guns are pretty much registered already

they know who gets permits for pistols, they also know what gun is sold, where, and to whom...

same goes for long guns... that info is there already

some people would get mad because the criminals would have their rights infringed upon somehow during the arrest

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 4:20 PM. Reason : yeah]

8/9/2006 4:20:01 PM

^^ im giving you the benefit of the doubt with the rifles cuz at least they have a practical use other than "saving the children" or killing people for fun.

1. easier to identify criminals b/c they have the hand gun (i know you wont like this but it is somewhat true)
2. doesnt matter if criminals have um, take um when you can, protect your own family with a legal firearm. i dont know what you want me to say. criminals have a lot of things that we cant get from them right away, doesnt make um right.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 4:24 PM. Reason : ^ thats fine then, i was just tossing it out there. i just dont see a point to handguns as stated]

8/9/2006 4:24:24 PM

Why is registering legal handguns not as good? Look, kids kill themselves in a variety of fucked up ways. When parents don't parent and allow their kids to fuck with their handguns, it isn't the guns fault. It is the parent's fault.

I knew at my house that playing with guns = swift kick in the ass, and I knew they were dangerous. So I didn't play with them.

Its not like the number of kids who accidentally off themselves with a gun is that high anyhow

Quote :

"In 2000, 174 children (0-18) in the United States died from unintentional firearm-related injuries. Unintentional injuries are usually caused when children play with guns or are hunting. Unintentional injuries from firearms represent less than two percent of all firearm deaths in the U.S. But of this two percent, children and adolescents are involved in 55% of the deaths. The majority of the injuries occur to children playing with or showing the weapons to friends. The easy availability of firearms is believed to be the number one risk factor for unintentional firearm deaths"

http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesAF.htm

I'd be willing to bet that at least that many children were saved by stopping criminals directly, let alone indirectly because people are less likely try to break in and/or attack people who may own handguns.

8/9/2006 4:24:34 PM

you would bet wrong

8/9/2006 4:36:44 PM

Penn & Teller said a swimming pool was something like 100 times more likely to kill your children than a firearm (I could be remembering wrong).

8/9/2006 4:39:44 PM

its funny that folks bitch and bitch and bitch about the government evesdropping on you and taking away your civil liberties.


But when it comes to the single right you have to protect yourself from the government, you'll just give it right up.

8/9/2006 4:42:13 PM

Quote :

"its funny that folks bitch and bitch and bitch about the government evesdropping on you and taking away your civil liberties. But when it comes to the single right you have to protect yourself from the government, you'll just give it right up."

EXACTLY

8/9/2006 4:43:20 PM

^^^ while they were joking, obviously a pool is more likely to kill children. think about how many kids swim and how often they do it compared to how many kids are playing with guns.

^^ i dont think me owning a gun is gonna protect me from the government even if i wanted to. hell even if i got all my little friends together they'd still wipe us off the map if they wanted.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 4:51 PM. Reason : you planning on a revolution any time soon? or perhaps just shooting cops that try to arrest you?]

8/9/2006 4:50:52 PM

sadly, looks like the government already won then

I'd prefer to be left alone since I am not breaking the law

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 4:53 PM. Reason : ..]

8/9/2006 4:52:21 PM

Quote :

"you planning on a revolution any time soon? or perhaps just shooting cops that try to arrest you?"

so anybody who isnt a criminal who has a gun is either planning a revolution or planning to shoot cops?

8/9/2006 4:54:39 PM

when they say they need a gun to protect them from the govt....

the govt already won because of escalation of weaponry and whatnot id say

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 4:57 PM. Reason : .]

8/9/2006 4:55:21 PM

what about if we want a gun to protect our family from criminals? where is there any harm at all in that?

8/9/2006 4:56:51 PM

that was the original intent of the 2nd amendment

like I said, sadly, the government has already won


if it really went down with the government, they'd have a hard battle to fight, because you would have no idea who is the bad guy and who isn't



[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 4:58 PM. Reason : unintended consequences]

8/9/2006 4:57:15 PM

^^ thats fine.

^ only so much you can do with the tech we have. luckily with all the information we can get and the communications we have, we dont need to violently revolt every couple centuries.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 4:58 PM. Reason : .]

8/9/2006 4:57:59 PM

so the original intent of the 2nd amendment was something to the effect of:

a. having militias to help defend neighborhoods and towns against the British
b. protecting your family from potential Native American attackers, etc

how come (not trying to be racist) 'b' isnt still applicable if you change "potential Native American attackers, etc" to "criminals"?

8/9/2006 4:58:55 PM

Quote :

"we dont need to violently revolt every couple centuries."

You haven't been paying attention!

8/9/2006 5:00:45 PM

injuns were far more savage than black ppl thats why

8/9/2006 5:15:38 PM

Why does somebody always have to turn it into a race issue?

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:17 PM. Reason : ]

8/9/2006 5:17:16 PM

cuz i think racism is funny as long as you arent serious

8/9/2006 5:19:27 PM

Well, that's the problem, you see. You may be kidding, but others aren't.

