DescentBB

The experts at the Brady Campaign, Million Mom March, Americans for Gun Safety and the United Nations are in unanimous agreement that all guns must be outlawed and removed from the possession of citizens in the United States. Here are several of their reasons as to why this must be done.



1: The more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

2: An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 magnum will become outraged and kill you.

3: A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

4: The Second Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which did not exist until 130 years later, having been formed in 1917.

5: The phrases “Right of the people to peaceably assemble,” “ right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “the powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals. However, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.

6: Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary for national defense. This explains why the U.S. armed forces have tens of millions of them.

7: Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns because they are not “military weapons.” Also, private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles” because they are military weapons.

8: A handgun, with up to four controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to use, as compared to an automobile that has up to 20 controls.

9: Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

10: A majority of the population supports gun control, just as a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

11: Most people can’t be trusted so we should have laws against guns, which all criminals will obey because they can be trusted.

12: The right of internet pornographers to operate cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self-defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

13: Police officers operate with backup in large groups, which is why they need large capacity pistol magazines, as opposed to “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

14: We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and all other inexpensive handguns because it isn’t fair that poor people have access to self-defense guns too.

15: Private citizens do not need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them, even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

16: Citizens do not need to carry guns for personal protection, but police chiefs, who are desk bound administrators who work in a building filled with armed police, do need to carry a gun.

17: “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people quickly. The police need “assault weapons;” you do not.

18: Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes. This is why you see police officers with them on their duty weapons.

19: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) thinks that a concealed carry permit will not help prevent personal crime. That's why she has one.

I wish you pro-gun-nuts and ant-gun-nuts could just come up with a freaking compromise. Why does no one cooperate with eachother... damn...

Just had to say it, gun nuts want to have guns loaded and ready to fire sitting under their pillow, yet anti-gun nuts want all guns burned and confiscated. About the only compromise you people have ever came up with is trigger locks, which makes no one happy!

Okay... where the **** is my chill pill!

\"1: The more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals. \"

guess they've never been robbed before.

\"9: Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.\"

Oh I guess knives, bats and machetes have nothing to do with violence? and mass killings at gun shows? WTF?

\"11: Most people can’t be trusted so we should have laws against guns, which all criminals will obey because they can be trusted.\"

ROFL.

\"18: Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes. This is why you see police officers with them on their duty weapons.\"

LMAO


Man, what planet are these people from?

lol *AT* Ferno.

tower this is flight Humorous Commentary 101...we have a visual of the top of Fernos head...over...

Dakatsu wrote:I wish you pro-gun-nuts and ant-gun-nuts could just come up with a freaking compromise. Why does no one cooperate with eachother... damn...

If you haven't noticed, anti-gun nuts are constantly making decisions based on common nonsense. As Pimp showed, their arguments are self-refuting.

i'm sorry if i neglect the abillity to read minds.

lol, this thread is great!

Funny stuff, but where exactly doe this come from?:

15: Private citizens do not need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them, even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

It seems like a decision worth knowing about.

Paul,

It is worth knowing about. The supreme court has ruled multiple times that the police are not obligated to protect you as an idividual citizen. Their job is to protect society as a whole. I would suggest reading up on it.

Funny stuff, I'm not a gun nut , but the founding fathers had a very good reason for the second amendment. Switzerland had a big influence on our founding fathers. I loved reading about how Hitlers officers refused his orders to go into switzerland during WW2, Nobody wants to attack a nation where every citizen is armed...

Here is a nice article from the Wall street jurnal on gun control and why it's bad.

http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/ar ... cle11.html

I say just outlaw pistols. Make all buyable guns HUGE. You can defend your home but not suddenly pull one out at someone else.

That would quite possibly be one of the most ineffective methods of gun control EVER.

There are millions, if not billions, of handguns floating around in the US. Do you think that those will just float away and disappear as soon as the law is enacted?

The only people that would turn in their pistols would be those interested in the law. Criminals likely to shoot people are not interested in what the law has to say.

Besides that, making buyable guns really big would simply encourage people to make their own, homemade guns--which would be even more dangerous to everyone than would a pistol.

