niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: ...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed.
 Sent2: If guns are banned, the only people that will be affected will be the people that buy guns for protection from criminals, who get their guns illegally anyway.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters are like the dangerous criminals the gun haters want to keep guns away from.
 Sent2: But gun hater pilot will demand that the right to bear arms be limited or banned to keep criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Since they've never done this it's only safe to assume that they hate absolutely any kind of gun and want them all banned outright without exception.
 Sent2: This is why they are not collective rights like the gun haters
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If anything, it has ruled in favor of gun control, saying in the Miller case that "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."
 Sent2: In the Miller case, the court essentially ruled that the second ammendment does indeed convey an individual right, but that the right in question is dependant on the type of weapon (i.e must be suitable for military use).
Output: Similar
Sent1: So you have to read the 2nd amendment as a whole.
 Sent2: Now when you rightfully talk about how the 2nd amendment grants me the right to own a gun people won't take you seriously because you think the 2nd amendment cannot be repealed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I feel like existing laws need to actually be enforced and new ones targeted at those they are created for and not at legal law abiding gun owners.
 Sent2: because I've made a legitimate point that not all gun owners abide by the law?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You can not use this as evidence that the reduction in crime is due to the gun ban.
 Sent2: By that brand of logic, any gun law is specifically aimed at reducing criminal use of guns, including a complete ban.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Criminals kill people so gun haters like gun hater pilot want to pass gun control laws that only law abiding citizens obey!
 Sent2: Common sense gun control laws the gun haters want will only affect the law abiding citizens, not the criminals.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 1) Does having laws regulating the the ability to carry concealed weapons violate the 2nd amendment of the constitution?
 Sent2: They do not have the expressed, enumerated power to pass any law regarding guns in the constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Another point that isn't taken in consideration in the stats that I've seen is that guns are used in self-defense but it still goes down as "gun violence."
 Sent2: Using a shotgun or an AK-47 will get the job done, so I don't see the need to ban assault weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: My biggest disagreement is that I think one should carry any weapon one decides to.
 Sent2: And as far as carrying in public, as long as I have commited no crime, then why should anyone need know I have my gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think laws stating that you should not be allowed to carry guns onto airplanes or into schools are examples of common sense gun control laws meant to protect people.
 Sent2: I really do not care particularly what gun control laws states or cities pass.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The manufacturer tells them who the gun was shipped to, the dealer is contacted, and the dealer informs the ATF or the police of who the gun was sold to and when.
 Sent2: Rationing guns doesn't stop gun dealers, it makes them invisible to the police.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have to wonder what incorporation under the XIVth amendment will do to all the knee jerk laws that were passed as crime control and is proven bad law already.
 Sent2: Please show me what law prevents amending the constitution to repeal another amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People like Brady blame the gun and say because one man uses a gun to harm someone then no one can be trusted with guns.
 Sent2: If a person does not want to own or carry a gun then so be it, and if an individual does own guns then like wise.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control laws do not affect criminals because criminals do not obey these laws.
 Sent2: Gun control laws only control the guns in the hands of people who follow laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You are pulling the same XXXX Doc did in thinking that because I don't think more guns equals less crime that I automatically must think it means MORE crime and that gun control laws are effective and needed.
 Sent2: Name me one gun control law that has been effective as crime control!!!!!!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Criminals and terrorist are going to have all the guns they want no matter how many security measures enacted to disarm the law-abiding citizen by people such as you.
 Sent2: Would the simple fact that criminals and terrorist knowing that law abiding citizens can defend themselves with guns force the criminals and terrorist to not attack people?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We tell them what was meant when the law passed, but even these gun owners do not care what was meant, they only care what the law says!
 Sent2: Which passed the law requireing "smart guns", if they ever become available (right now they do not exist).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You're saying that guns should be allowed into school in order to allow some students (or teachers) to defend themselves if they were attacked.
 Sent2: Would you want your children to go to a school where everyone was allowed to have a gun?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The gun industry should be protected against lawsuits because criminal gun dealers who sell firearms to child killers are law abiding, model citizens according to the NRA.
 Sent2: Your advocating total violation of the constitution to prevent criminals from stealing guns from law abiding citizens.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas that criminals enter with guns because they know they are no armed law-abiding citizens there to stop them.
 Sent2: Criminals do not obey the laws about gun free zones.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Also: More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by guns.
 Sent2: Sure you say guns don't kill people but people kill people, but the gun is only a tool or a means to that end.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I see, so banning guns just stops law abiding citizens from having them, yet your family of criminals buys them from people who legally obtained them, or has them legally obtained for them.
 Sent2: Which is why the ban is a bit of a poor compromise, they've banned guns for law abiding people but they've not done enough to make sure criminals don't have them.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun haters think banning guns will make criminals stop being criminals.
 Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The legal market for firearms gets killed off in hopes of hindering criminals, and instead the criminals continue buying from the black market, importing them illegally, or making their weapons themselves.
 Sent2: Well if criminals are getting their guns through licensed dealers, how come these records of sale aren't being used for the purpose of tracking down gang members who obviously bought their guns legally?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Some studies used against gun have been ones showing that over 50% of homicides in the US are committed with guns, while in countries with gun bans or very strict gun control have a lower amount of gun homicides.
