Quote from Gavel

Are you being serious or are you just trying to be a troll right now? You are the one who's been coming to this thread spouting nothing but the same damn argument over and over that's been proven wrong countless times in this thread, and I am the one who has nothing to say? I have nothing to say to you because your stubborn ass has nothing to say but the same thing over and over again that's been disproven countless times. And on top of that, you easily contradict yourself in every argument you try to make.

Please, just leave the thread. You're not really doing much for thos on your side of the argument.

****in' second'd.


I call twoface on him, also. Seems like an alt account.

My god, Gavel, calm down. The second you start spouting personal insults is the second you deserve to leave the debate.

If you think someone doesn't get it, then maybe you need to explain it better. Or maybe the person is stupid and/or arrogant. Either way, personally attacking him is the lowest and easiest option.

Quote from Gavel

My god, you are either insanely stubborn or continue to miss the point entirely. Yes by making things illegal, it makes it harder to obtain them. But when did I say it didn't? Please point me to the part where I said that. All I said was that the threat of the legal system isn't going to stop most criminals who are already committing a crime, because not everyone is afraid of getting a harsher sentence if they're already doing a crime. A lot of criminals are extremely overconfident and think they can never get caught, or just don't think much of jail time. But obviously you think that everyone thinks exactly like you do. Murder, theft, underaged drinking, and driving while under the influence are all illegal, but has that stopped the many people each year who are convicted under these charges? Obviously, it's hard to commit a murder or robbing a bank without getting caught, but has that stopped the people who still do these things? When are you going to realize that just because someone is doing something immoral that it doesn't necessarily mean they're nothing but a lazy bum and won't go through the trouble to carry out this activity?

*facepalm* Yes it hasn't completely stopped the activity, but it sure as hell has cut it down.

Okay, since when have I ever even acted like I think every criminal is the same? And even if I did, no where does that even change the fact that I've been trying to pound into you and Steiner's thick skulls for the past 20 or so pages. If you're not going to even pay attention to my posts when you state your side of the argument, don't expect anyone to do the same.

And obviously you have absolutely no idea how the mob even works. Don't make up stupid "examples" for stuff you don't even know half a shit about.

See above quote. As not every crim blows off the law, sure there are some, but not many in proportion.

The mob wouldn't care getting weapons illegally as they already do, that and hang on they are ****ing hardened crims. So if they were made illegal, the criminals who are just desperate for cash. You know the ones that hold up corner stores and the like. You know the ones who are really twichy you know the ones who kill people in cold blood because they misread a movement.

Or the crack heads who shoot people for their wallets.

But why in hell should the government have a "fuck it, it's not gonna change shit" point of view on this? Sure, it's not going to eliminate the possession of firearms but it will, simple as that, reduce it. It will. Trust me, it will. Even if violent crimes with guns can't be completely stopped, why shouldn't there be a step taken, showing efforts into that direction? Why doesn't it seem morally wrong to allow virtually everbody in a big country access to a tool initially made to kill or severly injure? We're not talking about steak knifes, but guns, designed to aid in safely bringing people to their knees. It's not only the legal aspect, but to me also an ethnical one.

Quote from ScHaLL

But why in hell should the government have a "fuck it, it's not gonna change shit" point of view on this? Sure, it's not going to eliminate the possession of firearms but it will, simple as that, reduce it. It will. Trust me, it will. Even if violent crimes with guns can't be completely stopped, why shouldn't there be a step taken, showing efforts into that direction? Why doesn't it seem morally wrong to allow virtually everbody in a big country access to a tool initially made to kill or severly injure? We're not talking about steak knifes, but guns, designed to aid in safely bringing people to their knees. It's not only the legal aspect, but to me also an ethnical one.

Because removal of the right to bear arms is removal of the ability to fight for our rights! It is extremely unconstitutional. The fact of the matter is, the government will have much more room to move around and change laws if they remove the citizens guns, because they won't have to answer to the citizens of the united states.


Far beyond the effects on violent crimes, what we have seen is that access to guns isn't the engine that drives violent crime, so instead of removing guns, we should figure out what is actually causing our crime rate and remove that, because guns sure as hell don't cause crime.

Quote from Ash

Because removal of the right to bear arms is removal of the ability to fight for our rights! It is extremely unconstitutional. The fact of the matter is, the government will have much more room to move around and change laws if they remove the citizens guns, because they won't have to answer to the citizens of the united states.

This is utter bullshit. What makes you think that it is the fact that civilians have guns that forces the government to answer to them?
Guns are illegal in Norway, does this mean that the government cares less about the people there? If so, then why is it that health care is free for everyone, and why is it that Norway is one of the best welfare states in the world.
It's almost impossible to end up on the streets in Norway, unless you almost deliberately **** up for yourself.
The people have tremendous power in a democracy, with or without guns. As long as the government let the people have that power. If the government wanted to suppress the people, it could easily do so.

Far beyond the effects on violent crimes, what we have seen is that access to guns isn't the engine that drives violent crime, so instead of removing guns, we should figure out what is actually causing our crime rate and remove that, because guns sure as hell don't cause crime.

I've tried to tell you this before: It's not only about crimes. Guns sure a hell cause firearms accidents. As Schall said; I honestly can't understand how the right to bear a tool invented only to hurt and kill other beings is more important than the safety of the people. To me it seems more like a right endangering you than a right protecting you.

Quote from Ash

Far beyond the effects on violent crimes, what we have seen is that access to guns isn't the engine that drives violent crime, so instead of removing guns, we should figure out what is actually causing our crime rate and remove that, because guns sure as hell don't cause crime.