Making buyable guns huge would also discourage or prevent people from legally carrying a concealed weapon--which is, in itself, a crime deterrent.

Also, it would be very hard to defend your home with a very large gun. As it stands, being somewhat trained in martial arts, I would greatly prefer to face someone with my bare hands or with a knife or metal rod than with a gun, especially at the close ranges involved in most houses. A large gun just gets in the way of silent movement, and a person trained in martial arts can easily disarm someone at close range using a decent-sized gun before that person can fire.

#1 Most people in the U.S. die due to gun abuse by attackers. So much for the self-defense value.

#2 Canada has as many guns per citizen as the U.S., less by far not the gun murder rate. It must have something to do with the mentality of the people ... btw, interestingly enough, in Switzerland, where every soldier is entitled to take his gun plus ammo home after service, most killings involving gun use are committed by highly ambitious perfectionist men, the kind that cannot take failure, and very often relatives are the victims ...

But just give every U.S. citizen a gun and don't forget to deal out enough ammo ... maybe that will solve the entire problem in a while.

Stryker,

I would think twice about large guns. I mean, who'd want to attack you if you're sitting in an Abrams M1A2 tank? And the great thing is: Your entire family fits in there (actually you need your entire family to operate it ... ) This would turn the entire concealed weapon concept into a concealed user concept ... Don't say tanks don't fit in a house. It's no problem at all to make them fit in *any* house. It's also a very safe way to drive. Ok, the gas bill could be a bit expensive, but your and your family's safety should be worth it.

ROFL @ Will.

Teddy,

Hitler definitely did not avoid to attack Switzerland because everybody there was armed (and his officers did not refuse to attack there. Don't you know what happened to military refusing Hitler's orders? They were killed, or forced to commit suicide). Germany had more than enough troops to take Switzerland if they wanted. There were other reasons. Ever heard of the \"golden sting of Switzerland\"?

Did you guys rebutting and saying \"wtf?\" actually READ it???

I think they read it, but it was beyond their ability to comprehend.

That “reasonable licensing fees” will stop casual ownership of guns, but anyone who would jump through hoops to own a gun is obsessive.

That outlawing the carrying of guns will stop people from doing so, just as lowering the speed limit stops reckless driving.

That we should deal with the problem of criminals using illegal weapons by taking lawful weapons away from honest people.

That we should ban guns—if it saves even one life, it’s worth it, just as we should ban assemblies where people might be trampled to death—if it saves just one life, it’s worth it, and we should ban speech by groups who offend public order—if it saves just one life, it’s worth it, and we should ban unhealthy foods—if it saves just one life, it’s worth it, and…

That anyone convicted of domestic violence should not be allowed to handle guns, unless that criminal is “Marky” Mark Wahlberg handling guns in “Planet of the Apes.”

That rifles are useless in a world of fighter planes and nukes, just as automobiles are useless in a world of 747s

That sky marshalls, who are present on less than 10% of all flights, are a good solution to hijacking, but armed pilots, who would be present on every flight, are not.

That a pilot might accidentally shoot a .38 caliber hole in a plane, thus somehow mysteriously causing 10,000 cubic feet of air to disappear in a moment, or hitting a vital electrical wire that was somehow not safely duplicated by another, despite federal requirements to that effect, but a \"Trained Air Marshall\" won't do this even when in the stress of battle against a hijacker.

That pilots might accidentally shoot a hole in the skin of an airliner (see above), so shouldn't have guns, and if the terrorists start banging away, we'll just have to hope for the best.

That pilots shouldn't be armed because they aren't trained for use of weapons, but may use violent maneuvers that they aren't trained for to somehow magically secure a hijacker they can't see in his seat.

That a .38 caliber bullet might destroy an airliner, but violent maneuvers won't rip the wings off.

That a pilot shooting through a small cockpit door at an incoming hijacker might somehow fail to put any bullets into him, but a 110 lb flight attendant will easily get close enough to tackle a hijacker and use a stun gun.

That a terrorist might masquerade as a \"Trusted Traveler,\" hoping to be the only such person aboard with a firearm, but would never be able to impersonate a law enforcement official or get a job as a pilot.

