For or against?

I haven't seen anyone prove that there exists a strong correlation between high gun ownership rates and higher rates of murder. The benefits of having a weapon in your home as opposed to not having one far outweigh an outright ban on all weapons purchases within legal channels (because that's as far as government jurisdiction can extend, and its record in dealing with illicit markets for banned goods or substances has been weak) insofar as being able to defend the individual and his property against an armed robber or thug.

Some people argue that certain types of weapons should be banned, as opposed to small handguns would seemingly suffice against a criminal. To this, all we must do is look to the justitication that John Locke and the founders of the constitution gave for granting citizens the right to bear arms, and to use those arms in the event that a corrupt regime takes power and curbs essential freedoms. Just because the government exists in America doesn't mean it will never become corrupt, and no one has the foresight to say for sure that an American government in the future would not roll back those important freedoms. Considering the freedoms that have already been sacrificed in the War on Terror, and other potential freedoms that could be lost in the event of another, more serious, terrorist attack, or the resulting chaos of a nuclear armageddon, or any number of possible events, citizens must arm themselves to confront the potential threats posed by a corrupt government or a population relegated to anarchy. Therefore, placing limitations on the type of weapons that can be purchased only undermines those moral intentions behind the establishment of the second amendment, and puts Americans in a weaker position to defend their liberties against a possible corrupt regime.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

The possibility of a corrupt government taking power today or in the future in the U.S. is still possible, and therefore citizens should have the right to carry weapons to protect themselves against any corrupt government that could potentially arise or a potential breakdown in civil order.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

Man, it's such a cute argument, you know? I love it.

"Man, if you.... if you make a law, the only people who will obey it are, they're the ones who aren't criminals!"

Shit, man, you guys have GLEAMED THE CUBE. Laws are USELESS against people who don't follow the law!

Prove a correlation? Wow, uh. Do I need to PROVE that having a device that uses explosive force to hurl pointy metal things at people might result in people getting hurt more often? Yeah, that's a real stumper, we'd better get out our scratch paper and do some EQUATIONS.

You see, the 2nd Amendment is the most important of the amendments, as it will allow us to RISE UP and get run over by tanks when the ZOG tries to repeal, uh, the 2nd Amendment? Are there other ones?

Is this supposed to be witty? And why the fuck are you capping words that have no business being capped?

People that don't obey laws couldn't be deemed law-abiding citizens, could they? Most of the time, depending on the seriousness of the law and in the sphere of certain types of laws (criminal, for example), people that ignore the law are criminals.

Secondly, yes, you do need to prove the correlation. Guns aren't the only "dangerous" things out there, and we could just as easily posit that the presence of those things is the culprit behind the increase in murders (string, knives, cars, etc.).

Just look at the absurdity of this example: The presence of cars is the source of so many drive-by shootings.

Yes, it may have been a material accessory in the shootings, but the source, or even a negligible factor? Comeon.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.