnuke? A IBCM nuke? Are the US a police state for not allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

"What is wrong with banning ice cream? What is wrong with licensing baseball bats?" .... copypasta
licensing baseball bats could result in contract killers..

Clearly a homosexual/jew thought of this.

>>61
"First of all, the 2nd amendment is not a "basic human right", it is a constitutional right, a government sanctioned right, which is very different."

I didn't say the 2nd amendment was a 'basic human right', I said the right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right.  There's a difference.

"While it is true that societies with gun ownership laws are generally safer than ones where it is illegal to own a gun, that doesn't mean that "lol gun rightz absolut" is the very best way to keep society safe."

I have already said I support background checks, provided certain measures are taken to ensure privacy for gun purchasers.

"Gun control laws could make society safe, or more dangerous. Just because one end of the graph is less safe than the other doesn't mean that safeness doesn't peak somewhere in between."

Since when was 'safeness' advanced beyond freedom as the national priority? Since pussies like you arrived.

"And if someone cites that gunowners source one more time I am going to shoot somebody."

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

>>56
"What is wrong with banning ice cream? What is wrong with licensing baseball bats?"

"and a baseball bats sole, or even primary purpose isn't to harm other living things,"

Nor is a gun's sole or primary purpose.  The purpose of a gun is not limmited to shooting people.  The fact that you give the implication that it is shows your incredible lack of understanding for other people and their lifestyles.

"nor can it kill many people very quickly and easily,"

You can kill someone pretty quickly and easilly with a baseball bat.  The gun just makes it even quicker and even easier.

"nor does it have a long range,"

It has a decent range if you throw it.

"So neither of those analogies make much sense."

The point is that imposing gun control on everyone infringes upon their personal freedom and rights, just like banning ice cream or registering baseball bats.

"lol loaded words. Look, I have nothing against law-abiding gun owners, I plan to be one, but you have to face the fact that there are many who use guns to break the law. Gun licensing can help make sure that it is only the first group that receives the guns."

I think you are confusing background checks with gun licensing systems.  Background checks screen gun purchasers' records to make sure they aren't repeat offending criminals or something who have committed serious crimes in the past before they are allowed to purchase guns.  Most gun rights advocates don't have a problem with background checks, as long as you take some measures to protect privacy.  This is entirely different from a licensing system.

It also can make it difficult, and depending on the system, impossible for people to get a firearm in certain circumstances. Again, background checks are one thing as long as you take measures to ensure privacy.  Gun registries and licensing, aside from the problems I mentioned above, tends to be a slippery slope leading to confiscation.

>>65
How much money does gunowners.org get from the gunindustry? None, some or all? How is gunowners.org something else than an advertising company for the gunindustry? Would you trust drugdealers.org for objective statistics regarding drug use and such? Is Pablo Escobar an objective expert concerning the potential dangers of drug use?

>>66
How the fuck is that relevant? If you have a problem with their studies, discredit them.  All the facts have plenty of sourcing.  You have everything you need to look into the validity of the fact sheet.  It is entirely backed with good sourcing.

Saying that the studies or facts don't count (even though they are soundly backed with good sourcing) because they come from a pro-2nd amendment source is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever come across. 

"Nor is a gun's sole or primary purpose.  The purpose of a gun is not limmited to shooting people.  The fact that you give the implication that it is shows your incredible lack of understanding for other people and their lifestyles."

I understand that some people admire guns and like to target shoot and whatnot, but that isn't what the gun was made for and I seriously doubt that is why most people own guns.

"I didn't say the 2nd amendment was a 'basic human right', I said the right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right.  There's a difference."

But it's not. I don't think you know what a basic human right is. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, privacy, etc, those are human rights, universal rights which the government cannot control. The right to bear arms is not a human right by any definition.

"The point is that imposing gun control on everyone infringes upon their personal freedom and rights, just like banning ice cream or registering baseball bats."

And in the same way not being able to yell bomb in an airport infringes on people's personal freedom and rights. You can't pick and choose, if you don't want gun control then you should argue against any speech control and any press control etc. etc.

"Since when was 'safeness' advanced beyond freedom as the national priority?"

