<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 02:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 12:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If we're supposed to have a "living document" as constitution, why didn't they write "this document should be liberally interpreted, ignored when convenient, and otherwise pointed to only when you care about the harm govt. is doing" in it?</div> You're not supposed to have one. The US constitution wasn't designed that way. I was just saying that I prefer that model more. </div> I'm making an amusing observation here, not directing anything at you. Well, I'm easily amused... The constitution was written by lawyers. It closely resembles a corporate structure in many ways. The constitution itself would be the by-laws. If doctors wrote it, it probably would be something of a living document. </div> My bad for not picking up on it. But I do think you bring up a legitimate criticism of the "living constitution" model. Its prone to be exploited and selectively enforced by "activist judges" (everyone seems to hate them). And of course, its pretty damn difficult to pick out a consensus perspective to enforce at any given time. I guess I'm just being an idealist again.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 26 2008, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 26 2008, 10:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 26 2008, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No one should have rights to bear arms, but now its too late to pull the ruling out, with so many damn guns in the streets. (millions) The founders made that rule so that the people could protect themselves from the threat of the English (UK) and things like that, and they had no idea where the world was going to be hundreds of years later.</div> What the fuck? I was going to go on a long winded post against this, but then I saw that you are from Massachusetts. I will say this: you outlaw guns, it doesn't get rid of guns. It just assures you that the law abiding citizens will get rid of theirs, while those who kill, steal, etc with guns, keep theirs... EXCELLENT idea. </div> Outlaw guns and then have life sentences without parole or anything for anyone caught with a gun after an amnesty. Anyone left with a gun obviously is intending to use it to break the law, else they would hand it in, so punish them before they commit the crime. </div> Brilliant! Now we just gotta hope we catch them before they commit a crime. (Crosses fingers AND toes - that should be enough). What I don't understand is how Liberals (and not in the classical sense that DaBullz used, but in the modern day sense in American politics) bemoan the Bush administration for the Patriot Act, saying its a violation of of our Constitutional Rights....then under the same breath, want to ban guns. Hypocrisy at its finest. </div> If they are going to commit crimes anyway, what difference will it make? </div> Seriously? If an armed intruder breaks into my house to steal stuff, I can protect myself and my property. If someone breaks into my house and wants to kill me, I can defend myself. If someone wants to break in and have their way with my future wife, I can protect her. Its about the ability to protect yourself, your property, your family, and your livelihood. Ridding the "US" of guns only ensures that the law abiding citizens are armless and those wishing to break the law anyway remain armed. You are eliminating a self defense mechanism. I would have thought that something basic like this was easily understandable. Guess I am mistaken.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 01:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 26 2008, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 26 2008, 10:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 26 2008, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No one should have rights to bear arms, but now its too late to pull the ruling out, with so many damn guns in the streets. (millions) The founders made that rule so that the people could protect themselves from the threat of the English (UK) and things like that, and they had no idea where the world was going to be hundreds of years later.</div> What the ****? I was going to go on a long winded post against this, but then I saw that you are from Massachusetts. I will say this: you outlaw guns, it doesn't get rid of guns. It just assures you that the law abiding citizens will get rid of theirs, while those who kill, steal, etc with guns, keep theirs... EXCELLENT idea. </div> Outlaw guns and then have life sentences without parole or anything for anyone caught with a gun after an amnesty. Anyone left with a gun obviously is intending to use it to break the law, else they would hand it in, so punish them before they commit the crime. </div> Brilliant! Now we just gotta hope we catch them before they commit a crime. (Crosses fingers AND toes - that should be enough). What I don't understand is how Liberals (and not in the classical sense that DaBullz used, but in the modern day sense in American politics) bemoan the Bush administration for the Patriot Act, saying its a violation of of our Constitutional Rights....then under the same breath, want to ban guns. Hypocrisy at its finest. </div> If they are going to commit crimes anyway, what difference will it make? </div> Seriously? If an armed intruder breaks into my house to steal stuff, I can protect myself and my property. If someone breaks into my house and wants to kill me, I can defend myself. If someone wants to break in and have their way with my future wife, I can protect her. Its about the ability to protect yourself, your property, your family, and your livelihood. Ridding the "US" of guns only ensures that the law abiding citizens are armless and those wishing to break the law anyway remain armed. You are eliminating a self defense mechanism. I would have thought that something basic like this was easily understandable. Guess I am mistaken. </div> LOL I think there's two kinds of people in the world. Those who think early Man originally was a peaceful animal and was corrupted along the way by capitalism. Then there's the rest of us who think early Man invented the tool to hit someone else over the head to take something from them.
