Pro-Gun Advocates aren't actually Anti-Gun Control, they're just Anti-Government

Essentially they are just enemies of the human race, which they long to destroy.

DDA said:

An excellent reply with very good points. :applaud

I tried to make the video as neutral as possible and just laid out the facts and numbers, so the first line of your reply means mission accomplished in my book!

As fun as it is even I get tired of the football debates which go on, and especially on the gun issue, because I believe that there is actually a lot of agreement on the matter.

However, usually just pick their side and end up arguing against policies which they actually believe make sense

Personally, I don't understand why it would be so bad for the US to become more like Australia, the UK or x pro-gun control country?

I can't speak for the people in any other country, but I don't feel like I have no freedom or unsafe in the UK

Click to expand...

Personally, I don't understand why it would be so bad for the UK to become more like us in regards to gun-control, I don't feel unfree or unsafe here in the United States

DDA said:

So in that case do you consider only firearms as "arms"? And if so why?

In addition, why would you believe that it's acceptable for civilians to be able to have standard issue rifles and not other military weapons?

And finally, what are your opinions on legislation on limiting certain people having guns, like the mentally ill or people on the watch list?

Click to expand...

The second amendment should apply to all arms not just firearms, that legal argument hasn't quite caught on yet mainly because the political battle has been over guns and not other forms of weapons, however it is not unheard of in the 1980s the Oregon Supreme Court ruled switch blades were protected weapons under the state constitution. Just very recently a court in Wisconsin ruled the second amendment gives one the right to possess a switchblade in their own home.

If someone is adjudicated mentally defective (not mentally ill, 99% of mentally ill people can safely own and use firearms), by a judge in a hearing in which they have the opportunity to present evidence in their defense, then sure. Some stupid watchlist invented by a bureaucrat? Not on your life I would never support banning someone from owning a gun purely because some pencil pusher put them on the list

DDA said:

Yes I do agree with you on how, at least in theory, there shouldn't be any limits on the people to bear arms. And I also realise that my suggestions at the end would fly in the face of the constitution, but it was fun to write so meh.

but you're right, I am over thinking it, it's just my nature I guess haha

Click to expand...

The Constitution of the United States of America isn't "theory". It's a precise blueprint of our government.

Simple Definition of blueprint

a detailed plan of how to do something

Full Definition of blueprint

something resembling a blueprint (as in serving as a model or providing guidance); especially : a detailed plan or program of action <a blueprint for victory>

Examples of blueprint

a blueprint for reforming the public school system
<an ambitious young man with a remarkably detailed blueprint for becoming a millionaire by the age of 25>

Blueprint | Definition of Blueprint by Merriam-Webster

Click to expand...

So, I would expect you to either agree with the Constitution or dispute the Constitution...not qualify your agreement based on it being a "theory".


Now...if you think the Constitution should be changed to allow infringements or outright bans on arms or the right to bear them, then you must advocate for doing so in accordance with the specific procedures established in the Constitution for doing so. Any other method...enacting laws that violate the Constitution, using the Court to alter the interpretation of the Constitution, Executive Actions that violate the Constitution, etc...are not allowed by the Constitution.

So...in respect to your Thread Title, I have to say you are wrong. Pro-gun advocates are not "anti-government"...they are "pro-government", "pro-Constitution" and they are "anti-gun control". In fact, gun-control advocates...if their methods are about anything but amending the Constitution...are "anti-government" and "anti-Constitution" in that they want to subvert the Constitution and the government to attain their desires.

DDA said:

Yes as a Brit and more importantly, someone who hasn't studied the issue, you'll have to be patience with me sorry

Interesting! So where does the militia element come into it?

Also what if the police was unarmed? Like they are in Europe and the UK. Would pro-gun people then believe its ok limit those previously used arms?

How come you believe that civilians being able to use the same arms as the US army matters, they're not supposed to be deployed within the border aren't they? And if there was a military-coo, woulld having access to just the standard arms do any good anyway?

Sorry for all the questions at once, it's all quite interesting to me ^^

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, that is a bald face lie, cops are not unarmed in Europe and you know it. Some police officers in the United Kingdom are unarmed (and those armed officers in the United Kingdom are kid it out with far more firepower than any American cop has at their disposal ) and in Norway police officers do not carry firearms on their person but have them in secured mounts in their vehicles. The rest of continental Europe police officers are routinely armed.