I'm with you on the 'guns don't cause crimes', but they surely enhance them. I mean, it's easier robbing a bank with a gun than a knife, right?

Going a little off-topic, but I think that the cause of no only crimes, but all other kinds of things is the mixing of cultures.
Seriously. America is a melting pot and has one high crime rate.
The Netherlands is a melting pot and has the highest crime rate of Europe. Not as high as that of america, but we don't have legal guns.

@Alive:

I don't think you understand what I meant about the Government. Every democratic republic in history has eventually changed to a facist police state, and their downfall is always preceded by removal of the nation's arms. Look at any totalitarian government, look at any would-be dictator, and you'll see that one of their first efforts was to remove the weapons of the citizens. Why? To remove the ability of the people to fight back.

The reason Norway hasn't had a facist shift is twofold: they are a young government, and they are far smaller and more stable than the US. More that that, however, the Norwiegen government stands little to gain by removing freedoms: they're too small and insignifigant a force to be able to succeed.

The United States government has shown repeatedly that it is heavily laced with corrupt officials. All it takes is one person who thinks he knows best, who thinks that the citizens of the United States are too dangerous and wild to care for themselves, to remove one freedom, and then remove more freedoms until they think that we are safe.

Sure, people won't be happy, but if they have already lost the right to bear arms, then what's to stop a corrupted government from removing more freedoms? The people can speak out, but if they do, what's to stop a government who thinks that it knows best to silence those people, to threaten them with imprisonment for dissent?


I think we can all agree that the US is not very stable right now. I think we can also agree about the possibility of an overzealous and desperate person with high influence in the government can decide that they should be able to remove certain rights from the citezens to ensure a better tommorrow.

All any government needs to go totalitarian is two things: removal of freedom, and a scapegoat to use to remove those freedoms.


Don't think I assume that every government official is evil and only aims to take control: the way it happens is that they view taking control as a way of improving our lives.

Our government has an effective scapegoat. (Terrorism, the War on Terror, and "Homeland Security")

They have shown little regard for the Constitution. (The Patriot Act, for example, directly violates the Sixth and Eighth Ammendments, and that act also led to the unjust imprisonment of many people for simply speaking about things that were going on under wraps in the government, despite having signed no form of contract or agreement not to reveal such information.)

And if they succeed in removing the Right to Bear Arms, then there will be no stopping them from removing any other right. After all, they've practically removed the right to due process and the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

Give us one other of those freedoms that are as dangerous as freaking guns, which are killing machines, literally.

Quote from Gyohdon

Give us one other of those freedoms that are as dangerous as freaking guns, which are killing machines, literally.

Wait, what? I never said that we had "dangerous freedoms."

Quote from Ash

Wait, what? I never said that we had "dangerous freedoms."

That's my point.

Taking away the legality of guns isn't just taking away freedom or the way for the US people to fight back (Which the last time that was, was 200 years ago.), it is taking away the way for the people to harm eachother. Creating a safer environment.

Quote from Gyohdon

That's my point.

Taking away the legality of guns isn't just taking away freedom or the way for the US people to fight back (Which the last time that was, was 200 years ago.), it is taking away the way for the people to harm eachother. Creating a safer environment.

Wow. You aren't even worth debating against. You are just too goddamed ignorant.

The reason the Second Amendment was added to the constitution was not for the sole purpose of defense from INVASION or CRIMINALS, but from the very government to whom the constitution applies, the United States Government.

If we let them take our guns, then they will be open to remove the right to free speech, press, assembly, Trial by Jury, due process, and everything else that allows us to remain free.

This is not something that could only happen 200 years ago, this is something that can happen NOW.



Here's something you probably never knew: before Hitler's rise to power, Germany was a democracy much like our country. They had a free press, free religion, and total control over their own lives. They had pop stars, pulp novels, and the ability to choose their careers.

As Ramman Kenoun once said, "The tyrant always talks as if he's preserving the best interests of his people when he actually acts to undermine them."

No dictator tries to gain power just for the sake of getting power, or appears to do so. They are always thinking that they are acting to help the world, they believe that the things they do will improve the lives of their people. Hitler wasn't a genocidal maniac during his rise to power: he was a great orator who knew how to make people think his way, and did so because he thought it would make the world a better place.

However, just like everyone with a large amount of concentrated power, he took away his people's weapons. After all, it's difficult to keep them happy if they are free to kill each other.

Hitler often spoke of "traitors", and when he did, people began to think in the way he wanted: traitors were less than human, they didn't deserve the rights that they did.

This is no different than how our government treats "enemy combatants". Once a person is deemed an "Enemy combatant", they are stripped of all rights as a citizen. They can be tortured, put in prison without a trial, and even killed.

Soon, everyone in Germany began to support Hitler (Even the Jews. This was before he began to persecute them), and he began to remove their rights to help fight against the evil traitors amoungst them. The thing is, they didn't care: it was all for their protection, right? The few people that DID care had already been stripped of their weapons and rights, so they had no way to fight back.


Our contry is hanging on the edge, just like Germany was when Hitler rose to power, just like Rome during the beginning of Julius Ceasar's reign.

Removal of the right to bear arms is the first motion toward a facist shift, and it is inevitable that our unstable, corrupt government will begin to fall prey to the currently overpowered Executive Branch.

If that's all true ash, then learn to vote.
The only thing you'll have to be concerned about is the goddamn president.

And that's the peoples' choice.

Quote from Gyohdon

If that's all true ash, then learn to vote.
The only thing you'll have to be concerned about is the goddamn president.

And that's the peoples' choice.

Good ****ing god, the people's votes don't matter after primaries. Voting makes very little difference. The Electoral College has the say, not the people.

lernpoliticsk?