That a pilot is not trained in dealing with terrorists, so should stay in the cockpit. Instead, it's up to the flight attendants and passengers to deal with the situation. After all, they ARE trained professionals.

That it's just a matter of time until another hijacking takes place, and there's nothing we can do about it, and no, you can't carry a gun.

That many “supporters of Second Amendment rights” endorse “reasonable gun control,” just like many “supporters of First Amendment rights” endorse “reasonable media control.”

That keeping a gun for self-defense implies a desire to shoot someone, just as keeping matches and having homeowner’s insurance implies a desire to be an arsonist.

That a punk wakes up one morning, and thinks, “Gee, instead of robbing, raping, sodomizing and killing a young woman, why don’t I turn my $400 gun in for $20 and a pizza and go work at McDonald’s?”

That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn’t really want to shoot you and he’ll let you go, but that you should give him your wallet, because he’ll shoot you if you don’t.

That despite all the outrage about Corporate America’s cavalier treatment of employees, Domino’s Pizza’s demand that employees be unarmed is an altruistic effort to stop them from hurting themselves, and not a calculated financial bid to avoid having a lawsuit filed by a dead robber’s family.

That gun owners are “potential terrorists,” because they have all the necessary equipment, just like Sarah Brady is a “potential hooker,” because she has all the necessary equipment.

That one can sue a store for having a slick floor, falling ceilings, and sharp corners, but if they refuse to let you bring a gun in and you get shot by a criminal, they aren’t liable for enforcing that rule with others.

That there is no right of self defense, and the police are not legally obligated to respond to my cries for help when disarmed, but you can sue them if they take too long to get to a traffic accident.

That arming police just “escalates the violence,” so to be really effective, we should ban the use of nightsticks by the police. In fact, we should ban the police. If they didn’t exist, the criminals wouldn’t need to be armed. In fact, we shouldn’t have locks on doors, because that just encourages forcible entry.

That assault rifles are far too powerful to hunt deer and elk, and too dangerou

That there’s no incongruity in claiming the preferred weapon of a drug dealer is a $25 .22 caliber pocket pistol, and claiming the preferred weapon of a drug dealer is a $2000 machinegun in the same piece of propaganda.

That any cheap weapon is a “Saturday night special,” and any expensive weapon is an “assault weapon.”

That “Cops” and other shows are edited to show the boring encounters with traffic stops and the occasional drunken fool with a revolver in his pocket, and never show the millions of cases where the cops are gunned down in droves by machinegun toting drug dealers.

That “NYPD Blue” and “Miami Vice” are documentaries.

That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry over your retaliation and kill you.

That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with nuclear weapons.

That Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

That someone who fails to clear his weapon, fails to point it in a safe direction, pulls the trigger without checking the chamber, and blows his foot off is an example of how even a “trained professional” can be a “victim” of a diabolical gun, but people in the military who clean weapons millions of times a year without getting hurt are “dumb grunts.”

That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just as Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a neurosurgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

That modern design firearms contain features such as box magazines and fiberglass stocks, which were designed for military use and shouldn’t be available to civilians, just as modern design automobiles contain features such as rack and pinion steering and McPherson struts, which were designed for the race track and shouldn’t be available to civilians.

That rifles such as AR-15s, AK-47s and L1-A1s were designed for military shooting and shouldn’t be available to civilians, just as vehicles like Chevrolet Suburbans, Jeeps, and Land Rovers were designed as weapons platforms and military utility and shouldn’t be available to civilians.

That the best way to avoid an accidental shooting is to stay completely ignorant of guns and never go near them, just like the safest way to avoid an accidental drowning is to stay completely ignorant of swimming and never go near water.

That the best thing our kids can do to bullies and drug dealers is “just say no,” and fight back, and the best thing we can do to muggers and thugs is to give them $50 and wait for them to go away.

That it’s outrageous that the Milwaukee police took 45 minutes to respond to reports of Jeffrey Dahmer’s last victim running around naked in the cold, then returned him to his attacker without checking ID, but the best thing a citizen can do in an emergency is dial 911.

That the “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” the “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “the enumeration herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people,” refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the states.

That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916.

That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.