DDA said:

Yes as a Brit and more importantly, someone who hasn't studied the issue, you'll have to be patience with me sorry

Interesting! So where does the militia element come into it?

Also what if the police was unarmed? Like they are in Europe and the UK. Would pro-gun people then believe its ok limit those previously used arms?

How come you believe that civilians being able to use the same arms as the US army matters, they're not supposed to be deployed within the border aren't they? And if there was a military-coo, woulld having access to just the standard arms do any good anyway?

Sorry for all the questions at once, it's all quite interesting to me ^^

Click to expand...

These are all good questions.

In the US the emphasis is on individual rights, which trumps all else. This includes the right to defend oneself as best one can. Traditionally, less value is placed on the collective good. So it might be good for the community if arms were confiscated, but that counts for little against the idea that the individual has the right to self defense.

I know that in the UK it's the other way around. The collective good trumps individual rights. But in the US we would hold ourselves weak if we acquiesced to that.

To be sure the US tradition of individual rights is slipping away as we see more and more weaklings enter the public square, mewling for protection from the government. But for the present the tradition of individual rights is still strong enough to withstand attacks from the collectivists.

LowDown said:

These are all good questions.

In the US the emphasis is on individual rights, which trumps all else. This includes the right to defend oneself as best one can. Traditionally, less value is placed on the collective good. So it might be good for the community if arms were confiscated, but that counts for little against the idea that the individual has the right to self defense.

I know that in the UK it's the other way around. The collective good trumps individual rights. But in the US we would hold ourselves weak if we acquiesced to that.

To be sure the US tradition of individual rights is slipping away as we see more and more weaklings enter the public square, mewling for protection from the government. But for the present the tradition of individual rights is still strong enough to withstand attacks from the collectivists.

Click to expand...

Well said.

Penderyn said:

Essentially they are just enemies of the human race, which they long to destroy.

Click to expand...

any proof of such a stupid statement? The advocates of genocide disarm the public

TurtleDude said:

bear arms. anything civilian police can use in terms of firearms other civilians should be able to own freely.

along with the standard issue rifle of our national guard

Click to expand...

This seems arbitrary.

Deuce said:

This seems arbitrary.

Click to expand...

well it might be but it has lots of value because when a civilian police agency issues a type of weapon to its Civilian employees-it is making an official statement such weapons are the most or among the most suitable for use by civilian officers for self defense against criminals. It also suggests that politicians who say there is no reason for other civilians to merely own such weapons are liars

I also include the standard issue rifle of the national guard because under the Miller decision, the USSC-a USSC that was under the control of FDR-admitted that militia useful weapons ARE protected by the second amendment and the standard issued rifle to the national guard is the single most useful said weapon

LowDown said:

These are all good questions.

In the US the emphasis is on individual rights, which trumps all else. This includes the right to defend oneself as best one can. Traditionally, less value is placed on the collective good. So it might be good for the community if arms were confiscated, but that counts for little against the idea that the individual has the right to self defense.

I know that in the UK it's the other way around. The collective good trumps individual rights. But in the US we would hold ourselves weak if we acquiesced to that.

To be sure the US tradition of individual rights is slipping away as we see more and more weaklings enter the public square, mewling for protection from the government. But for the present the tradition of individual rights is still strong enough to withstand attacks from the collectivists.

Click to expand...

That's probably the most concise way of putting the ideological difference between the people in the UK/EU and the US. :applaud I would also agree with that observation as well.

I was about to start asking what is more important collective or individual, arguing towards the collective and make all sort of points about that but I think a new thread would be better. But I think we know where everyone stands on that anyway.

thanks for you answer

EMNofSeattle said:

I'm sorry, that is a bald face lie, cops are not unarmed in Europe and you know it. Some police officers in the United Kingdom are unarmed (and those armed officers in the United Kingdom are kid it out with far more firepower than any American cop has at their disposal ) and in Norway police officers do not carry firearms on their person but have them in secured mounts in their vehicles. The rest of continental Europe police officers are routinely armed.

Click to expand...