Since guns became highly advanced and many times more deadly.
A fully automatic or a rocket launcher are also arms. Does that mean people should be able to own those with naught but a background check? I think Jefferson would have had something to say if the guns back then were self reloading and could be fired as fast as one could pull the trigger.

>>67

Of course! While we're at it, let's ask a neonazi how many Jews died during the Holocaust. His opinion counts just as much, don't you think?

>>68

"I understand that some people admire guns and like to target shoot and whatnot, but that isn't what the gun was made for and I seriously doubt that is why most people own guns."

Well then you are wrong, simply.  Most people in the USA actually own guns for entirely legitimate purposes.  Criminals are by FAR the minority.  Those who DO own guns for the purpose of using them on people generally own them purely for self-protection.  The rest are hobbyists/sportsmen/tin can shooters.

"But it's not. I don't think you know what a basic human right is. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, privacy, etc, those are human rights, universal rights which the government cannot control."

The government banning firearms would infringe upon those rights you just listed.

"The point is that imposing gun control on everyone infringes upon their personal freedom and rights, just like banning ice cream or registering baseball bats."

"And in the same way not being able to yell bomb in an airport infringes on people's personal freedom and rights."

If it was a privately owned airport, you should be allowed to do that too, provided it is ok with the owner.  Public airports are a different story. 

"You can't pick and choose, if you don't want gun control then you should argue against any speech control and any press control etc. etc."

I don't pick and choose.  I'm a libertarian - and I argue against all those things that you listed.

"Since guns became highly advanced and many times more deadly.
A fully automatic or a rocket launcher are also arms. Does that mean people should be able to own those with naught but a background check?"

A fully automatic weapon? Yes.  A rocket launcher? That's a different story.  For one thing, I don't think many people in the USA have enough money to be throwing around on rocket launchers or rockets for that matter, so this is becoming moot.   

As for automatic weapons? That's something people can afford generally... and there is nothing wrong with that.  Why are you against the right to own automatic weapons? You can own them right now in the USA with a permit, and many people DO.  I don't see the streets getting all bloodied up from it.  When was the last time you heard of someone getting shot up by a full-auto ak47? They ARE legal.

"I think Jefferson would have had something to say if the guns back then were self reloading and could be fired as fast as one could pull the trigger."

I don't.  Muskets were, at the time, the assault rifles of today.  They were military weapons used by the governments of the day and their armies.  Self-reloading semi-automatics and automatics are the weapons of today's armies.  The spirit of the 2nd amendment and of Jefferson's arguments was without a doubt that your average guy should be allowed to own the same weapon as was/is being used by the militias of that day.

>>69
"Of course! While we're at it, let's ask a neonazi how many Jews died during the Holocaust. His opinion counts just as much, don't you think?"

THat's different, because in your example you are going solely by what he SAYS.  In the source provided that is being argued over, there is sourcing to back up the facts that you can go and check on if you are skeptical.

"Well then you are wrong, simply.  Most people in the USA actually own guns for entirely legitimate purposes.  Criminals are by FAR the minority.  Those who DO own guns for the purpose of using them on people generally own them purely for self-protection.  The rest are hobbyists/sportsmen/tin can shooters."

I didn't say most gun owners were criminals, I said most have them  to use as weapons against other people, which includes self defense against criminals.

"I don't pick and choose.  I'm a libertarian - and I argue against all those things that you listed."

So you think it should be allowed to yell bomb in a public airport, fire in a public movie theater, or print a detailed article about how to overthrow the US government and terrorize the people in a newspaper? those are speech and press control. The difference between libertarians and anarchists is anarchists say there should be no laws while Libertarians say that anything that doesn't hurt others should be legal. I think no gun control affects people more negatively that some sensible gun control, in the same way I think about speech or press control.

>>72
Who decides what we should and shouldn't say?

Too risky. We should permit complete free speech.

>>73
That's retarded, by that logic the government shouldn't decide anything because its too risky. GOOOOOOO ANARKKKHISM

The constitution and the separation of powers is what reduces the risk. When you have a government passing laws like the Military Commissions Act, there are much larger problems at work. There will never be a government that has no potential for tyranny. Thankfully America loves free speech so it hasn't been infringed upon too much.

>>74
The government should exist only to prevent crime. Free speech is not a crime.

>>75

Oh, right. And, what's crime, again?

