Is it Time for the US Government to Ban Gun Ownership?

[Cyrus]

So are you asserting that your owning of handguns is the mechanism that will stop a dictator taking over America?

Did I ever say people should only have handguns? Is it true thatp people only have hand guns?

Yes I know its the irresponsible owners that are harming society, so we agree that having guns available to the pubic does harm society?

No, we don't agree.

Of course the pubic is made up of both Irresponsible and responsible people.

So why don't you RECOGNIZE this fact instead of making generalizations that EVERYONE shouldn't be allowed to have a gun? Clearly, you DONT recognize this.

No I was not out of line that was a thread the same as this one debating the need of Guns in society with that awful event as a backdrop.

Yes, you were/are out of line.

YOU are out of line, by ad homming and letting your emotions get in the way of having a civil conversation. You never know you (as may I)might learn something from this debate.

How can I debate someone that does not LISTEN to what I tell them? Do I have to smack you in the face with the constitution as to the REASON why we have guns? Or are you going to argue non stop about how "theres no more reason for having guns, your not going to do anything like overthrow anybody with guns...etc etc etc".

 

[drankin]

Yeah I get the picture, doesn't make any (read: absolutely none) sense to me, but I get the picture: You all want your guns, and guns and more guns

I just wish you would all admit that there is no social benefit to having them, its just you want them they make you feel good about (something)

I admit that I do want my guns. I won't say that there is no social benefit. Disarming citizens wouldn't work here. It works there, and that's great. There is a lot of history as to why we are so passionate about retaining our firearm rights. We wouldn't be America without them and we don't want to be oppressed by a government nor an individual who is armed while we are not. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

 

[Yowhatsupt]

Makes for a snappy catch phrase but is very overly simplistic. By the same logic nukes don't kill either so every country should have them and yet the US is adamant this shouldn't happen.

This makes for a better argument but is somewhat nullified by how easily Americans rolled over for Bush, trading freedoms for questionably improved security vis a vis The Patriot Act.

Agreed which is why it is galling to cynical Europeans when many Americans appear to believe their gov't acts on moral imperatives i.e. bringing democracy to downtrodden people when the rest of the world knows Iraq was about oil.

Yet the number of Americans killed through acts of terrorism are very small compared with either of the causes you have listed and yet look at the expenditure and freedom sapping practices the US public have accepted to avoid a repeat.

The US doesn't want people to have nukes because those countries are enemies of the US. So that doesn't really make sense, of course I don't want someone I'm enemies with to have the means to kill me.

The Patriot Act is an infrigement of rights yes, but it was passed in a state of panic. It will be removed.

An act of Terrorism is an act by FOREIGN nationals. If your uncle Ralph accidently shoots Uncle Tom, that's not as big a deal as if some person decides to kill Uncle Tom because they can.

 

[Evo]

Sorry, but I see the same arguments repeated over and over. This thread is not going anywhere.