You're right, I should of said less armed, like they are in the UK and EU.

With that amendment to my point being said, what is your opinion to my questions then?

Mycroft said:

The Constitution of the United States of America isn't "theory". It's a precise blueprint of our government.



So, I would expect you to either agree with the Constitution or dispute the Constitution...not qualify your agreement based on it being a "theory".


Now...if you think the Constitution should be changed to allow infringements or outright bans on arms or the right to bear them, then you must advocate for doing so in accordance with the specific procedures established in the Constitution for doing so. Any other method...enacting laws that violate the Constitution, using the Court to alter the interpretation of the Constitution, Executive Actions that violate the Constitution, etc...are not allowed by the Constitution.

So...in respect to your Thread Title, I have to say you are wrong. Pro-gun advocates are not "anti-government"...they are "pro-government", "pro-Constitution" and they are "anti-gun control". In fact, gun-control advocates...if their methods are about anything but amending the Constitution...are "anti-government" and "anti-Constitution" in that they want to subvert the Constitution and the government to attain their desires.

Click to expand...

I think you might have mis understood what I went when I said "in theory". I meant in a sense that it should be that way, but because of particular reasons, it isn't. Like me saying, well since they also speak English, in theory I should understand them.

So I was saying that based off the Constitution, they're shouldn't be an limits on the right to bear arms, but there are. Personally I'd like to know, how the New York restrictions on firearms hasn't been run as unconstitutional?

My view is that the Constitution should be changed to repeal or replace the second amendment, before restrictions are placed, instead of passing laws which tap dance round the issue. I believe the benefits of no guns in the country outweigh the negatives. However, I know that is a hated position in the US, and one which not even half of democrats would support, so I think there would be 0% chance of that actually happening.

DDA said:

You're first few line about me are definitely true.

I won't reply to every comment you've done but I have read them all.

Thanks for all the info I'll definitely read them later (and believe I will ^^)

I don't disagree with much of what you've said. Probably just about the tyranny part. Not that this is why the second was written, just that I don't think it's the reason it would be needed anymore. However, I understand that most people on here would disagree with me on that, so no sweat, it's probably a topic for a new thread

And thanks for your comments

Click to expand...

As long as a government is in place the threat of tyranny exists. Human nature will always be human nature.

DDA said:

You're first few line about me are definitely true.

I won't reply to every comment you've done but I have read them all.

Thanks for all the info I'll definitely read them later (and believe I will ^^)

I don't disagree with much of what you've said. Probably just about the tyranny part. Not that this is why the second was written, just that I don't think it's the reason it would be needed anymore. However, I understand that most people on here would disagree with me on that, so no sweat, it's probably a topic for a new thread

And thanks for your comments

Click to expand...

One other issue here that gun control advocates don't address is the differences in demographics. People in cites don't view guns in the same way people in the country do. In Colorado the Democrats pushed through some laws after getting input from the rural areas about rural views. They totally ignored the input from the rural areas and passed the laws. In less than a year two representatives had been recalled and another had to resign to keep the seat for the Democrats.

I live in the mountains. Some people come up here to hide from the law. We only have two deputies that work this area and they could be over in the other canyon to the south of us when we need an officer. From the time I call for an officer to the time they show up could be 90 minutes. Our deputies and the sheriff have stated to me personally, that it would be stupid to be up here without a gun. We also have wildlife that can be a threat. We have mountain lions, bobcats, bear, moose, elk and deer that we see frequently. Most people in urban areas don't live with these types of conditions. The police are not more than 20 minutes away. They don't have to worry about coming out of a house and encountering a bear or mountain lion. They don't take those factors into account when passing these laws.

Lutherf said:

3. There are a great number of gun owners (My personal experience tells me this is the "most" category) who believe that keeping and bearing arms is a necessary or at least prudent aspect of self defense. Many in this group are veterans, have law enforcement background or have otherwise been engaged in public safety endeavors. These are the ones (like me) who only pay attention to polls as a measure of what the politicians are planning next.