>>76
Punishing people for disagreeing socialism.

>>77
Yeah, like mcartyism

>>75
crime
n.
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity

there are laws limiting free speech.

you are demonstrating one of the primary absurdities of libertarianism, you think in absolutes when the world is far more complicated then your simplistic ideologies.

>>78
Enoug of your double standards tricksy villain.

McCarthyism was a crime, along with punishing people for disagreeing with socialism.

>>79
Actually it is naive to think 1 speach censorred, or one liberty denied here and there will not lead to the state having the power to corrupt the democratic process. Democracy is dependant on the free press and free speech. Everyone who knows anyrthing about modern politics knows this.

In fact the first thing a person who wanted to destroy a democracy would do is attack freedom of speech. The weimar republic failed that way and Stalin's regime arose through political oppression.

>>80
well, shouldnt you clean your own plate before discussing others? i have never heard a demand here that present poland or czeck republic should be sanctioned because they have outlawed communism, which means that it is illegal in these countries to disagree with capitalism.

>>72
"I didn't say most gun owners were criminals, I said most have them  to use as weapons against other people, which includes self defense against criminals."

That doesn't mean that a gun's only use or purpose is to kill people.  Anyway, I'm still not so sure that's true.  There are MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of hunters out there who don't use the gun to kill people.  Top those up with all the other sports shooters, and you have quite a sizable sum. 

"I don't pick and choose.  I'm a libertarian - and I argue against all those things that you listed."

"So you think it should be allowed to yell bomb in a public airport, fire in a public movie theater, or print a detailed article about how to overthrow the US government and terrorize the people in a newspaper? those are speech and press control."

I think speech and press control of any kind should be non-existant on private property.  The only exceptions to this rule would be some situation in which fraud or force is directly harming an individual. 

"The difference between libertarians and anarchists is anarchists say there should be no laws while Libertarians say that anything that doesn't hurt others should be legal. I think no gun control affects people more negatively that some sensible gun control, in the same way I think about speech or press control."

First of all, I don't see a shred of proof that 'sensible gun control' works.  Until you proove as much, you have no case at all.  Even in that situation, I still say if you feel unsafe around other people with guns, buy a gun yourself, and get over your irrational gun-phobia.

>>79
"there are laws limiting free speech."

And those laws should be removed.

"you are demonstrating one of the primary absurdities of libertarianism, you think in absolutes when the world is far more complicated then your simplistic ideologies."

Explain.  Give examples.

"you are demonstrating one of the primary absurdities of libertarianism"

You are demonstrating one of the primary absurdities of critics of libertarianism.  Not all libertarians are purist libertarians.  There was even a libertarian who ran last election who supported socialized health care.  Libertarians vary from person to person,  and some are more moderate or more extreme than others, just like those of the other parties.  Believe it or not, there are democrats who are pro-life.  There are republicans who are anti-gun.  Your attitude that everyone from a given party thinks the same is full of shit.

>>85

No shit, I never said every libertarian thinks the same, I AM a libertarian, a left-libertarian. I was addressing the libertarians here, which do all seem to think pretty much the same, hardcore right-libertarians.

>>83
"I think speech and press control of any kind should be non-existant on private property.  The only exceptions to this rule would be some situation in which fraud or force is directly harming an individual. "

Well ok then, I agree, and AFAIK that is how it is currently.

>>83
"First of all, I don't see a shred of proof that 'sensible gun control' works.  Until you proove as much, you have no case at all.  Even in that situation, I still say if you feel unsafe around other people with guns, buy a gun yourself, and get over your irrational gun-phobia."

"We also collected data on whether owners of concealed handguns are more likely to use them in committing violent crimes. The rarity of these incidents is reflected in Florida's statistics: More than 300,000 concealed- handgun licenses were issued between October 1, 1987 and December 31, 1945, but only five violent crimes involving permitted pistols were committed in this period. And none of these resulted in fatalities. That's of 1% misuse rate for permitted pistols in an eight year period or LESS than 1/1000 of 1% misuse rate per year."
From: http://www.largo.org/Lott.html

Concealed handguns licenses reduce crime, and is sensible. So is not issuing firearms to those with a criminal record or a history of mental illness, which I think we can agree on is a good idea.

