Please elaborate on that.

'This is why registration and licensing will not work.' I hope, Strangelove, you did not say what I think you just said. Did you just say it is useless to register and liscense firearms? That is absurd on soo many levels it can not be justified in any arguements.

Thing is though, they already DO go to the black market. This is why registration and licensing will not work.

I believe that taking guns away from citizens would mean that lawfl people would give there weapons up. Look how easy it is to get drugs. Criminals would go to the black arket to get them instead of in the store where they can be tracked.

It should also be said that murders and break-ins make much better news than self defense. You never see headlines like "Couple defends themselves with handgun." Because it doesn't get people to buy papers. If you read the stories, you'll get a true perspective because most of the defense events are buried in the article. Then you've got the fact that a gun doens't have to be fired to be effective, it's a huge intimidation factor.

Also concerning crime rates, It wasn't harrasment or petty theft, it was more like ARMED ROBBERY. The same occured in Australia.
Please also explain the fact that crime rates have gone down across the board in states with concealed carry permits, while stricter gun control tends to lead to more murder and armed robbery.
The problem is lack of education, people are intimidated by guns becasue they do not understand them.

As for hunting, your completely and utterly misinformed and ignorant of the role it plays in our national park systems and it's importance in animal population management. Look at the places where bith control and "adversive conditioning" have been implemented and failed miserably. I have seen this stuff first hand.

Junkie, a criminal is a professional at breaking laws. You see, thats WHY they're called criminals. However, law abiding citizens do follow the flaws. And when firearms are banned, who do you think is going to turn over their arms, farmer john the law abiding citizen with his over under shotgun, or Jimbo the gangster with his jennings 22, his hi-point carbine, and his ab-10 ? Its a bit obvious.

Marine, Aloner was quoting someone who had already replied, regarding the outdated thing. He is against firearm control, you just misread his post. His point was that if the second amendment is considered to be outdated, so would the first amendment...

On the idea that England's crime rate has plumited. The reason why is because of cameras! They are every where over there. It makes it a lot eaiser to convict all these criminals with the cameras and to think that it only because of guns being taken away that is very close minded. Your more likely to get muged in London than you are in NYC. We need guns how am I going to stop an intruder with a gun if i have a bat? By the time I swing at him I'll be dead. I won't stand by and let some petty street thug take the things that I work hard to own. Marine is right.

Aloner, these facts put an end to every 'arguement' you have posted on this site. The 2nd Ammendemt came into affect before bullet proof vests were even invented. The 2nd ammendment came into affect when most people would die horrible deaths of bleeding to death when they were shot, instead of dieing by just being shot like today. The 2nd ammendement says 'all citizens' not all militants.

As for you, magicjunky, we should give upo our firearms. That way when a foriegn foe invades us the citizens will be defenseless. That way when the government terns 'crazy' we can let them run all over the citizens. That way when an intruder enters my house with an illegal firearm I will able to defend my self with a knife or a bat. Those are really good ideas. Wait a minute they aren't, they are horrible ideas. Those are the worst ideas I have ever heard in my life. We should never give up our guns for the reasons listed above and because it is our right to bear them.

They are a blight on society.
The crime rate in England has plummeted. If there was a brief rise, then it was coincidental.
Oh, and what crimes are we talking about? Petty theft? Harassment?
How often do you hear of a "good old boy" taking down an armed robber? How many times do you hear of an armed robber taking down a "good old boy"?
The latter is heard much more often, and it's understandable. Farmer Joe is no match for a group of thugs.. He should've handed over the keys to the tractor...
Ban them.

What england are YOU talking about, the crime rates in britain jumped when firearms were pretty much banned.

Additionally, I dont give a **** about hunting. The founding fathers did not write the second amendemnt in order to cap some deer's ***. It was written so that people could defnd both themsleves AND defend against govt tyranny. Additionally, those more likely to kill people at home stats arent real stats, they were just made up by HCI... And as for a killer taking my firearm, all he'll be taking are 7.62 rounds in the chest.

Completely unnecessary. Look at England. The people have no right to bear arms there. The crime rate is much lower than in America.
Drugs, their biggest problem. I'd take drug addicts over murder any day.
When there's a gun in the home, think of things that are greatly increased. Accidental shootings, shootings between friends/family, suicide, and fear.
Also, for the people that claim that it's for "safety"... Don't be surprised when you're shot with your own gun.
As for keeping the government at bay, I think congress, police officers, etc. Are doing a fine job at keeping them out of out homes.
Guns are needless, they cause much more harm than good.
I haven't read the other posts, but I'm sure I covered previous topics.
Oh, and to hunters out there..... We throw away a million pounds of meat every month.... There is no excuse to hunt. If anything, it's greedy.
Birth control to prevent over-population.
Hunters cause more deer to jump out in front of cars than anything else. Wonder how many people have hit (or been killed by) a deer because a drunk hunter was trailing behind.......

