At 4/26/12 11:34 PM, Jesse-Ray wrote:
You obviously know little about Australia's history. Our gun death figures usually circle around 10, whilst America's is upwards of 10,000. I mean there's a handful of statistics that point out that it's more fatal to have a gun in your home. I mean jail for anyone wielding a gun without a license or wielding one in public is all you need. From there the step is to limit what you can legally have a gun for. Over here it's essentially only for shooting feral animals with low power rifles. My father has two guns, they're fucking fun, but there's a time and a place for something so lethal and it's not in the home.

Incorrect. Less than 9,000 people were killed by firearms last year in crimes. Suicides aren't worth mentioning, as people are going to kill themselves regardless of firearms are available or not if they really want to.

There is a difference between brandishing a firearm (wielding it) and simply carrying one. We have laws in place for just that. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. People still murdered eachother en masse before guns existed kiddo.

And now for the shocking truth and straight from the source.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-
country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

At 4/27/12 12:14 AM, DickBuns wrote: I'd rather have a slightly higher gun crime rate, than a ridiculously out of control violence rate like yours. Here, shopkeepers can actually defend their stores. Not so much in the UK. The US could not ban guns effectively. Why? Because we are too apt at burying our guns, and the people would most certainly say fuck that, and overthrow the government. The US military would not support that either. Please, continue living in your fantasy bubble.

I'm not talking about gun crime, that's another issue. I'm talking about gun homicide, that is only an issue in one developed country. The UK, Australia and no doubt other developed nations have gone from allowing everyone to be armed with a gun not designed for tool purposes, to restricting the allowance along with related murder. Australia went a major overhaul after a man killed 35 and wounded 21. We bought back guns and burnt them at a considerable cost, introduced new laws turning guns into a tool and we've never had an issue since.

At 4/27/12 12:28 AM, Jesse-Ray wrote:
I'm not talking about gun crime, that's another issue. I'm talking about gun homicide, that is only an issue in one developed country. The UK, Australia and no doubt other developed nations have gone from allowing everyone to be armed with a gun not designed for tool purposes, to restricting the allowance along with related murder. Australia went a major overhaul after a man killed 35 and wounded 21. We bought back guns and burnt them at a considerable cost, introduced new laws turning guns into a tool and we've never had an issue since.

Gun buybacks do nothing except give criminals cash and provides them with an avenue to have the state destroy evidence for them.

Right to defend yourself, The 2nd Amendment.

At 4/27/12 12:31 AM, DickBuns wrote: Gun buybacks do nothing except give criminals cash and provides them with an avenue to have the state destroy evidence for them.

What are you basing your assumptions on?

At 4/26/12 05:55 PM, Ryan wrote: I thought freedom in general was an American thing...

Meh, you have so many options.... but in America you have two

At 4/27/12 12:42 AM, Jesse-Ray wrote:

At 4/27/12 12:31 AM, DickBuns wrote: Gun buybacks do nothing except give criminals cash and provides them with an avenue to have the state destroy evidence for them.

What are you basing your assumptions on?

I'm not making any assumptions. I'm telling you the truth. The only people who participate in gun buybacks, are those who are exploiting the system, selling the government a shitty saturday night special gun for 100 bucks, that they only paid 25 bucks for, people who are trying to get rid of their guns because they've done something wrong, or people who need cash.

This isn't assumption. This is logic. Please, more fail attempts at refuting me.

At 4/27/12 12:50 AM, DickBuns wrote: I'm not making any assumptions. I'm telling you the truth. The only people who participate in gun buybacks, are those who are exploiting the system, selling the government a shitty saturday night special gun for 100 bucks, that they only paid 25 bucks for, people who are trying to get rid of their guns because they've done something wrong, or people who need cash.

This isn't assumption. This is logic. Please, more fail attempts at refuting me.

We had a hugely successful buyback campaign. It was compulsory, it was not profitable and it resulted in the destruction of 643,000 weapons. Sure, murders still exist here, but not in the same way that the mindless pulling of a trigger does. One day the US will recall guns. It's going to take a change in the bill of rights and the US will be the better for it. How many high school shootings will it take to get some swing on this issue?

Let me see if I can put the Second Amendment in a different light, starting with the exact words:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Let's focus on the first part. It basically asserts that threats against the freedoms we codify and cherish can come from anywhere at any time, be it a foreign power from without or an insipid movement from within. This in mind, it is necessary to have a militia ready to face that threat.

Now note the wording here: militia, not military. Why this specific terminology? Simply put, the threat may come from the military and/or the government it fights for, as was the case during the American Revolution. Say the Second Amendment didn't find its way into the Bill of Rights, and firearms restrictions such as those in Britain were imposed in the US - no harm, no foul. Now suppose Alexander Hamilton was elected president, decided the Bill of Rights was more a set of guidelines than actual rules, and started implementing decidedly imperial policies. Americans don't like this and are ready to take up arms against him...just one problem: they don't have any.

Aside from the fact that Hamilton never ran for president and the scenario is entirely hypothetical, it should be understood that this possibility is exactly why the Second Amendment exists. And as unlikely as that scenario may seem to some people today, it is nonetheless still possible, especially in a political climate where citizens are fearful, ignorant, or apathetic (as in all three for the past decade).

Thus, the Second Amendment exists primarily as a safeguard against totalitarian rule by the government, and against criminals and hostile invaders secondarily. Negative consequences can and do arise as a result, but it is a struggle we take upon ourselves because of the protection that right to arms provides.

Freedom of speech. Why? Basically, because I can say "Fuck political correctness" without getting in trouble.

At 4/27/12 01:08 AM, Jesse-Ray wrote:
We had a hugely successful buyback campaign. It was compulsory, it was not profitable and it resulted in the destruction of 643,000 weapons. Sure, murders still exist here, but not in the same way that the mindless pulling of a trigger does. One day the US will recall guns. It's going to take a change in the bill of rights and the US will be the better for it. How many high school shootings will it take to get some swing on this issue?

No. It really won't. And when it does, it will no longer be the United States. But some sort of conglomeration of nations.

You're a retard for thinking that your idealistic happy hippy rules are equally applicable to anyone and everyone's country.

Mexico has one. Read it. JUST ONE shop in the entire country where a person can legally purchase a firearm. Look at how much gun violence they have there. This thread needs less idiocy from you.

At 4/27/12 07:29 AM, LaForge wrote: the right to a fair trial if i'm musli - wait...

Muslims are supposed to have fair trials.Ideally, if something is wrong you can file appeals. If that doesn't work, then the people in the system failed, not the design of the system itself. The jury trial system in the United States is legit.
Not gonna talk about the marijuana one (becuase, I really don't know much about that topic, and I kinda don't care lol), but marriage is tricky. I would think that the 14th amendment would make it so that anyone could be married, but I'm not a lawyer, and if I could think of that I'm sure someone would have tried already.

At 4/27/12 07:29 AM, LaForge wrote: i enjoy the right to smoke mariju - wait... the right to gay marr - wait... the right to use a search engine without the gov - wait... the right to a fair trial if i'm musli - wait...

Michigan sounds like a really shitty state minus your medical marijuana laws and half priced weed.

I'm sorry what? I was to busy with my friends here.