so was the bible, yet there are still a billion tards following its words.....

before 911 we were pretty much advised by the government that if somebody hijacked an airplane, the passengers should be cooperative to avoid unnecessary loss of life. so I'm pretty sure the government is full of it when they say we should ban guns to save lives. not even sure they're actually in touch with reality anymore. should probably get their mental health checked regularly.

Locket your examples of slavery and women's suffrage aren't making the point you want to make in my book. Both of those changes serve the same purpose as the second.. Furthering and protecting liberty. They're also great examples of what several of us have been saying here over and over.. We don't seek to preserve our rights out of some sense of "we've always done it this way" nostalgia. Slavery is THE perfect example of what happens when a group of human beings feel they can leverage, with impunity, their superior technology to further their own goals at the expense of an easily dominated population.

even the bible has been "revised" (in interpretation terms) to better match modern circumstances.

You argued that it was a right at the start and that it should stay that way. Many people have used the line that it is in the constitution etc with me so that is their beliefs.

The thing is though that our views on what is right and wrong have changed over the years. Some things would never have been accepted that we think are normal today. I don't believe for a second that the US government will take over the country and go al dictator or that they will permit slavery, because the people wont accept it and it is a democracy with many many checks and balances, so I feel that the need for guns for the original reason is gone. Also I am drunk so if this is not coherent dont blame me.. blame the drink :P

The biggest issue I have with this entire situation is that 20 dead children are being exploited to push an ideological agenda through congress that does not even touch the very weapons that are responsible for over 90% of the murders in this country. It is only touching those that somewhat rival the military's firepower.

You can call me a conspiracy theorist if you want. I am not, I just see through the political BS that this is NOT about preventing murders and gun violence. It is about disarming American civilians. When they propose legislation that deals with the weapons that are actually killing the extremely overwhelming majority of the people getting killed by guns, I will consider it a somewhat legitimate discussion. Until then it is nothing but shoving an agenda through congress at the expense of 20 innocent children.

They are quick to spit out facts on gun deaths and crime. Then in the next sentence mention assault rifles, as if there is really a huge connection. There is not. Less than 3% were killed by assault rifles. What is really going on is this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs6TgitlNIA

The former chief of staff in his own words...

That also explains why he is not spearheading the everyday killings in his own city, but rather preaching in support of this horrendous legislation on the national level that wouldn't reduce a single killing in his own city, which happens to lead the nation in gun caused deaths per year.

I'd argue that the possibility of the US turning into a tyranny does exist, but this whole "well-regulated militia" concept is just ridiculous, most people are going to willingly go along with it. The few that do stand up with guns are probably going to cause more harm to civilians than to whatever regime and the incidental cost of letting people bear arms (well, some guns are ok but tightly regulated etc) is too high.

they aren't civilians if they go along with the US being turned into a tyranny. they are zombies.

If the gun control people try to push their agenda without a mass shooting, it's "not relevant" and "no one dies in these shootings anyway" but after a tragedy like Sandy Hook, it's "exploiting the victims." Come on. It's as good a time as any.

With regards to assault rifles, 3% of deaths for what? I mean what's the point of an assault rifle? Like why on earth do people need to own one? Isn't shooting one at a firing range enough?

I can sort of sympathise with people who own small firearms/hunting rifles and think that they should be allowed, but with much tighter regulation than today and none of this concealed carry fluff (basically, they should not be bought by normal civilians who intend to use them for "self-defense" because most of these people are morons, leave it to law enforcement.)

pp, i hope you are never in a situation that you need to/should defend yourself or others

locket, the right to keep and bear arms is the final check and balance. I think you really need to consider rethinking your position.

Think of it as the final option in the face of a possibly hostile government.

I'd love if someone dug up some statistics on it, but I'm going to guess that the probability(you accidentally shoot a non-criminal) >>>>> probability(you use your gun to prevent a crime), let alone probability(you use your gun to prevent a crime where it's actually appropriate to shoot the criminal)

it's irrelevant PP. we're not supposed to shoot the criminal anyway unless it's self-defense. just supposed to hold them there until the police arrive. unless you live in Texas, then you get to shoot them for stepping on your grass.

http://cannonsuperstore.com/black_powder_cannons.htm

:-P

Your government is not possibly hostile to the American people. I think you need to realize what the world is like here. Democracy is enough of a check and balance but I guess I suck for believing in elections etc.

"Why trade 1 tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?" or some such thing as that.

Have no fear sheriff joe arpio is here in arizona schools.
http://news.yahoo.com/...er-schools-004556312.html