That despite the 1990 case Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich vs. Department of Defense, where the Supreme Court ruled specifically that the National Guard is under federal orders and the state governor cannot object, the National Guard is still, in fact, a state militia.

That private citizens can’t have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can’t have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.

That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.

That it is reasonable in California to get two years in jail for a serious crime such as possessing but not using a weapon, and probation for a minor crime such as molesting your children.

That it is reasonable to jail people for carrying but not using guns, but outrageous to jail people for possessing marijuana.

That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it’s for possessing a gun.

That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of Fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the “gun problem.”

That the first amendment absolutely allows child pornography and threats to kill cops, but doesn’t apply to manuals on gun repair.

That capital punishment is not a crime deterrent, but gun control is.

That a woman in a microskirt, perfume and a Wonderbra, without underwear, is a helpless victim, but someone getting paid $6 an hour to deliver the cash from a fast food place to the bank at the same time every night is, “asking for it.”

And you won’t allow either of them to carry a gun.

That Illinois’ law that allows almost any government official from Governor to dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, and the law that prohibits any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million dollar jewelry business from carrying a gun is reasonable. And it isn’t a sign of police stateism.

That the 80 religious kooks in Waco were a threat to American security, but snipers killing them as they left the building, machinegunning children, hiding the video evidence, possibly torching the building on purpose, and having no case to present in federal court is good law enforcement. And it isn’t a sign of police stateism.

That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare hands.

That with the above, a 90 LB woman attacked by a 300 LB rapist and his 300 LB buddy, has the “right” to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.

That there’s nothing in the Constitution that specifically prohibits banning certain guns, but there is something in the Constitution that specifically prohibits banning certain sex acts.

That gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence, but sex education in school doesn’t encourage kids to have sex.

That a criminal will take a gun away from you and use it against you, so conversely, the best thing to do when threatened is to take the criminal’s gun away from him and us it against him.

That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950’s and 1960’s, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.

That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time, but anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, but that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren’t aware of the dangers involved with guns.

That the gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.

That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, but the increase in crime requires more gun control.

That 100 years after its founding, the NRA got into the politics of guns from purely selfish motives, and 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the black civil rights movement was founded from purely noble motives.

That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control is legislated are “just statistics.”

That we don’t need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, so we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments of that Constitution, and won’t thereby become an oppressive government.

That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of society.

That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use them properly, but so simple to use that they make murder easy.

That guns contribute to high death rates and should be banned, but tobacco and alcohol are okay.

That guns cause crime, which is why there has never been a mass slaying at a gun show.

That guns cause crime, just like matches cause arson.

That guns cause crime, just like women cause prostitution.

That guns cause crime, just like men cause rape.

That guns aren’t necessary to national defense, which is why the US Army only has 3 million of them.

That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns against armed criminals.

That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen.”

That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, but gunmaker’s advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”

That a handgun, with up to 4 switches and controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile which only has 20.

I think that guns are a very important part of the world, and will continue to be forever. It's simply a matter of how we establish and enforce gun-control laws that is the important thing.

To solidify my case, take a look at the daily massacres going on in the Middle East nowdays, at least partially due to improper weapon control laws.

For those people out there who are innocent bystanders though, it's a sad and unfortunate incident indeed. My solution to that is simply to stay indoors as much as possible playing Descent (or studying, which I do half the time) -- that way I won't get shot at

Before I get started on my rant, I must remind you that I'm from Ireland. If you don't know what that has to do with this argument:
In Ireland, the police are not allowed to have guns of any type!
And if the police, who's main job is to deal with criminals, dont need weapons to defeat criminals then what makes you so sure that the average citisen does?

Fusion pimp wrote:1: The more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

I think the point is that the more helpless you are, the safer the criminals are from you. Obviously that wont work, because you're brainwashed into thinking that criminals are no longer human.

Fusion pimp wrote:2: An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 magnum will become outraged and kill you.

With tear gas, nobody ends up dead, whatever way you look at it.

Fusion pimp wrote:3: A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

Your point being...?

Fusion pimp wrote:4: The Second Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which did not exist until 130 years later, having been formed in 1917.

