Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[Adafdfadfasdf]

I'm not violating his freedom of speech. I'm just requesting that he shut the hell up, as not to portray gun owners as ignorant fuck-wits that want to murder police officers.

It further cements my view that the US needs more regulation on guns, so I would hope that he continue his angry tirade. It's very amusing depressing, at the same time.

Yeah. If I was an anti-gun wacko, it'd probably amuse me as well. As a pro-gun wacko, someone spouting off like that disgusts and worries me. It makes me think that I might actually be on the wrong side of things.

[Not Safe For Work]

Do not see as a problem.

It doesnt stop violent crime thats the problem.

It does seem to do a lot to reduce gun crime, though. Despite the apparent protestation that gun control in the US would do nothing to curb gun crime.

[Chernoslavia]

I have yet to see any sources to back up any of your arguments.

Which argument do you need a source for?

That you don't have a legal right to defend illegal property?

Here's a quick overview of Castle Doctrine.

If the person coming to take your property has legal authority to do so, Castle Doctrine doesn't apply - in other words, if the authorities are seizing your illegal assets, you have no legal right to 'defend' those assets.

Since I know that the asset they are confiscating are legally purchased firearms, that is a violation of the 2nd amendment which is illegal. The governemnt doesnt have as much power as you think, and more than half of the police officers own firearms and will not obey this command, your setting up a double standard that millions will not tolerate.

[The Grand World Order]

It does seem to do a lot to reduce gun crime, though. Despite the apparent protestation that gun control in the US would do nothing to curb gun crime.

Gun crime is violent crime, but violent crime is not gun crime.

I posted the statistics earlier; the Home Office of the UK reports that 8% of Britons will be victims of a violent crime with or without a gun, while the FBI reports that only 2% of Americans will be victims of a violent crime, once again with or without a gun.

[Not Safe For Work]

No. You do not have the right to shoot an officer of the law while they are lawfully performing their duty. No matter how much you want to. To do so will make you a murderer. Even if you disagree with the law they're enforcing, if you kill them, you have murdered them.

Alright I guess you changed my mind now, shooting the cops trying to do their jobs now makes me look like a criminal. Looks like you won.

Makes you look like a criminal?

Shooting cops who are lawfully doing their job makes you a criminal - it doesn't make you look like one.

Moreover, threatening to murder the president? I'm pretty sure just the threat makes you a criminal.

[Not Safe For Work]

It does seem to do a lot to reduce gun crime, though. Despite the apparent protestation that gun control in the US would do nothing to curb gun crime.

Gun crime is violent crime, but violent crime is not gun crime.

I posted the statistics earlier; the Home Office of the UK reports that 8% of Britons will be victims of a violent crime with or without a gun, while the FBI reports that only 2% of Americans will be victims of a violent crime, once again with or without a gun.

You're going to have to back that 8% number - it's not in the report, that I could see.

[Not Safe For Work]

Since I know that the asset they are confiscating are legally purchased firearms, that is a violation of the 2nd amendment which is illegal.

You were arguing that - if the law changed, and people wanted to take your guns from you, you'd kill them.

It doesn't matter if they were 'legally purchased' - if the law changes and your weapons are no longer legal. they are illegal - by definition.

The governemnt doesnt have as much power as you think, and more than half of the police officers own firearms and will not obey this command, your setting up a double standard that millions will not tolerate.

This is just hyperbole.

[Chernoslavia]

It further cements my view that the US needs more regulation on guns, so I would hope that he continue his angry tirade. It's very amusing depressing, at the same time.

Yeah. If I was an anti-gun wacko, it'd probably amuse me as well. As a pro-gun wacko, someone spouting off like that disgusts and worries me. It makes me think that I might actually be on the wrong side of things.

I said you convinced me about that and took your advice, now just dont get too excited and end up in the anti-gun lobby.

[The Grand World Order]

Gun crime is violent crime, but violent crime is not gun crime.

I posted the statistics earlier; the Home Office of the UK reports that 8% of Britons will be victims of a violent crime with or without a gun, while the FBI reports that only 2% of Americans will be victims of a violent crime, once again with or without a gun.

You're going to have to back that 8% number - it's not in the report, that I could see.