Generally speaking, the folks in the first and second categories will be more open to "minor" restrictions as their interests are more academic. They have considered their own circumstances and feel strongly about the right to keep and bear arms but are not heavily invested in the concept. Those in the third and fourth categories are generally a lot less inclined to accept ANY infringement on the right. For this category the right is tied directly to practical, every day purposes. For us you may as well suggest restricting the use and possession of kitchen utensils because restricting guns would be equally absurd.

Click to expand...

:yt Excellent summation of the position.

NonoBadDog said:

One other issue here that gun control advocates don't address is the differences in demographics. People in cites don't view guns in the same way people in the country do. In Colorado the Democrats pushed through some laws after getting input from the rural areas about rural views. They totally ignored the input from the rural areas and passed the laws. In less than a year two representatives had been recalled and another had to resign to keep the seat for the Democrats.

I live in the mountains. Some people come up here to hide from the law. We only have two deputies that work this area and they could be over in the other canyon to the south of us when we need an officer. From the time I call for an officer to the time they show up could be 90 minutes. Our deputies and the sheriff have stated to me personally, that it would be stupid to be up here without a gun. We also have wildlife that can be a threat. We have mountain lions, bobcats, bear, moose, elk and deer that we see frequently. Most people in urban areas don't live with these types of conditions. The police are not more than 20 minutes away. They don't have to worry about coming out of a house and encountering a bear or mountain lion. They don't take those factors into account when passing these laws.

Click to expand...

Again, very good points.

However, even an Anti-Gun advocate myself believes that the Pro-Gun side have a much stronger defense for their Gun Right with the Constitution rather than any other reason. As in the minds of Anti-Gun people like me, all we see are the deaths of all those people because of guns and point to the UK and EU countries, don't see the government becoming tyrannical and just don't believe gun rights are rights at all, but simply instead a dangerous privilege.

But, Id like to think that I don't see the world through a bog role. I do think your point about the urban v rural is a fair points, I live in Manchester, the police are only 2 minutes away tops and this is the same from most of the UK. In 90 minutes, if the traffic was clear, you could drive from Birmingham to London (our 2 biggest cities)

DDA said:

You're right, I should of said less armed, like they are in the UK and EU.

With that amendment to my point being said, what is your opinion to my questions then?

Click to expand...

I don't believe the premise, i know most European police agencies are equally, sometimes better armed then your average american police officers. In some countries like France the police are organized along military lines.

Also in nearly all of Europe outside of UK hamdguns are legal for civilians to own, so are semi auto rifles.

It does not contribute to higher crime

TurtleDude said:

well it might be but it has lots of value because when a civilian police agency issues a type of weapon to its Civilian employees-it is making an official statement such weapons are the most or among the most suitable for use by civilian officers for self defense against criminals. It also suggests that politicians who say there is no reason for other civilians to merely own such weapons are liars

I also include the standard issue rifle of the national guard because under the Miller decision, the USSC-a USSC that was under the control of FDR-admitted that militia useful weapons ARE protected by the second amendment and the standard issued rifle to the national guard is the single most useful said weapon

Click to expand...

But why specifically the national guard rifle and not something else? I don't mean like a different model, I mean like a different standard of comparison. "A court said so" the only reason or is this standard picked out with a particular logic?

Deuce said:

But why specifically the national guard rifle and not something else? I don't mean like a different model, I mean like a different standard of comparison. "A court said so" the only reason or is this standard picked out with a particular logic?

Click to expand...

what exactly is your point

I am merely talking about arms that are clearly protected.

EMNofSeattle said:

I don't believe the premise, i know most European police agencies are equally, sometimes better armed then your average american police officers. In some countries like France the police are organized along military lines.

Also in nearly all of Europe outside of UK hamdguns are legal for civilians to own, so are semi auto rifles.

It does not contribute to higher crime

Click to expand...

im sorry you're wrong with your perspection of UK and the various police in the EU. The average officer does not carry a firearm and outside of key government buildings you won't find any officers with them. However, if a call came it where the police may have to deal with someone with a gun, then you'll probably see them

But you are right, the uk is more restrictive than anywhere else in Europe (but unfortunately we're next to Ireland which is not so). However, all EU countries ban automatic weapons and there are many regulations on gun ownership. However, most of these regulations, if applied in the US wouldn't even take away people's guns, just make people get licences, and prevent prohibited persons e.g. people with criminal records, history of domestic violent, the mentally ill, drug or alcohol abuse and etc from having them. Law abiding citizens are still free to have guns.