"The second Ammendment was not meant for civilians, and it was not made in a time of automatic weapons and bullets that can go through a bullet proof vest."

That win's the "stupidest comment of the thread" award.

Do you think the first amendment was only meant for quill pens and letter presses?

Should we do a total amendment overhaul "to fit the current times"?

The 2nd ammendment puts an end to all anti-firearm arguements.

I on the otherhand would prefer to have a gun. Reason? I know how to use one, am comfortable with them, and would not hurt myslef with it anymore than i would hurt myself walking around the block. The storage conditions depend on your house. If' I'm living alone, I will have a gun, I have a family with young childern, I wouldn't keep it by the bedstand, but in a much more responsible location, that is still acessible to me.

If you know how to use the gun the attacker will not get it from you.

As for "letting the professionals do it", That's not always an option. In my area, there is probably a MINIMUM of five minutes response time for the police. In that time the intruder could have killed you, raped you, robbed you, vandalized your house etc. It may sound like the usual repetative argument, but it is true. Instantaneous defense has very few alternatives.

If the intruder has a gun, then he is using it. He does not want to be shot, you do not want to be shot, It's called MAD (mutually assured destruction). A little bit of a stretch to apply it here but it's still relevent.

As for loading time, lets assume your weapon is a semi-automatic gun with a clip. If you know how to use it, a maxmimum of 10 seconds. 30 if you include getting the two different components. Using this option is ultimately up to you, case specific. If you have time, do it, if you don't find some other plan. Again, it't the OPTION of using it.

No i would not want a gun if there was an intruder in my house, nor would i want anyone else there to have one. Why would I not want a gun? Because it could hurt myself or someone I love. Plus the intruder is probably not going to use a gun but if he sees i have one, then he will more likely use his. Also, what if the intruder gets the gun from me and uses it aganist me. I also would not be able to use a gun if an intruder came in, because if I did have one it would be locked up and unloaded.(the responsible thing to do.) It would take longer to load a gun and use it, putting yourself in danger, then to pick up a phone dial 911 and let professionals deal with the problem. I would rather invest my money in a security alarm system then in a gun.

Everyone, and I am sure codeE will agree, loves to hate guns. But I can gaurntee they will wish they had a gun when an intruder is in their hosue with the intent to harm them. The second ammendment speaks for itself and it is IMPOSSIBLE to argue against the law of the land, the constitution.

princessL,
would you still not like guns if someone was breaking into your house with the intent to hurt you or your family? wouldnt it be nice to have a weapon (gun) to protect yourself with? guns are a tool like anything else. if used improperly, yes they can be deadly, and they should be.

Bushsupporter- Read the subject and get your facts straight

I find it ludicrous that anyone would think a "large dog" or baseball bat is a substitute for a firearm.
Does anyone really believe that if the government banned all privately owned guns no-one would have them? The black market for guns is already a huge cash cow in the US, behinde illicit drugs firearms are second most numerous item smuggled throught North America. If a criminal wants a gun, he will get it. Then when he breaks into your house with intent to rape/kill/steal from you, you are defenseless.
While a guard dog or bat will help you, a crimal can shoot the dog and you before anything can be done.
It may work in Canada, and to a very limited extent in Britian, but in the US it would be disaster. Why? Because the culture of the US is different correct me if I'm wrong but the cops in England never carried firearms, and never had to. What does that say about Britian?
Not everyone is within 5 or 10 minutes of the nearest cop. And because of large population and large land area there is a huge seedy sub-culture that is ruthless and uncaring for human life.

Gun laws in America are as they should be. Background checks ARE required at gun shows at the moment (i think, if they aren't they should be) Bottom line, anyone who isn't insane or a felon should be able to own a non-military (ie, fully automatic) firearm. Registration is not a solution in any sense because the VAST majority of people who are going to commit a crime with the gun won't register them.

And as for children being killed by finding parents guns, lets break down the numbers.
It has been said that 11 "children" are killed daily in America by firearms. Sounds pretty bad. However, lets take a closer look:
First, you must classify a child as anyone under 21.
Then, 7 of those "kids" are killed in gang violence, 3 of those "kids" commit suicide, and less than one (statistically) is killed by finding thier daddy's loaded gun and shooting himself or his friend. Where do these number come from? None other than the FBI.
That adds up to well under 365 "kids" a year.
In a country of nearly 300 million.
That's not bad in my book, considering the laxity of firearm education.
Gang viloence and suicide, Cultural problems, not gun problems.

Aimee, could that be because his arguments are better than yours and that he has the Constitution to back his and you have... I think you are just a little jealous.

"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.

“I shouldn't even dignify it with a response, but sadly, I must”
Was somebody twisting your arm for a response? I’m sick of all this high-and-mighty stuff.