I can't reply to this, I dont know enough about the National Guard to have an opinion.

Fusion pimp wrote:5: The phrases “Right of the people to peaceably assemble,” “ right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “the powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals. However, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.

And now we want to remove that right. Simple as.

Fusion pimp wrote:6: Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary for national defense. This explains why the U.S. armed forces have tens of millions of them.

Costa Rica

Fusion pimp wrote:7: Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns because they are not “military weapons.” Also, private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles” because they are military weapons.

I'm confused at what you mean.

Fusion pimp wrote:8: A handgun, with up to four controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to use, as compared to an automobile that has up to 20 controls.

And is why you must pass a driving test to be able to drive legally.

Fusion pimp wrote:9: Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

I've never seen a gun show.

Fusion pimp wrote:10: A majority of the population supports gun control, just as a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

Therefore, a majority of the poulation are greedy.
What was your point again?

Fusion pimp wrote:11: Most people can’t be trusted so we should have laws against guns, which all criminals will obey because they can be trusted.

If we expected everyone to always follow the laws, then we wouldn't have police enforcing them.

Fusion pimp wrote:12: The right of internet pornographers to operate cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self-defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

It's a right to live in a safe environment against the right to use handguns that is the clash of rights here. And dont bother telling me that handguns are safe because you can use them to kill other people.

Fusion pimp wrote:13: Police officers operate with backup in large groups, which is why they need large capacity pistol magazines, as opposed to “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

See first paragraph.

Fusion pimp wrote:14: We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and all other inexpensive handguns because it isn’t fair that poor people have access to self-defense guns too.

Rich people do not need to rob other people.

Fusion pimp wrote:15: Private citizens do not need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them, even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

What are you talking about now?

Fusion pimp wrote:16: Citizens do not need to carry guns for personal protection, but police chiefs, who are desk bound administrators who work in a building filled with armed police, do need to carry a gun.

See first paragraph.

Fusion pimp wrote:17: “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people quickly. The police need “assault weapons;” you do not.

See first paragraph.

Fusion pimp wrote:18: Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes. This is why you see police officers with them on their duty weapons.

I don't see "police officers with them on their duty weapons"; see first paragraph.

Fusion pimp wrote:19: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) thinks that a concealed carry permit will not help prevent personal crime. That's why she has one.

Your theory here is that if one person that wants to ban guns is greedy, then the thoughts of all the other people that want to ban guns are greedy?

TIGERassault wrote:Before I get started on my rant, I must remind you that I'm from Ireland. If you don't know what that has to do with this argument:
In Ireland, the police are not allowed to have guns of any type!
And if the police, who's main job is to deal with criminals, dont need weapons to defeat criminals then what makes you so sure that the average citisen does?

Fusion pimp wrote:1: The more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

I think the point is that the more helpless you are, the safer the criminals are from you. Obviously that wont work, because you're brainwashed into thinking that criminals are no longer human.

Fusion pimp wrote:2: An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 magnum will become outraged and kill you.

With tear gas, nobody ends up dead, whatever way you look at it.

Fusion pimp wrote:3: A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

Your point being...?

Fusion pimp wrote:4: The Second Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which did not exist until 130 years later, having been formed in 1917.

I can't reply to this, I dont know enough about the National Guard to have an opinion.

Fusion pimp wrote:5: The phrases “Right of the people to peaceably assemble,” “ right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “the powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals. However, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.

And now we want to remove that right. Simple as.

Fusion pimp wrote:6: Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary for national defense. This explains why the U.S. armed forces have tens of millions of them.

Costa Rica

Fusion pimp wrote:7: Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns because they are not “military weapons.” Also, private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles” because they are military weapons.

I'm confused at what you mean.

Fusion pimp wrote:8: A handgun, with up to four controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to use, as compared to an automobile that has up to 20 controls.

And is why you must pass a driving test to be able to drive legally.

Fusion pimp wrote:9: Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

I've never seen a gun show.

Fusion pimp wrote:10: A majority of the population supports gun control, just as a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

Therefore, a majority of the poulation are greedy.
What was your point again?