However, so when you say "it doesn't contribute to higher crime", are you referring to non prohibited peoples ability to buy guns has no affect? if yes I could agree. However, in the US you can't possibly say your current gun laws don't have an affect on crime and point to the EU as your evidence. As the US allows what would be prohibited persons to buy guns though it's liberal laws, lack of regulation and various loop holes.

So as a result, weapons are much more likely to end up in the hands of people who would do harm, unlike the EU, and as a result thousands of people are dying every year.

So even it makes no sense in the end to argue for regulation free Gun Rights or again Gun Control based off safety. However, the second amendment would be your defence of any EU still measures. And again, it's a shame because many people will die as a result of it.

If not a total ban, the US really needs a 2nd Amendment 2.0, thst guarantees that people can have guns but also has those regulations which the EU has to at least make sure they stay out of the hands of certain people.

Then you'll have a safer and just as free US populous

DDA said:

im sorry you're wrong with your perspection of UK and the various police in the EU. The average officer does not carry a firearm and outside of key government buildings you won't find any officers with them. However, if a call came it where the police may have to deal with someone with a gun, then you'll probably see them

But you are right, the uk is more restrictive than anywhere else in Europe (but unfortunately we're next to Ireland which is not so). However, all EU countries ban automatic weapons and there are many regulations on gun ownership. However, most of these regulations, if applied in the US wouldn't even take away people's guns, just make people get licences, and prevent prohibited persons e.g. people with criminal records, history of domestic violent, the mentally ill, drug or alcohol abuse and etc from having them. Law abiding citizens are still free to have guns.

However, so when you say "it doesn't contribute to higher crime", are you referring to non prohibited peoples ability to buy guns has no affect? if yes I could agree. However, in the US you can't possibly say your current gun laws don't have an affect on crime and point to the EU as your evidence. As the US allows what would be prohibited persons to buy guns though it's liberal laws, lack of regulation and various loop holes.

So as a result, weapons are much more likely to end up in the hands of people who would do harm, unlike the EU, and as a result thousands of people are dying every year.

So even it makes no sense in the end to argue for regulation free Gun Rights or again Gun Control based off safety. However, the second amendment would be your defence of any EU still measures. And again, it's a shame because many people will die as a result of it.

If not a total ban, the US really needs a 2nd Amendment 2.0, thst guarantees that people can have guns but also has those regulations which the EU has to at least make sure they stay out of the hands of certain people.

Then you'll have a safer and just as free US populous

Click to expand...

The UK armed officers carry a whole arsenal in their vans, also police officers in Northern Ireland carry firearms routinely, so do police officers in all of continental Europe save Norway (who carry firearms in all patrol vehicles)


Police officers in the US carry pistols, and usually a shotgun in the vehicle. Which is basically what police officers in Europe carry. The Polizei and the gendarmerie are on balance better armed then most American police forces, so again I will reject the premise.

Various European countries have fairly lenient gun laws, in the Czech Republic for example (which oh by the way has bar lower rates of murder and violent crime in general in the united kingdom) carrying a concealed pistol for personal protection is perfectly legal and the license required to do so is very easy to obtain. Austria permits ownership of semi automatic rifles with self defense is a justification for the permit. The reality is, nearly everyone qualified to own a firearm in the United States would be qualified to own one in most continental European countries, and the widely varying standards and firearms laws, demonstrate that firearms legislation is not a driver of crime.

The US has a wide array of unique social problems not applicable to Europe that explain the higher crime rate. Take our northern neighbor Canada for example, fire arms are very easy to obtain in Canada, there's a very active trade in trafficking illegal firearms into Canada from the US. And despite this Canada's murder rate is far lower than ours, murder rate is drawn by social problems for more than its drawn by accessibility to weapons

DDA said:

im sorry you're wrong with your perspection of UK and the various police in the EU. The average officer does not carry a firearm and outside of key government buildings you won't find any officers with them. However, if a call came it where the police may have to deal with someone with a gun, then you'll probably see them

But you are right, the uk is more restrictive than anywhere else in Europe (but unfortunately we're next to Ireland which is not so). However, all EU countries ban automatic weapons and there are many regulations on gun ownership. However, most of these regulations, if applied in the US wouldn't even take away people's guns, just make people get licences, and prevent prohibited persons e.g. people with criminal records, history of domestic violent, the mentally ill, drug or alcohol abuse and etc from having them. Law abiding citizens are still free to have guns.

