Gun control

"So you're expecting an "up-rise" from the government?"Yes, I do, as the government is trying to take many of our freedoms."Assuming you're implying attempted tyranny, why would you assume that?"I'm not assuming anything here. There already a tyrrany with the government, hence the gun control. "We've got the best government worldwide, any such event could not happen for a very long time. Also, why would you think that it would destroy the first amendment? There's no affiliation."I beg to differ. Because if you take away our guns you are taking away our right to speech, which also pertains the right to bear arms. It's a freedom that we have. If one right goes down, so do the rest. The first amendment states this; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu..."About the bullets, those laws can and should be changed if they're as restrictive as you say. The minimum maximum :) should be around 24 (except for highway patrol)."Gun control also means control of how much amo you can use. This is the definition of gun control; "efforts to regulate or control sales of guns" [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu..."I truly used to believe what you said about hunting, but starvation is not an American problem. Hunting may help some individuals, but is not required for their survival (in America). As I said before, Guns aren't necessary for hunting. Bows and arrows and traps are effective enough."Really? Well bows and arrows are really deadly as well. Many hunters die with gettin hit by an arrow. Should we outlaw those just sa well? No we shouldn't, also knives are so dangerouse as well, many people get killed with knives; should we outlaw those? Hell, why don't we just outlaw everything that is so dangerouse for us; would that make America safe? "You have provided no reliable sources or evidence."Because I was attaking your points, that were on your opinion. "I would like to conclude by reminding you that even if guns are effective for defense and prevent gun violence (which they haven't, look at the recent shootings), that they cause many accidental deaths and injuries."Like I mentioned in my argument before, you have to go through training in order to have a lisence to own a gun. Those people whould know what a gun can do if you shoot yourself, or be irrisponsible with it. I agree guns are dangerouse, but it's the way you handle the gun that determines your life, and if you are to live that day."Guns are weapons designed to kill, and if they do anything, that's what it will be. Guns have no other purpose. My grandmother keeps a handgun around, and nearly shot her husband one day due to her excessive paranoia. Guns can cause much trouble, but can they stop it? I believe I've shown good reasons otherwise."As I shall again repeat myself, your grandmother is not careful with a gun, therefore she should not even have one, it's for her own safety. But I'm not the one to judge, if people want to be stupid and irrisponsible, then let them be. You can't save stupid from stupid. Gun free-zones are not always safe. There were two people shot in Chicago. While they were walking to school where it was supposed to be "safe" for them. Unfortunetly one died and the other had minor injuries. Gangmembers will always have a hand on guns. If the gangs get into a total gun fight, and some kids going to school walk bye and get shot, they don't really care. [3] http://godfatherpolitics.com...Here are some images to get you to see what are the ranks.[4] http://ttag.zippykidcdn.com...[5] http://t3.gstatic.com...[6] http://www.policemag.com...[7] http://t3.gstatic.com...