Quote from dabigE13

they're smart enough to know we wont go quietly with something as big as taking away an amendment we swore to obey.

We also "swore" to consider blacks 3/5 of a person. Point is The Constitution is outdated.

Quote from Scooty

We also "swore" to consider blacks 3/5 of a person. Point is The Constitution is outdated.

though an interesting point thats rather unrelated. and besides i think that point has been made a thousand times since now saying the word nigger will get me the shit beat out of me by some black gang.
lets not turn this into a black vs. white thread.

Quote from dabigE13

though an interesting point thats rather unrelated. and besides i think that point has been made a thousand times since now saying the word nigger will get me the shit beat out of me by some black gang.
lets not turn this into a black vs. white thread.

Not quite what I was going for, but alright then.

Quote from dabigE13

i think thats a good point. which is why i mentioned the part of them easing the blow with commercial and discussions and meetings of how much taking away guns would help.
they're smart enough to know we wont go quietly with something as big as taking away an amendment we swore to obey.

Governments been doing that for a long time, starting way back in like Mesopotamian time. Governments will know that if there are these resistant groups, it will soon lead to rebellion. Rebellion would lead to the fall of the government and the country. It would lead to absolute chaos. One of the major reasons why they probably won't ban them.

Quote from InfamousBonk

Rebellion would lead to the fall of the government and the country.

Fall of the government, yes. Fall of the country? Fuck no. The point of the 2nd ammendment was to make sure that we could overthrow the government.

I dont see the point in using the second amendment (or its out datedness) as reasoning for or against a gun ban. It only applys to americans. So you're argueing if americans should have the freedom to a gun.

Quote from Youwishjellyfish

I dont see the point in using the second amendment (or its out datedness) as reasoning for or against a gun ban. It only applys to americans. So you're argueing if americans should have the freedom to a gun.

What are you looking for here? Confirmation? Um... "Yes" ?

I live in a "civilized" country, the death rate by firearms is the lowest in the world, and normal citizens can't have a un because it's illegal. We know that criminals don't give a snap about the gun ban, however they will always have a gun, but it's not a reason to let everyone to have a gun to fight against it. It sometimes makes the situation even worse.

Besides, the criminals will not use big firearms guns, since they know we don't carry any gun. Unless we have one the legally way (wich requires months to get a handgun).we may lose som material stuff and done, the criminal may be captured and go to jail with no deaths in the process.

Well, if everyone had a gun then they would just make lame excuses about protecting themselves and shooting.
a GUN IS A WEAPON TO KILL

so you cant just have one unless you will use it

It would be more fair for Freedom to have a taser. Then it protects you without having to kill

Well freedom to have a gun, is maybe for me. Because if you have a gun you might abuse it.

Bumping in light of the proposals Obama made today. From BBC News:

He urged Congress to:

• reintroduce an expired ban on "military-style" assault weapons, such as those used in several recent mass shootings
  
• limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds
  
• introduce background checks on all gun sales; currently private sales and some sales at gun shows, constituting about 40% of the national total, are exempt
  
• pass a ban on possession and sale of armour-piercing bullets
  
• introduce harsher penalties for gun-traffickers, especially unlicensed dealers who buy arms for criminals
  
• finally approve the appointment of the head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

I'm interested to know if anyone disagrees with any of these.

Those all seem sensible enough, but I'm putting my money on someone raising hell over them.

I agree to how it is now mainly because (and this is just my personal opinion before i get an infraction warning again) banning all possessions of weapon would restore peace for a while but after that, will came chaos and anarchy because all guns might be taken but what about knives, baseball bats, crowbars, broken bottles. Crazies will still find a way to cause havoc.

Quote from Teslar

I agree to how it is now mainly because (and this is just my personal opinion before i get an infraction warning again) banning all possessions of weapon would restore peace for a while but after that, will came chaos and anarchy because all guns might be taken but what about knives, baseball bats, crowbars, broken bottles. Crazies will still find a way to cause havoc.

You think that people would overthrow the government because they banned guns? Also how the fuck would they be able to overthrow the government with knives, crowbars, and baseball bats?

Quote from Cobalt

You think that people would overthrow the government because they banned guns?

Not necessarily "overthrow the government", but if officials started knocking on doors and demanding people give up their property, some people would use lethal force to defend it.

None of the new laws have anything to do with that, but still, people take this shit very seriously.