What if they made a law that replaces every gun with tranquilizer dart guns? note to self: I guess maybe a leather jacket would render them totally ineffective?
The people criticizing this move don't make any sense to me. The crooks in DC already have the guns. It's this idiot law that prevented law-abiding citizens from having handguns to protect themselves in their homes. To hear people like Diaane Feinstein tell it, everyone in DC will have a gun with no restrictions. That's simply not true. The restrictions will still be in place.
Well, the fact they could drive 15 minutes out of town and get a gun from a store makes the law that much more stupid.
The Supreme Court got it right. Any sort of restriction on the 2nd Amendment does not hinder anyone other than law abiding citizens.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 05:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 01:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 26 2008, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 26 2008, 10:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 26 2008, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No one should have rights to bear arms, but now its too late to pull the ruling out, with so many damn guns in the streets. (millions) The founders made that rule so that the people could protect themselves from the threat of the English (UK) and things like that, and they had no idea where the world was going to be hundreds of years later.</div> What the ****? I was going to go on a long winded post against this, but then I saw that you are from Massachusetts. I will say this: you outlaw guns, it doesn't get rid of guns. It just assures you that the law abiding citizens will get rid of theirs, while those who kill, steal, etc with guns, keep theirs... EXCELLENT idea. </div> Outlaw guns and then have life sentences without parole or anything for anyone caught with a gun after an amnesty. Anyone left with a gun obviously is intending to use it to break the law, else they would hand it in, so punish them before they commit the crime. </div> Brilliant! Now we just gotta hope we catch them before they commit a crime. (Crosses fingers AND toes - that should be enough). What I don't understand is how Liberals (and not in the classical sense that DaBullz used, but in the modern day sense in American politics) bemoan the Bush administration for the Patriot Act, saying its a violation of of our Constitutional Rights....then under the same breath, want to ban guns. Hypocrisy at its finest. </div> If they are going to commit crimes anyway, what difference will it make? </div> Seriously? If an armed intruder breaks into my house to steal stuff, I can protect myself and my property. If someone breaks into my house and wants to kill me, I can defend myself. If someone wants to break in and have their way with my future wife, I can protect her. Its about the ability to protect yourself, your property, your family, and your livelihood. Ridding the "US" of guns only ensures that the law abiding citizens are armless and those wishing to break the law anyway remain armed. You are eliminating a self defense mechanism. I would have thought that something basic like this was easily understandable. Guess I am mistaken. </div> LOL I think there's two kinds of people in the world. Those who think early Man originally was a peaceful animal and was corrupted along the way by capitalism. Then there's the rest of us who think early Man invented the tool to hit someone else over the head to take something from them. </div> I live in America and don't need a gun to do every day things, don't need a gun to protect myself. Thats why you have the police for. Its crazy when people suggest that you need self defense in America, and let me tell you that every where I've been, from the Midwest, to the Northwest, then the South (Carolinas), and now living in New England, I've never been in danger, even though currently I live 5 minutes from Springfield, where crime is much higher than a lot of cities around the US. Everyone else I know, Americans and foreigners, they have never needed guns, and will never need them. I can understand if you want guns for sport reasons, to go shooting, hunting, etc, but there is no reason at all to have guns because you feel scared. Now if you were in Iraq where a war is happening, than thats another story.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 27 2008, 09:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 05:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 01:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 26 2008, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 26 2008, 10:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 26 2008, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No one should have rights to bear arms, but now its too late to pull the ruling out, with so many damn guns in the streets. (millions) The founders made that rule so that the people could protect themselves from the threat of the English (UK) and things like that, and they had no idea where the world was going to be hundreds of years later.