Fusion pimp wrote:11: Most people can’t be trusted so we should have laws against guns, which all criminals will obey because they can be trusted.

If we expected everyone to always follow the laws, then we wouldn't have police enforcing them.

Fusion pimp wrote:12: The right of internet pornographers to operate cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self-defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

It's a right to live in a safe environment against the right to use handguns that is the clash of rights here. And dont bother telling me that handguns are safe because you can use them to kill other people.

Fusion pimp wrote:13: Police officers operate with backup in large groups, which is why they need large capacity pistol magazines, as opposed to “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

See first paragraph.

Fusion pimp wrote:14: We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and all other inexpensive handguns because it isn’t fair that poor people have access to self-defense guns too.

Rich people do not need to rob other people.

Fusion pimp wrote:15: Private citizens do not need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them, even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

What are you talking about now?

Fusion pimp wrote:16: Citizens do not need to carry guns for personal protection, but police chiefs, who are desk bound administrators who work in a building filled with armed police, do need to carry a gun.

See first paragraph.

Fusion pimp wrote:17: “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people quickly. The police need “assault weapons;” you do not.

See first paragraph.

Fusion pimp wrote:18: Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes. This is why you see police officers with them on their duty weapons.

I don't see "police officers with them on their duty weapons"; see first paragraph.

Fusion pimp wrote:19: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) thinks that a concealed carry permit will not help prevent personal crime. That's why she has one.

Your theory here is that if one person that wants to ban guns is greedy, then the thoughts of all the other people that want to ban guns are greedy?

So, I'm guessing they don't do sarcasm in Ireland?!?!

Nope, Canada and Ireland ran out of sarcasm in teh 50's...

Testiculese wrote:Nope, Canada and Ireland ran out of sarcasm in teh 50's...

What do you mean, I'm Canadian and I employ sarcasm all the time.

Shadowfury333 wrote:

Testiculese wrote:Nope, Canada and Ireland ran out of sarcasm in teh 50's...

What do you mean, I'm Canadian and I employ sarcasm all the time.

Oh, the irony is killing me...

TIGERassault wrote:And if the police, who's main job is to deal with criminals, dont need weapons to defeat criminals then what makes you so sure that the average citisen does?

Keep in mind that the 2nd amendment isn’t about protecting oneself against criminals, although that has become the rallying cry of a lot of pro 2nd amendment folks.

When it was written it was about giving the people the ability to protect themselves from a corrupt government.

This is why I choose to argue in favor of the 2nd amendment on constitutional grounds and not self protection grounds. I think it’s easier to defend.

Skyalmian wrote: There's too much questioning about its nature.

People can question it's nature all they want. That doesn't diminish the intent of the framers.

Skyalmian wrote:They're certainly not told that they have rights, let alone what they are (I wasn't.).

That's unfortunate. I went to High School in California in the early 80's and we studied the constitution and how it (or should) affects our every day lives.

Skyalmian wrote:Thanks to "Feducation" (federal education) the Constitution is not taught in federal schools, and what is taught is the-state-is-sovereign (not the individual) indoctrination in conjunction with a false version of US history. They're certainly not told that they have rights, let alone what they are (I wasn't.).

It's an education problem, made far worse by the government-influenced, fearmongering corporate media / modern state of fear.

Wow, up here we learn all about our constitution and rights in Grade 11 at the latest. There's a big project wherein one must research the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which itself has several technical flaws, but bear with me) and write out the general categories and specific rights contained therein. However, much of the Canadian constitution is unwritten conventions, though they mostly deal with the state of the government (i.e. parliamentary democracy with elections after at most 5 years, the party with the most seats forms the government, the runner up party is the official Opposition, and the Prime Minister is the leader of the winning party, etc.), not the rights of the individual.

Also, what do you mean by "false version of U.S. history"?

If you want my honest opinion, I think outlawing all firearms will eventually lead to worldwide anarchy, OR massive proliferation of black market dealings/secretive pursuances (this means that both can happen, or just one). Just look at the prohibition in the U.S.

Furthermore, I think that if the latter of the above happens, then the government will be very very restrictive on the daily lives of the citizens, perhaps abolishing many of the amendments that we've come to get used to.