8/9/2006 5:21:34 PM

Quote :

"Why does somebody always have to turn it into a race issue?"

because its an easy copout

8/9/2006 5:23:14 PM

Quote :

"so the original intent of the 2nd amendment was something to the effect of: a. having militias to help defend neighborhoods and towns against the British b. protecting your family from potential Native American attackers, etc"

b is not in the second amendment

^It is also historically a race issue, it goes back to personal protection and the klan

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:28 PM. Reason : .]

8/9/2006 5:28:10 PM

my whole argument (and the one you keep bringing up) is that you can protect urself without an easily concealed, quick firing, easily reloaded weapon.

yes i understand some rifles and shotguns fit that definition (save maybe the easily concealed).

8/9/2006 5:29:18 PM

^^obviously 'b' wasnt listed in the 2nd amendment...i'm trying to figure out what was supposedly implied by the amendment and i would think protection in general would be implied

^so if a couple guys break into my house i want a bulky slow firing weapon that takes a long time to reload?

8/9/2006 5:30:59 PM

not like you have to chase them, just call the cops, stay put, and get ready.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:34 PM. Reason : better off in a defensive position anyways]

8/9/2006 5:34:10 PM

call the cops and hope they get there in time, huh

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:35 PM. Reason : better off with a weapon to protect my family from criminals anyway]

8/9/2006 5:35:07 PM

there was a gun in my scenario

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 5:38 PM. Reason : plz reread]

8/9/2006 5:37:51 PM

ok

what if the cops dont show up for 30 minutes and your family is already dead

i guess thats just tough shit?

8/9/2006 5:39:58 PM

Quote :

"i'm trying to figure out what was supposedly implied by the amendment and i would think protection in general would be implied"

talk about lose interpretation

btw heres your argument for you:
Pennsylvania's (or some state, I'm not entirely sure of the top of my head) wrote its constitution at the same time with similar language that meant a personal right for personal protection

8/9/2006 5:42:18 PM

^loose interpretation maybe...but if you dont think PART of the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to PROTECT THEMSELVES...then remind me not to appoint you as a supreme court justice if i was president

i'm content knowing i can own guns even though there are people who want to take away my rights given to me by the US Constitution

8/9/2006 5:43:15 PM

Well, no courts agree with you

8/9/2006 5:49:18 PM

apparently they dont disagree with me either since i legally own multiple guns

8/9/2006 5:54:40 PM

they don't think you have a personal right

8/9/2006 5:55:42 PM

apparently they do or they would arrrest me and take my guns

8/9/2006 5:59:28 PM

oh jesus christ, someone walk him through this

8/9/2006 6:01:31 PM

you're arguing interpretation of the 2nd amendment

no law currently says i cant own many types of firearms

what is it you are trying to say exactly? that personal firearms ownership is not explicitly mentioned in the 2nd amendment? no shit...but that DOESNT MATTER

8/9/2006 6:02:45 PM

im trying to say you are allowed to own your guns, but not because of some personal right (in the opinion of the courts so far)

8/9/2006 6:06:50 PM

so the 2nd amendment isnt the basis for me being able to legally own guns......

8/9/2006 6:07:45 PM

just go back and read what i said to start your confusion

8/9/2006 6:13:43 PM

Quote :

"ok what if the cops dont show up for 30 minutes and your family is already dead"

what is this the buglary swat team? here's your timeline:

1. buglar breaks in and you hear
2. grab your shotgun and assume a defensive position (round up your family and/or call cops as you do so, shouldnt be hard)
3. wait until police arive

you think one or two guys with handguns are gonna be able to get you while you sit there shotgun ready around a corner/behind a bed/etc? odds are they wont see you unless looking for you or will die shortly after.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 6:18 PM. Reason : and i highly doubt a cop wont show up for 30 mins to an armed buglary call]

8/9/2006 6:17:45 PM

I still don't see the difference between having shotguns legal and having handguns legal. They are easier to conceal, sure, but the difference between them seems piddly.

Not to mention, banning handguns would in effect ban conceal-carry.

Yes, you can still defend your home, but you yourself are out of luck.

8/9/2006 6:39:39 PM

how many ppl have conceal carry and how effective do we really rate it at preventing violence and/or crime?

i think theres a minority and i dont consider it all that more effective in preventing physical injury.

8/9/2006 6:42:29 PM

it may or may not protect in one isolated incident, but the general knowledge that there is a well-armed populace may serve as a deterrent to thugs and crooks

8/9/2006 6:47:07 PM

yeah it worked well in the old west

8/9/2006 6:48:04 PM

yea i get all of my historical knowledge from john wayne movies too

but there's a liberal for ya - getting his world view from the local cineplex

8/9/2006 6:50:09 PM

Ok lets look at current well armed places. Hows the crime rate in Mogadishu?

8/9/2006 6:52:30 PM

we could just not send criminals the memo

8/9/2006 6:52:49 PM

ok so you get your worldview from the local cineplex, and correlations imply causation

wait let me guess -- humanities major?

8/9/2006 6:56:59 PM

Theres a reason that the only places where everyone carries a gun are violent uncivilized regions, and its not because of the movies

8/9/2006 6:58:12 PM

Quote :

"how many ppl have conceal carry and how effective do we really rate it at preventing violence and/or crime"

quite a few actually

I've helped teach CCW classes and have seen the number ofpeople that come through... you'd be surprised how many women and minorities take the classes, not just your "redneck yokel" that wants a gun

8/9/2006 7:26:22 PM