</div> What the ****? I was going to go on a long winded post against this, but then I saw that you are from Massachusetts. I will say this: you outlaw guns, it doesn't get rid of guns. It just assures you that the law abiding citizens will get rid of theirs, while those who kill, steal, etc with guns, keep theirs... EXCELLENT idea. </div> Outlaw guns and then have life sentences without parole or anything for anyone caught with a gun after an amnesty. Anyone left with a gun obviously is intending to use it to break the law, else they would hand it in, so punish them before they commit the crime. </div> Brilliant! Now we just gotta hope we catch them before they commit a crime. (Crosses fingers AND toes - that should be enough). What I don't understand is how Liberals (and not in the classical sense that DaBullz used, but in the modern day sense in American politics) bemoan the Bush administration for the Patriot Act, saying its a violation of of our Constitutional Rights....then under the same breath, want to ban guns. Hypocrisy at its finest. </div> If they are going to commit crimes anyway, what difference will it make? </div> Seriously? If an armed intruder breaks into my house to steal stuff, I can protect myself and my property. If someone breaks into my house and wants to kill me, I can defend myself. If someone wants to break in and have their way with my future wife, I can protect her. Its about the ability to protect yourself, your property, your family, and your livelihood. Ridding the "US" of guns only ensures that the law abiding citizens are armless and those wishing to break the law anyway remain armed. You are eliminating a self defense mechanism. I would have thought that something basic like this was easily understandable. Guess I am mistaken. </div> LOL I think there's two kinds of people in the world. Those who think early Man originally was a peaceful animal and was corrupted along the way by capitalism. Then there's the rest of us who think early Man invented the tool to hit someone else over the head to take something from them. </div> I live in America and don't need a gun to do every day things, don't need a gun to protect myself. Thats why you have the police for. Its crazy when people suggest that you need self defense in America, and let me tell you that every where I've been, from the Midwest, to the Northwest, then the South (Carolinas), and now living in New England, I've never been in danger, even though currently I live 5 minutes from Springfield, where crime is much higher than a lot of cities around the US. Everyone else I know, Americans and foreigners, they have never needed guns, and will never need them. I can understand if you want guns for sport reasons, to go shooting, hunting, etc, but there is no reason at all to have guns because you feel scared. Now if you were in Iraq where a war is happening, than thats another story. </div> It doesn't matter whether or not it's necessary. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. I will argue however, it is necessary. Back in February a U.S. Marshall was shot in the neck about one block from my dorm room while serving a child support warrant. The shooter fled on foot and later was shot dead by police. Earlier this year on a Sunday afternoon a robber forced his way into my dorm building, came to my floor and stole various things, including laptops. He was armed as well. Robberies have become a natural occurrences around campus. So have police chases and shootings around the neighborhood. That is the nature of the Washington D.C. that is beyond the plush neighborhoods of Georgetown and beyond Capitol Hill. My only regret is I can't have a gun myself.
^ How do you feel about things like the PATRIOT Act, or at least the common (mis)conceptions about its effects on civil liberties?
Personally I don't mind if the govt is listening to my conversations, looking at what I'm doing over the internet, and thats because I know that I'll never do something that will harm this country or its people. (not sure if you directed the question to me AEM)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jun 27 2008, 10:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 27 2008, 09:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 05:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 01:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 26 2008, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 26 2008, 10:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 26 2008, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No one should have rights to bear arms, but now its too late to pull the ruling out, with so many damn guns in the streets. (millions) The founders made that rule so that the people could protect themselves from the threat of the English (UK) and things like that, and they had no idea where the world was going to be hundreds of years later.