However, so when you say "it doesn't contribute to higher crime", are you referring to non prohibited peoples ability to buy guns has no affect? if yes I could agree. However, in the US you can't possibly say your current gun laws don't have an affect on crime and point to the EU as your evidence. As the US allows what would be prohibited persons to buy guns though it's liberal laws, lack of regulation and various loop holes.

So as a result, weapons are much more likely to end up in the hands of people who would do harm, unlike the EU, and as a result thousands of people are dying every year.

So even it makes no sense in the end to argue for regulation free Gun Rights or again Gun Control based off safety. However, the second amendment would be your defence of any EU still measures. And again, it's a shame because many people will die as a result of it.

If not a total ban, the US really needs a 2nd Amendment 2.0, thst guarantees that people can have guns but also has those regulations which the EU has to at least make sure they stay out of the hands of certain people.

Then you'll have a safer and just as free US populous

Click to expand...

I want to focus in on that sentence, no that is not true. Most of those people will die as a result of their own choices. If you look statistically at the majority of gun deaths in the United States, vast majority are suicides which we know by international comparison are not linked to guns.

Of murder victims, over have have prior criminal convictions, 45% of those will of been actively involved in gang activity. The statistical truth is, if you're not involved in screwing over dangerous people you're probably not going to get shot. Statistically, random violence against random strangers is rare. If you live a nice clean life not involving yourself in dirty dealings you're more likely to get struck by lightning then a bullet

DDA said:

Hi All

So I wanted to see if other people had the same thoughts on the issue of Pro-Gun Rights/Control issue as I did.

Based off the polling data, I believe Pro Gun advocates are actually also Pro Gun control, and depending on the specific policy, just as much as Anti-gun control advocates

Click to expand...

I did not get to watch the whole of the clip but get your point. It is well known in polling especially the public the question are vital as is the interpretation of meaning. This subjects polls to a higher level of proof of conclusions and assertions. One does well to query any polls questions as to the real meaning of the answers. You demonstrate clearly why that is indeed necessary and what often remains hidden.

However I think due to ignorance of the subject you ignored a very telling influence on public opinion and its formation. This does not happen in some vacuum of deliberate government and media bias. Media bias is considerably more difficult in a balanced system where both sides of anything are exposed to a equal extent. If both government and the media are not held accountable for presenting balanced views there is nothing to stop either or both from presenting garbage as truth.

As you correctly noted there is a paucity of opposing views to gun control and governments propaganda. I'm going to use correct terms from here on and not skirt around the issue.

You might be thinking that it's no surprise that large majorities of Liberals/Democrats/progressives think this way, but how can conservatives/republicans be of that opinion as well?

Click to expand...

I for one am not surprised in the least. I keep looking for balance in the media and never find it. Nor do I see the dissatisfaction it is not there having any impact. ie there is no objection to the media being biased in particular from firearm organisations and owners. It is almost as if they have colluded to being silent victims. Firearm organisation watch every day as the good name and record of firearm owners is besmirched and dragged through the mud by government and gun control propaganda designed to induce fear and hatred in the public. These organisations make absolutely no effort to balance the propaganda of government and gun control. Make no effort to combine knowledge and resources in order to increase effectiveness. Make no effort to at least educate their members into OBJECTION of having ones good name dragged through the mud. OBJECTION to gun control endangering public safety. Objection to gun control and government setting up killing zones for nuts and criminals we send our kids into without thought.

I believe that it is scepticism of the government and their actions, that make people Anti-Gun Control, and not just from the right, but by the left too.

Click to expand...

It is fear that drives people to get what government threatens to take away in the false belief that government cannot take so many way. So they buy a firearm just in case....

Therefore, although it seems based from polling Americans are often against Gun Control, if the language is specific and avoids terms like "federal government", then most people become supportive on policies which would be, in affect, be more restrictive on guns.

Click to expand...