I don't have gun-phobia, painting all opponents as afraid of guns is silly. I have guns-in-the-hands-of-criminals-or-crazy-people-phobia, and whatever we can do to reduce the number of guns that fall into their hands while not reducing guns that fall into lawful peoples hands, I am for.

>>84
"Explain.  Give examples."

You just gave one, absolute free speech and press. During the civil war northern newspapers published forged documents claiming them to be signed by Lincoln and posted details about the northern army and in general undermined the war effort. Lincoln suppressed these newspapers. This is a case where limiting free press was necessary and beneficial. And no, I don't think modern day suppression of civil liberties is justifiable, quite the opposite, Bush is using a small perpetual war to control people, and shit like the Patriot Act and the Military Commission Act are absolute shit and need to be repealed. And as I've said numerous times, yelling bomb in an airport or fire in a crowded public place should be allowed to be suppressed. I am for very limited forms of limiting civil liberties like the ones I just stated.

>>86

"Well ok then, I agree, and AFAIK that is how it is currently."

No, it isn't how it is currently.  Or, not in effect, anyway.  The FCC fines private radio broadcasters for saying dirty words over the air.  The radio is censored, for example.  If the fascists get their way, they have declared their intentions to go after cable as well with the FCC.  There are far more infringements of the 1st amendment present than you realize.
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3644072958341565007&q=penn+and+teller+alien+abduction&hl=en)

"We also collected data on whether owners of concealed handguns are more likely to use them in committing violent crimes. The rarity of these incidents is reflected in Florida's statistics: More than 300,000 concealed- handgun licenses were issued between October 1, 1987 and December 31, 1945, but only five violent crimes involving permitted pistols were committed in this period. And none of these resulted in fatalities. That's of 1% misuse rate for permitted pistols in an eight year period or LESS than 1/1000 of 1% misuse rate per year."
From: http://www.largo.org/Lott.html";

In what way does that proove 'sensible gun control' works? To clarify things, just what do you mean when you say 'sensible gun control'?  That looked like a pro-gun rights page anyway.  John Lott is a pro-gun rights author, FYI. 

"Concealed handguns licenses reduce crime, and is sensible. So is not issuing firearms to those with a criminal record or a history of mental illness, which I think we can agree on is a good idea."

Concealed carry is good, yep.  As for background checks? You won't find a whole lot of opposition from most gun rights advocates there.  I don't see what your problem is.  When you say 'sensible gun control' most gun rights advocates take that to mean:  "national gun registration, national gun control laws, ban high capacity magazines, ban semi-automatic weapons, ban pump action shotguns, ban gun shows, ban saturday night specials, ban .50 caliber rifles, mandatory trigger locks (that you must pay for), ammunition bans, etc etc."

And rightly so.. most of the democratic senators who call themselves advocates of 'sensible gun control laws' have all or much of the above on their legislative agenda/voting history.  You would be better served labelling yourself as a gun rights advocate than as an advocate of 'sensible gun control laws.'

"I don't have gun-phobia, painting all opponents as afraid of guns is silly. I have guns-in-the-hands-of-criminals-or-crazy-people-phobia, and whatever we can do to reduce the number of guns that fall into their hands while not reducing guns that fall into lawful peoples hands, I am for."

Good.  See above.

We also have Keroack deciding what women can do. But maybe only democrats can be tagged with the beloved meme "fascist".

>>88
I never said dems only.  I'm happy to critisize the republicans when they start pissing on our liberties as well.

"In what way does that proove 'sensible gun control' works? To clarify things, just what do you mean when you say 'sensible gun control'?"

I mean what I said later: "whatever we can do to reduce the number of guns that fall into [criminal's or crazy people's] hands while not reducing guns that fall into lawful peoples hands, I am for." I wasn't aware that many democratic senators called crazy gun control laws sensible. I think we have pretty much the same views. I haven't done a ton of research into gun control laws or the history of gun control in America, I just take things on a case by case basis. If I read about a new bill that would infringe upon lawful gun owners then I am against it, and if it would take them away solely or nearly so from criminals ten I am for it. I don't have a detailed agenda on what I consider sensible gun control, basically.

But yeah, I think we are both arguing from the same side.

bump because it is a relevant topic.