</div> What the ****? I was going to go on a long winded post against this, but then I saw that you are from Massachusetts. I will say this: you outlaw guns, it doesn't get rid of guns. It just assures you that the law abiding citizens will get rid of theirs, while those who kill, steal, etc with guns, keep theirs... EXCELLENT idea. </div> Outlaw guns and then have life sentences without parole or anything for anyone caught with a gun after an amnesty. Anyone left with a gun obviously is intending to use it to break the law, else they would hand it in, so punish them before they commit the crime. </div> Brilliant! Now we just gotta hope we catch them before they commit a crime. (Crosses fingers AND toes - that should be enough). What I don't understand is how Liberals (and not in the classical sense that DaBullz used, but in the modern day sense in American politics) bemoan the Bush administration for the Patriot Act, saying its a violation of of our Constitutional Rights....then under the same breath, want to ban guns. Hypocrisy at its finest. </div> If they are going to commit crimes anyway, what difference will it make? </div> Seriously? If an armed intruder breaks into my house to steal stuff, I can protect myself and my property. If someone breaks into my house and wants to kill me, I can defend myself. If someone wants to break in and have their way with my future wife, I can protect her. Its about the ability to protect yourself, your property, your family, and your livelihood. Ridding the "US" of guns only ensures that the law abiding citizens are armless and those wishing to break the law anyway remain armed. You are eliminating a self defense mechanism. I would have thought that something basic like this was easily understandable. Guess I am mistaken. </div> LOL I think there's two kinds of people in the world. Those who think early Man originally was a peaceful animal and was corrupted along the way by capitalism. Then there's the rest of us who think early Man invented the tool to hit someone else over the head to take something from them. </div> I live in America and don't need a gun to do every day things, don't need a gun to protect myself. Thats why you have the police for. Its crazy when people suggest that you need self defense in America, and let me tell you that every where I've been, from the Midwest, to the Northwest, then the South (Carolinas), and now living in New England, I've never been in danger, even though currently I live 5 minutes from Springfield, where crime is much higher than a lot of cities around the US. Everyone else I know, Americans and foreigners, they have never needed guns, and will never need them. I can understand if you want guns for sport reasons, to go shooting, hunting, etc, but there is no reason at all to have guns because you feel scared. Now if you were in Iraq where a war is happening, than thats another story. </div> It doesn't matter whether or not it's necessary. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. I will argue however, it is necessary. Back in February a U.S. Marshall was shot in the neck about one block from my dorm room while serving a child support warrant. The shooter fled on foot and later was shot dead by police. Earlier this year on a Sunday afternoon a robber forced his way into my dorm building, came to my floor and stole various things, including laptops. He was armed as well. Robberies have become a natural occurrences around campus. So have police chases and shootings around the neighborhood. That is the nature of the Washington D.C. that is beyond the plush neighborhoods of Georgetown and beyond Capitol Hill. My only regret is I can't have a gun myself. </div> Thats where the govt comes in place, and where the police need to act and protect its people. It shouldn't be up to you, as college students to have guns and defend yourself. I work in the airline business (almost 4 months now) and we get angry customers almost daily, to the point where they would almost attack you, thats how emotional they are. And then a few minutes later they calm down and regret what they did. Now imagine yourself (or someone else), and something has happened to you, and makes you angry, your emotions run high and you have a gun hanging around, its in our brain to become an attacker and act like an animal, basically its in our genes, but then 5 minutes later you would automatically feel guilty and know that you made a mistake. Guns are not for ordinary people, they are for military and police and personnel that are professionally trained for them.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Guns are not for ordinary people, they are for military and police and personnel that are professionally trained for them</div> I like your posts you make that are NBA related, and generally consider you to be pretty intelligent when it comes to that field, however I must say you are so absolutely incorrect with this statement it makes me sick. Generally, people who own registered firearms are not those who intend to commit crimes with said firearms. They are regular Americans who just happen to enjoy hunting, or shooting in general, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. 90% of gun crimes are committed with unregistered firearms or firearms that cannot be traced back to the person who committed the crime. By creating laws that outlaw firearms you will do nothing other than hinder law abiding citizens while empowering criminals by them knowing that when they break the law they have no fear of their victims being armed. And don't say "Well outlaw all firearms then" because your talking about the very foundation that this country sits on as we speak. I think for the past 100 years things have turned out pretty well, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. They are called facts, I HIGHLY suggest you start paying attention to them, otherwise, your simply part of the problem.