Proving that propaganda is capanle of changing public opinion. Not that this proof was needed. What it shows is propaganda is being used to change that opinion.

I don't think the media nor the government have picked up on this properly. If they did, any pro-gun control framing would be much different.

Click to expand...

Both gun control and government hire the worlds best experts on social psychology to advise direction and lots more. If you are not using psychology to derive your claim it is wrong. Neither are picking anything but public desire for background checks as the soft point to forward, in fact leading in the direction they deem will be most successful.

I've made a very detailed video on the issue on Youtube which you can find here, it has lots of data from multiple polling agencies.

I'm interested in what you all think? Particularly Libertarians

Click to expand...

You now have a reasonably educated response. I think if firearm owners do not get their act together they are doomed like all others who followed the same ignore gun control propaganda path before them. Unless they get up and fight for their rights it will soon be to late to do that. When 30..40% of your supporters have joined the opposition it is very near that time of no return.

Nobody fights what they accept.

Once you accept gun control all you can now do is argue over how much to accept.​

DDA said:

im sorry you're wrong with your perspection of UK and the various police in the EU. The average officer does not carry a firearm and outside of key government buildings you won't find any officers with them. However, if a call came it where the police may have to deal with someone with a gun, then you'll probably see them

Click to expand...

Not true the UK has an armed patrol unit that supplies fire power to all other units. It patrols constantly 24/7

But you are right, the uk is more restrictive than anywhere else in Europe (but unfortunately we're next to Ireland which is not so).

Click to expand...

What are you blaming the Irish for now? Ireland is not unrestricted by any imagination.

However, all EU countries ban automatic weapons and there are many regulations on gun ownership. However, most of these regulations, if applied in the US wouldn't even take away people's guns, just make people get licences, and prevent prohibited persons e.g. people with criminal records, history of domestic violent, the mentally ill, drug or alcohol abuse and etc from having them. Law abiding citizens are still free to have guns.

Click to expand...

You are sugar coating a very dark and dangerous pill. Neither you nor any government knows who is going to commit crime, therefore government can only take guns or deny guns to those it is AFRAID of and thinks without evidence might commit a crime with a gun. It's accuracy in prediction is more than abysmal. It is no stretch of the imagination to see that doing so is OPPRESSION of INNOCENT people and PRESUMPTION of GUILT. I certainly would not be advocating such inhuman oppression I would be ashamed I lived with it and supported it.

However, so when you say "it doesn't contribute to higher crime", are you referring to non prohibited peoples ability to buy guns has no affect? if yes I could agree.

Click to expand...

Neither you nor your oppressive government can prove buying or possession of a gun is intention to commit a crime with that gun. Why do you find it necessary to claim such easily provable things are not fact? There is no known causal mechanism that allows guns to induce people to commit crime. How do you bypass a physical impossibility in your mind as if it did not exist?

However, in the US you can't possibly say your current gun laws don't have an affect on crime and point to the EU as your evidence. As the US allows what would be prohibited persons to buy guns though it's liberal laws, lack of regulation and various loop holes.

Click to expand...

Oh! for goodness sake the UK now has more illegal guns that it ever had before. Where did they come from and who owns them? There are none so blind as those who will not see.

So as a result, weapons are much more likely to end up in the hands of people who would do harm, unlike the EU, and as a result thousands of people are dying every year.

Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that guns cause crime. Out with it you statements validity depends on this proof.

So even it makes no sense in the end to argue for regulation free Gun Rights or again Gun Control based off safety. However, the second amendment would be your defence of any EU still measures. And again, it's a shame because many people will die as a result of it.

Click to expand...

Give a rough estimate of how many people in the EU have died due to an inability to defend themselves with the best means possible as they have been disarmed and disallowed to carry defensive weapons of any description.

If not a total ban, the US really needs a 2nd Amendment 2.0, thst guarantees that people can have guns but also has those regulations which the EU has to at least make sure they stay out of the hands of certain people.

Click to expand...

Give a detailed plan on how to take guns from these "certain" hands without oppression of may millions of innocents

Then you'll have a safer and just as free US populous

Click to expand...

Neither of which is true. When there were virtually no gun laws in the UK crime has never again been that low. People were then free.