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?

>>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.