The system is broke my friend, thats why you have crimes committed every single minute somewhere in the united states. All of this because the govt (and some people) want to stick to what some politicians said 200+ years ago, when things were much different, and both world wars hadn't happened yet. People needed protection from the native americans, from the outlaws (cowboys, etc), as well as from the English that attacked constantly. There is no reason for me and you to have guns now, since we have the best military in the world, we have cops at every corner, and its one of the safest countries in the world. (after a few western countries in europe lol) I respect your point of view though, just so you know.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 28 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The system is broke my friend, thats why you have crimes committed every single minute somewhere in the united states. All of this because the govt (and some people) want to stick to what some politicians said 200+ years ago, when things were much different, and both world wars hadn't happened yet. People needed protection from the native americans, from the outlaws (cowboys, etc), as well as from the English that attacked constantly. There is no reason for me and you to have guns now, since we have the best military in the world, we have cops at every corner, and its one of the safest countries in the world. (after a few western countries in europe lol) I respect your point of view though, just so you know.</div> Here's the additional historical point that changes things. To the colonial Americans, the greatest danger arose from what they considered their own government, the Crown. The notion that an overwhelmingly powerful government could act however it saw fit was considerably worrying to the Founding Fathers - Federalists and anti-Federalists alike. I think Denny already touched on this earlier.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 28 2008, 12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 28 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The system is broke my friend, thats why you have crimes committed every single minute somewhere in the united states. All of this because the govt (and some people) want to stick to what some politicians said 200+ years ago, when things were much different, and both world wars hadn't happened yet. People needed protection from the native americans, from the outlaws (cowboys, etc), as well as from the English that attacked constantly. There is no reason for me and you to have guns now, since we have the best military in the world, we have cops at every corner, and its one of the safest countries in the world. (after a few western countries in europe lol) I respect your point of view though, just so you know.</div> Here's the additional historical point that changes things. To the colonial Americans, the greatest danger arose from what they considered their own government, the Crown. The notion that an overwhelmingly powerful government could act however it saw fit was considerably worrying to the Founding Fathers - Federalists and anti-Federalists alike. I think Denny already touched on this earlier. </div> While that is the historical context, it doesn't make much sense today. Armed citizens with pistols and rifles aren't going to be that tough a force against a govt. with automatic rifles, drone airplanes, an air force, a navy, tanks and bombs and the a-bomb.
A bit of a casual reflection: My pops doesn't personally believe in owning a gun (unless I lived in some mansion that attracted bad people, etc.) and he would be pissed if I got one (I don't want one though). However, he would never be against the second amendment, it is a personal choice to make in both of our opinions, and I generally do not believe in prohibitions of any kind. Now if one were to use a firearm in some criminal activity, one should be harshly punished for it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 28 2008, 09:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The system is broke my friend, thats why you have crimes committed every single minute somewhere in the united states. All of this because the govt (and some people) want to stick to what some politicians said 200+ years ago, when things were much different, and both world wars hadn't happened yet. People needed protection from the native americans, from the outlaws (cowboys, etc), as well as from the English that attacked constantly. There is no reason for me and you to have guns now, since we have the best military in the world, we have cops at every corner, and its one of the safest countries in the world. (after a few western countries in europe lol) I respect your point of view though, just so you know.</div> There is plenty of reason for myself and people like me to own firearms. I'm going to make the assumption that you live in the city or at the very least a suburban area, and do not hunt, fish, or generally just do not do much in the outdoors in that sense of the word. Just because you choose not to participate in these activities does not mean there is no reason for anyone to have a firearm. If the only reason they haven't abolished the 2nd amendment is just because they are hanging on to what our founding fathers said 200 years ago, why don't we just throw out the constitution, the bill of rights, and everything else that has made this the greatest country in the world? The difference between city people and country people is huge, and it seems like people who live outside the city realize that, but the city people don't seem to understand the difference. I would feel more confident going hunting with a 12 year old who has lived outside the city and been around guns his whole life than a 40 year old city guy who has no idea what he's holding in his hands. In your previous post you say crimes are committed every single minute in the U.S., I'm sorry to burst your bubble but outlawing guns would have almost no effect on that figure. I don't know how many times I have to say this (and not just to you, it's like a broken record with gun control advocates) gun crimes are almost never committed with a legal, registered firearm. Outlawing guns will have absolutely no effect on crime in the U.S. I'd say I respect your point of view, but I really do not. The reason for that is because your point of view is not based on fact. If you'd do a little research with an open mind and unbiased sources, I think you'd find that your point of view really has no merit whatsoever.
You don't deserve a reply ripcity, so there, we'll end it at that. Talk about being biased and close minded. lol
