Again....But it's never the guns!

[Brian37]

How about this argument? How many times have we had to shed a tyrant off our backs in the last 200 years? None. How many civilians has the 2nd amendment killed? Hundreds of thousands. Not a good track record, IMHO. Time to amend the 2nd amendment.

Finally the discussion's gotten somewhere I can participate in.

First off, if we define "tyrants" by the same definition of those who waged the Revolutionary War, we should've had another revolution every single time the government made the entire nation go do something when there were dissenting states who did not wish to do whatever it was the federal government was making them do.

Second, the second amendment hasn't killed anyone; the second amendment does NOT guarantee your right to go and murder people. It only allows you to "bear arms." Arms can be considered any kind of weapon; granted, back then none of them could have imagined the firepower we can rain from the skies nowadays, but would that have changed their minds? I doubt it. After the point of owning the weapon, it is up to law to determine what you can and cannot do with your weapon, be it a gun or a knife or a rock. The second amendment needs no amending unless it's going to add "unless you're a crackpot with a history of theft, violent crime, and/or sexual assault, and/or with a history of mental/emotional instability."

Going back to the tyrant thing, I would have GLADLY joined into an overthrowing of one in the US about ten years ago if people had ever gotten the balls [and brains] to do so.

This argument is essentially the same about marijuana legalization. Almost verbatim, in fact. Switch around some words and it'd be the same damn thing. "Irresponsible user or already violent person on weed goes and kills people; MUST BE THE WEED! SILENCE ALL LEGALIZATION TALKS OF IT! Nevermind the thousands of others who didn't, haven't, and won't do this, we have one incident per hundreds of thousands of users of weed involved with violence while high, so let's put our boot down on the other hundreds of thousands NOT causing incidents. Cuz this makes sense!"

This is the same argument with guns. MILLIONS of gun owners in the US. HUNDREDS of millions, in fact. If even a TENTH of them were actually using them irresponsibly to commit crimes, first of all our homicide rate would make everything happening in the Middle East look like fucking British Tea Time, and second of all, THEN I'd start saying there MIGHT be something to the argument that guns are not being responsibly used in ways that we should expect.

Until over 50% [the majority] of the gun owners in this country start using them to go trigger-happy on people willy-nilly, the argument that guns should be illegal for everyone is baseless, unfounded, and born of irrational emotional response, not logic.

And here in the US we don't even have close to 10% of gun owners using them to go gunning down others. Not even close.

Seriously, the whole "BAN THEM ALL, THAT'S ALL WE SHOULD DO!" idea is fucking stupid. It's a kindergarten-level disciplinary action. "Uh oh, Little Billy has just been caught jerking off with his Elmer's glue so you've all lost your glue privileges for the week!" Maybe that kindergarten level mentality worked BACK THEN but I'm a grown-ass man, and if you try to tell me you're taking away my guns that I DON'T use to go around shooting every poor bastard in the mall because someone else did I'm going to laugh in your fucking face and dare you to TRY, and if you do, you're trying to take my property, therefore you're a thief, and you're stealing from me...and then, I have a reason...

PLEASE FUCKING STOP THIS PATHETIC TACTIC

This is just code speak for "fear them, they want to take my guns away"

You talk of percentages as if a human life is worth nothing. Remember that because by this same time tomorrow 32 more people will have died from everything from suicide, gang violence and domestic murder and accidental gun fire. Multiply that by 365.

That's a small number? Play those odds long enough and eventually even you will know someone murdered or affected by a gun death, or even get hurt yourself.

Now again, you stupidly argue "they want to take away my guns". Canada allows gun ownership too. So please explain to me why they have a lower rate of gun death than we do.

WE DONT want to take away guns from responsible people and idiotic arguments like this are constantly used to prevent any sensible policy that will reduce gun death.

This is the same lunatic argument Nader had to fight the car companies to get them to adapt safer standards.

"You are for seat belts and speed limits so therefore you are anti car".