It doesn't have to be directly stated in the report; some number crunching is necessary.

If you want me to post all the math, it'll probably take about an hour, considering I'm doing quite a few other things at the same time.

EDIT: Oh, right, you're the one who said it suggested 1.5% instead of 8%. Even still, that point was refuted quite well- if your calculations were correct, the increase in poverty (brought on by the destruction of one of the US's major industries when the economy's already in a shitter) would mean more crime altogether.

[Chernoslavia]

Since I know that the asset they are confiscating are legally purchased firearms, that is a violation of the 2nd amendment which is illegal.

You were arguing that - if the law changed, and people wanted to take your guns from you, you'd kill them.

It doesn't matter if they were 'legally purchased' - if the law changes and your weapons are no longer legal. they are illegal - by definition.

But if the law violates the constitution, then the law is not legal and the only thing it will do is cause a small unnecessary conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Constitution I assume you live in the US and are very familiar with the constitution.

The governemnt doesnt have as much power as you think, and more than half of the police officers own firearms and will not obey this command, your setting up a double standard that millions will not tolerate.

This is just hyperbole.

Its a fact.

[Not Safe For Work]

You're going to have to back that 8% number - it's not in the report, that I could see.

It doesn't have to be directly stated in the report; some number crunching is necessary.

If you want me to post all the math, it'll probably take about an hour, considering I'm doing quite a few other things at the same time.

I crunched the number in response, already. Based on actual crimes, I can get to about 1.5% by assuming that we use only the population of England and Wales, since those are the numbers cited for the crime stats. Just show me where you're getting your data.

[Natair]

There is no legitimate reason to ban ANY kind of firearm, no matter how 'scary' they look.

Give me a good reason why a civilian needs a machine gun.

I've asked that several times. No one has answered me.

[Chernoslavia]

Give me a good reason why a civilian needs a machine gun.

I've asked that several times. No one has answered me.

Then give us a reason why we should not be able to have them.

[The Grand World Order]

It doesn't have to be directly stated in the report; some number crunching is necessary.

If you want me to post all the math, it'll probably take about an hour, considering I'm doing quite a few other things at the same time.

I crunched the number in response, already. Based on actual crimes, I can get to about 1.5% by assuming that we use only the population of England and Wales, since those are the numbers cited for the crime stats. Just show me where you're getting your data.

As I edited the post, even if your calculations are correct, the collapse of an industry as massive as firearms in the US would cause more crime than it'd prevent.

I also said I'll have to re-calculate everything, since I didn't save anything. This will be a lengthy process, since I'm busy.

[Caninope]

There is no legitimate reason to ban ANY kind of firearm, no matter how 'scary' they look.

Give me a good reason why a civilian needs a machine gun.

In American law, there is a right to own a gun.

Therefore, it's a far better question to ask, "Why shouldn't a civilian own a machine gun?" (from a legal perspective) than "Why should a civilian own a machine gun?".

[Not Safe For Work]

But if the law violates the constitution, then the law is not legal and the only thing it will do is cause a small unnecessary conflict.

A couple of problems, there.

One - the Constitution can be amended. The rights you have today are not absolute, they could be altered.

Two - if a law violates the Constitution, that doesn't mean that law is not legal. At least, until the law and the Constitution are reconciled.

i.e. If there is a ban on automatic weapons, for example - that law is 'legal' until it is overturned for being un-Constitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Constitution I assume you live in the US and are very familiar with the constitution.

Indeed. Familiar enough to know it can be amended.

Its a fact.

No, it's hyperbole.

[Chernoslavia]

Alright I guess you changed my mind now, shooting the cops trying to do their jobs now makes me look like a criminal. Looks like you won.

Makes you look like a criminal?

Shooting cops who are lawfully doing their job makes you a criminal - it doesn't make you look like one.

Moreover, threatening to murder the president? I'm pretty sure just the threat makes you a criminal.

I didnt threat to murder the president you just asked me what if he personally walks to my doorstep and says that he is going to take my firearms away, which I clearly said that I would not unless if he is pointing a gun at me which is obviously not in his power, and is considered self-defense. It doesnt matter who you are, pointing a gun at someone and makeing them do something against their will is not lawful, your little example of the president personally attempting to do this is really biased and stupid. And if the president for any retarded reason tried to do this he will get the same respond from any armed law abiding citizen. If you force someone to do something with at gun-point, defending yourself is necessary.

