Supreme court strikes down gun ban.

Too bad you are the one quoting them so any effect is instantly gone.

My name is Franck.

I insult people on a message board.




Talk to me about credibility.

I was born in Washington DC and lived there almost all my life, the gun ban was a joke.

All it did was keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

The funny thing is, the same argument you made about why more powerful weapons should not be allowed under the 2nd Amendment is the same argument Washington D.C. made about handguns.

And this isn't part of the discussion, but germ warfare wasn't inconceivable. It's been used since ancient times when one side would catapult dead people infected with bubonic plague onto the other sides territory during battle. It even took place on our own land when Indians would poison lakes with sick, dead, animal hides. British soldiers near the time of our independence would hand blankets ridden with small pox over to the Native Americans. None of this was inconceivable, especially since many of the writers of our Constitution has dealt with close family members being infected with smallpox.

Actually using the "clear and present danger" argument is actually something that would favor the dissenting side in this opinion. It can be argued that a handgun in the wrong hands can cause a "clear and present danger" to other individuals. Just as yelling fire in a theater can cause a "clear and present danger".

Pew Pew Pew Bang! Bang!

Ok just seeing if this thread was still going. Proceed to debate the problems of guns in America.

every single argument by gun owners here is not why the US government won't ban guns... they don't give a shit about your 'freedoms' etc. Dont you realize every decision is about money? Arms is one of the biggest businesses in the US, that's why they will never ban them. Governments don't give a shit about the people, every decision they make is based on money. So you're just lucky guns are too important for the economy otherwise they wouldn't hesistate a second to ban them.

Partially flawed as both sides have oodles of money. Plus both sides have masses voting power that can put people in office where they can make money.

Yes the US loves dealing in arms. Though the government tries to not be to keen on its people having arms. Well not always the government but the elected officials and special interest groups sure in the hell do. Yet at same time dealing them outside of our borders is not an issue and is indeed big business.

Clearly there are a few things that even the staunchest pro-gun advocate can admit:

- The majority of guns used in committing crimes were, at one point, legally purchased.
- That the likelihood of someone in your home being killed or wounded by a handgun increases dramatically if you keep a gun in your home.
- That the ability for people to own firearms without at least some firearms and safety training can lead to careless and sometimes wreckless use.
- The right to defend your home is certainly a strong argument, but owning a small arsenal is not a necessity for home defence.

So for every gun legally bought by and individual, the odds that someone, somewhere will be shot increases. It's simple logic.

But since guns are everywhere, I completely agree that that stopping the legal sale of guns would (at least in the short term) leave home owners and citizens defenceless. In the long term, there would be no guns and then you wouldn't have any valid excuse to need them to defend your home (that is, in countries with gun control they don't suffer from home invasions nearly enough to be concerned about it).

So as a bit of a compromise, why not at least force people who buy a gun to:
1) Be interviewed by an agent (likely of the police) for a basic evaluation of the individual
2) Be required to take a gun safety course
3) Be issued a licence (very simple, just showing they completed the course, etc.)
3) Register the firearm with the police and check back, perhaps once a year, with the gun (basically renewing the licence)

A pain in the ass? Sure it is. But to drive a car, look what you have to go through - and although cars can be dangerous, lets be honest, a gun is designed to shot people and yet it's easier to get one than a licence to drive a car, truck or 18-wheeler?

Hey, agree or not but as someone is certainly pro-gun control, at least I'm reaching across the aisle

You're twisting my words, I have said nothing about 'powerful' weapons.

I spoke merely of weapons of precision as opposed to weapons which cannot be controlled or directed and that kill indiscriminately. Those are two very different topics, do not confuse them.

I think it's safe to say that catapulting corpses infected with common and naturally occurring illnesses is a bit different than the exotic man-made or refined strains of extremely weird and deadly shit that scientists have cooked up in modern labs So yes, modern germ/chemical warfare would have been inconceivable to them. The framers of our constitution were no doubt brilliant men, but I don't think they could easily predict 150+ years of scientific "advancement" into a field which did not even exist during their lifetimes.

On the other hand, US itself posseses more handguns in private propriety than any other country in the world, with more than one third of households reporting gun posession you have estimated around 70 millions of handguns in the streets already.

So if you have 70 mil. guns owner beeing comfortably sold and companies being comfortable selling them ammo / accessories and new models.

It's a situation that's kind of tough to solve even if someone had the best intensions.

Guns are bad

A laser guided missile can be controlled. So can most new age rocket launchers. A target for a grenade can be chosen just as much as one using a gun. An IED has more precision and accuracy as a gun as you can choose your target beforehand.

A lot of these weapons don't kill indiscriminately. The technology has advanced to a point that they can be used to eliminate individual targets just as well as other guns. In fact, probably better in some cases. Take buckshot for example which can indiscriminately hurt/kill people within the vicinity. As well as handguns with armor piercing bullets which can go through walls and kill unintended targets (happens in Chicago all the time with drive-bys).


Smallpox and the bubonic plague killed millions of people around the world. The plague killed a large percent of Europe while smallpox took out a ton of Native Americans. I don't know how much more "deadly" you want a virus to be. I agree that technology has advanced on germ warfare, but if you get smallpox today, you're most likely going to die.

I wouldn't disagree with any of those except the first one - all you need is to be able to BS a policeman and be a psycho and get a gun.

I know in order to get my carry permit they supposedly checked "3 databases" but I wish the state would require a gun safety course. Texas does, IIRC.

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about if you think a weapon (firearm) capable of making a tiny hole in an exact location from 100's of yards away, almost instantly, has a controlled kill radius comparable to missiles, hand grenades, and bombs. Likewise your claimed knowledge of the spread characteristics of buckshot, which seems to have been gleaned from a Yosemite Sam cartoon or something, varies somewhat from Hollywood special effects and cartoons as opposed to reality.