http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show

The house bill basically makes it that the government has to approve you before purchasing a firearm. Does this violate our second amendment? (The right to bear arms)
This strips the right of it's original purpose - to protect us from government. If they are in control of the flow of weapons then they can cut us off if they choose to.

It's almost like hitler

User was infracted for this post. (The minute you drag comparisons to Hitler into a discussion, you've lost. Incidentially, get out.)
~C.

Hey kid. Columbine.

The government isn't going to give firearms to potential homicidal, maniacal crackheads. This is an improvement. It's like getting a background check for a job. Stepping up gun security will definitely reduce some violence; sure, people will still be stabbing each other with steak knives and smuggling in firearms, but this makes it a whole lot harder to get a lethal weapon.

It makes it harder dosen't stop it. Illegal drugs are still used and sold. As will firearms I mean it will cut down on crime in the sense that less people will have guns, but will raise when people are getting the guns illegally.

Think about it this way, if you are really commited on using a gun to kill, rob or whatever you will find ways around it e.g. knifes.

That's what I said :P

Suppose you did. Yeah I agree.

I agree with your concurrence.

Yeah, and who gave you that right to bear arms? The government....
Also you are following the constitution which was drawn up over 200 years ago. The irony is also that it's an AMENDMENT to the constitution, it wasn't included in the original constitution.

And do you honestly think your gun would protect you from the goverment? What happens if a SWAT team turns up outside your door? Do you really think your pistol is going to protect you from them all.

This was debated heavily in the debate forum and all those against guns provided hundreds of statistics on why guns are useless as self-defence, cause thousands of avoidable deaths and serve no real use in the house.

Indeed.

Before people armed with personal weapons could successfully rebel against a government if they got together. Nowadays government has weapons so advanced, your guns will seem like sticks and stones in comparison.

It is indeed too easy to get access to a gun in US...which leads to you know what.

Stupid. That's not the reason for the Second Amendment. Read up on your history before you say something so uninformed.

In the previous gun control thread, which was deleted <.<, I stated that the Second Amendment originated so that the American government could create a militia out of the civilian population to defend it's borders because they had a small army in comparision to it's territory size. They also pissed off England, who had a much larger and well trained army, along with better commanders, supplies, and in general huge advantage. They needed all the hands they could get. Now, you have a large standing army, with a large reserve force, with a stockpile of long-range missles and nuclear weapons. You don't need a militia to defend your borders anymore.

This amendment can be further traced back to England, where the right to bear arms was granted to the citizens to help maintain law and order in their country because they had a small law enforcement group that could only cover so much land. You now have a large law enforcement population in America, so this reason could not back up your need for weapons.

Plus, democracy means you vote in the people you believe would best represent you. Why on earth would you need to defend yourself from them unless your democracy is shitty? Are you implying that the supposedly greatest nation on the planet is a total lie? Or are you just one of the multiple republican fear-mongers who think the government is out to get you? Believe me, if the government WAS out to get you, we'd already be under their heel. So shut up about the "defend ourselves from the government" crap.