[Orichalcum]

I'm sure someone already said this but what makes you think that banning guns and repealing the 2nd amendment will fix the problem? It's the same problem with the Drug war. If you ban firearms it will only create a black market. These crazed nuts will still find a way to obtain the guns and there will still be tragedies like this.
The only way to prevent more tragedies like this is security (metal detector gates are good enough in cases like this) and more understanding into mental issues.

[Not Safe For Work]

It doesnt matter who you are pointing a gun at someone and make them do something against their will is not lawful,

Oh, you're not going to like these guys...

... your little example of the president personally attempting to do this is really biased and stupid.

Not at all. I wanted to see how far the 'courage of your convictions' holds.

Would you kill a civilian to protect your arms. You said 'yes'. What about the police? You said 'yes'.... so... how far up the chain will you go?

See?

And if the president for any retarded reason tried to do this he will get the same respond from any armed law abiding citizen. If you force someone to do something with a gun, defending yourself is necessary.

You're defense is that you think most Americans would shoot the President?

[Greater Ilanar]

If only there weren't rules on appropriate speech. Than I could say how I feel about this guy and his anti-gun views. The most important step in establishing a tyranny is disarming the people so they can't fight back. Sorry I'm being so coldhearted, but the 10,000 Americans who die from gun attacks each year is worth it if we don't become another Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China or North Korea.

According to the Department of Justice, less than 10% of shooting crimes in the US are carried out with legally-purchased weapons.

Even in what some Europeans seem to think is the Wild West most of the gun crime is being committed with illegally-acquired weapons.

Thank you for that information, Arkinesia.

[Natair]

I've asked that several times. No one has answered me.

Then give us a reason why we should not be able to have them.

Because if a citizen fired said machine gun in a public place, there's a much higher chance of death to other citizens than if they fire a handgun or any other non-automatic weapon.

Alright I guess you changed my mind now, shooting the cops trying to do their jobs now makes me look like a criminal. Looks like you won.

Makes you look like a criminal?

Shooting cops who are lawfully doing their job makes you a criminal - it doesn't make you look like one.

Moreover, threatening to murder the president? I'm pretty sure just the threat makes you a criminal.

Conspiracy or something like that. But meh, only if the thing can be interpreted as a threat, and even then I doubt it'll be a problem.

[Not Safe For Work]

According to the Department of Justice, less than 10% of shooting crimes in the US are carried out with legally-purchased weapons.

Even in what some Europeans seem to think is the Wild West most of the gun crime is being committed with illegally-acquired weapons.

Thank you for that information, Arkinesia.

It's a little misleading, actually... since 'illegally-acquired weapons' are statistically likely to be legally-acquired weapons that fell into the hands of criminals.

[Chernoslavia]

It doesnt matter who you are pointing a gun at someone and make them do something against their will is not lawful,

Oh, you're not going to like these guys...

... your little example of the president personally attempting to do this is really biased and stupid.

Not at all. I wanted to see how far the 'courage of your convictions' holds.

Would you kill a civilian to protect your arms. You said 'yes'. What about the police? You said 'yes'.... so... how far up the chain will you go?

See? The only thing I see is you attempting to make me sound like a murderous psycho just by adding the words ''kill a civilian'' which I completely ignored.

And if the president for any retarded reason tried to do this he will get the same respond from any armed law abiding citizen. If you force someone to do something with a gun, defending yourself is necessary.

You're defense is that you think most Americans would shoot the President?

Your example is too extreme, why on earth would the president attempt to do this personally? It's never going to happen, but to answer your silly question the citizen who is being held at gunpoint by ''The President'' is definitely going to defend himself for obvious reasons.

[Chernoslavia]

Thank you for that information, Arkinesia.

It's a little misleading, actually... since 'illegally-acquired weapons' are statistically likely to be legally-acquired weapons that fell into the hands of criminals.

Source please.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Ban all guns. Real men solve problems with their fists.

Not everyone uses firearms for self defense. My brother in law hunts, and I am an amateur target shooter. Neither of us carry a weapon for self defense, and both of us are real men.