guns should be largely illegal

Vigilantism is unfair and wrong in a democracy, this i feel is the main purpose of guns and therefore guns should be largely illegal. I can think of these purposes for guns all of which are either morally wrong (obviously so) or can for filled though another mechanism (in a democracy) <br> intimidation: its wrong and should not be accepted <br> Murder or serious harm; pretty frowned upon. obviously a primary use of guns via passionate morons <br> sport; can be done via bb-guns <br> food: theres not enough for for everyone to go hunting and so guns should be controlled and licensed to the few lucky enough to own land (similarly to who ever lives with bears ect) <br> To remove ones government; the very point of a democracy is that this can be done through non violent means. <br> if you believe in liberty, i applaud you, but this tread is for a democracy. <br> a nation with an army does not need an armed population

Tell /k/. I'm sure they'll see the light.

great idea ahah!

Technically, a representational democracy, but enough of that.

I won't mince words: the purpose of a gun is to eject a projectile with enough force that it causes harm to a target from a distance.  Guns, however, should not be mistaken for users when it comes to violence - somehow miraculously eliminate all guns and another weapon will take its place.  Nothing of what you listed is strictly a public concern.  The police and military could also use guns for intimidation, murder, sport, insurrection, etc..  The only solution for the more egregious concerns would be a "democratic one" where the people would have to be the ones to re-establish order, and that might most likely require armed individuals, civilians.

Democracy is about mitigating choices and power closer to those who are governed individually.  It is not an ultimate system of improving society morally; through the democratic method it is possible, though not probable, to pass a law that is immoral but not unconstitutional.  There is no service done to democracy by unnecessarily removing means of power from individuals, no matter how barbaric those means seem.

When you say "via bb-guns" for "sport" that doesn't change the fact that you've still allowed people to use guns, the very thing you are trying to remove from their hands.  It's a nonsense option.  I also find it amusing that your wording expresses intimidation worse than murder.

WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS AIR WHAT IS WHAT IS AIR

We need guns so that we can shoot down US airplanes, helicopters and tanks when Obama sells out America to the UN world government. A nation with an army FEARS its armed population.

>>1

Why? So we can be defenseless when some crazed minority who illegally possesses a gun or other weapon decides to hurt us or steal our property? We have the second amendment for a reason. You might say "Japan has strict gun laws". Guess what, they also don't have niggers.

>>7
Tsk.

>>8
Does Japan have niggers? Case and point.

>>9
This is very un-VIP QUALITY here.

>>9
They have Brazilians.

>>11
Brazilian is a nationality. Most of those "Brazilians" are ethnically Japanese and they don't commit many crimes.

The Koreans or "Zainichi" of Japan has a strong association with the Yakuza however.

>>12
In other words they are Japanese who immigrated to Brazil and decided to come back.

The only ones committing the crimes are those who wouldn’t be able to get a gun in the first place. The only thing extreme gun laws will do is make it harder for honest people to defend themselves. Criminals will still illegally use guns. Is that what you want?

[aa]
　　　　　　　　　∧＿∧　　　／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
　　　　　　　　　 （　´∀｀）　＜　watashi wa o nanae sa table cat king fairx the haxxor! http://www.curse-x.com/rlpic/FairX.jpg http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y0Nel7cH3s
CLAYMORE ,BIBLE BLACK!
　　　　　　　　／　　　　|　　　 ＼＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
　　　　　　　/ 　　　 　 .|　　　　　
　　　　　　 / "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |
　　　＿＿ |　　　.ノ | || |＿＿
　 .　　　 ノく＿＿つ∪∪　　 ＼
　　　＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼
　　 ￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣
　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |

Having guns keeps the government in check. Banning guns would mean the supreme court can change any part of the Constitution and cite the banning of guns as an example.

It also makes the people have power, so if the military and law enforcement went crazy, we could fight back.

These reasons are why I will always support guns, if you don't like it move to another country that's a nanny/police state.

It's not the gun that's the problem - it's the mind of the person holding the gun.  In this respect there are only really two types of person.

1)  The person who thinks that they can just take what they want without regard for the rights of others.

2)  The person who thinks that they are only entitled to what they have earned.

The first type of person is dangerous whether they have a gun or not.  The second type of person is only dangerous if you are trying to rob them.

The problem is that both types of person look alike and there is no way to tell one from the other until you find yourself being robbed.

The first type of person will use any weapon.  These can include sticks and stones, knives and guns, race and religion, the media, the state and even the courts.

An armed populace peopled by citizens willing to defend themselves and their neighbours is the final and perhaps the only defense against the threat of an alliance among those who have no respect for their neighbours.

>>16
>Banning guns would mean the supreme court can change any part of the Constitution and cite the banning of guns as an example.

Technically, the Supreme Court can already cite the revoked 19th Amendment as precedence for changing parts of the U.S. Constitution. Of course, revoking an unpopular prohibition of alcohol and changing what is part of the Bill of Rights are two completely different ballparks. But you understand where I'm getting at.

I agree that guns should be kept legal, and this anon
read my mine completely: >>17

Perhaps it isn't that guns should be illegal, maybe we really just need stricter background checks on the individuals who are trying to purchase the weapon. As well as stiffer penalties for selling and obtaining firearms through illegal transactions.

>>18
Shit, my bad, I recognize this hours afterward, I meant the 18th amendment. And that was repealed by the 21st amendment and not revoked altogether.

The hell is wrong with me, today?