 Sent2: It shows a % of the homicides that were committed with guns, but nowhere is there an indication of gun ownership.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: IF you want them armed, why not let law abiding citizens who have passed a background check, a firearms safety check, and a marksmanship test carry their guns?
 Sent2: IF you previously had laws that made openly carrying weapons illegal, and you then pass a concealed carry law, if somebody is carrying a gun and it is not concealed, they are breaking the law.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Are you saying that the only reason there are criminals armed with guns is because we're not willing to accept gun prohibitions as the answer?
 Sent2: Even back in the 60's gun owners were saying that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, and gun safety being stressed, and maybe even mandatory for children will produce benefits.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Or, to put it another way, more guns = more crime, and if we could stop the illegal gun running then we would have less guns = less crime.
 Sent2: If guns are banned, there will obviously be less guns in circulation.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If people are smoking themselves to death then that is their business, but if people are murdering each other with guns then there is more reason for government intervention.
 Sent2: it isn't guns that kill people, is the mentality these people carry around in their heads that kill other people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: buying guns, there is no requirement that federally licensed gun manufacturers and dealers
 Sent2: The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A criminal with a gun will feel a lot more confident in committing a crime than a criminal without a gun will just as a criminal will avoid those who have guns and target those who don't.
 Sent2: Keeping violent criminals in prison would do far more to reduce gun crime than banning guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Furthermore, the Founders envisioned people being armed with much less powerful weapons when they wrote the Second Amendment.
 Sent2: Of course, when the founders wrote the Second Amendment they had in mind people owning much less powerful weapons than gun owners have now.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun bans simple ban law abiding citizens from having guns.
 Sent2: Gun laws and bans are put in place that only affect good law abiding free citizens.
Output: Similar
Sent1: This is just as unrealistic a view that saying gun laws will prevent all crime- of course some criminals will not obey the law- that is what makes them criminals!
 Sent2: Your advocating total violation of the constitution to prevent criminals from stealing guns from law abiding citizens.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: How can a people defend themselves from the government, unless they are able to maintain the same weapons as the government has?
 Sent2: Making guns illegal wouldn't solve anything except to take them away from people that want to defend themselves.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns.
 Sent2: Criminals enter gun free zones with guns to commit crimes against unarmed law-abiding citizens.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I do not believe OTHERS should not have guns, I think criminals and psychos who are yet to convict a gun crime should not have guns.
 Sent2: I see you always use gun crime rates as an argument, are you totally uninterested in other types of violent crimes, what happens when all guns are banned and we only have knife crimes?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Simply put, you should have to prove that the gun control you seek will do what you say it will do before burdening the Constitution with a load up of Liberal wishes and hopes!
 Sent2: So, no, I wouldn't say there was any "gun control" as you (Galileo) tried to pass off as early gun control laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Doesn't hold together, though - you have no evidence that criminal arms supply is unaffected by gun control.
 Sent2: You say that gun control must not be effective because the study's conclusions about gun control were inconclusive.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People who follow laws, aren't causing problems with the guns they own.
 Sent2: There is no reason law-abiding citizens need to defend themselves as they are untrained, do not have full knowledge of the law and eventually cause more harm than good by owning such weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Your advocating total violation of the constitution to prevent criminals from stealing guns from law abiding citizens.
 Sent2: Would the simple fact that criminals and terrorist knowing that law abiding citizens can defend themselves with guns force the criminals and terrorist to not attack people?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Even without this preamble the second amendment would still only protect a right in connection with militia service.
 Sent2: The Second Amendment isn't about a right to serve in the militia as a government owned slave.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If people are going to carry guns for protection, they should be encouraged to put lots and lots of rounds through the gun.
 Sent2: So if its cause people in high crime areas want to buy guns for protection then why do they only want protection against gun murders but not other crimes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Simply put, you should have to prove that the gun control you seek will do what you say it will do before burdening the Constitution with a load up of Liberal wishes and hopes!
 Sent2: Are you saying that trying to avoid being murdered isn't a good enough reason for owning or using a gun?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: To expect strict gun control laws to have any effect, in and of themselves, in a nation with 300,000,000 guns in private hands is ridiculous.
 Sent2: In some states, some guns are just not allowed and it sticks as a law.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now tell me, how is gun control going to stop people from making their own?
 Sent2: As I think some people who wuv their guns would just XXXX the ignorant politician away with their newly illegal gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now if you want gun control laws that limit or ban the right to bear arms you are a gun haters.
 Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Sent1: The logic of less guns in law abiding citizens hands means less gun crime is clearly insane.
 Sent2: This should be a clear indicator that legal ownership of guns in no way has increased potential criminality for law abiding citizens.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now if you want gun control laws that limit or ban the right to bear arms you are a gun haters.
 Sent2: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Output: Similar
Sent1: I think what is also important is that nobody to my knowledge is saying that a law abiding citizen shouldn't have the right to own a gun.
 Sent2: I think the government has taken responsibility for the law abiding citizens by ensuring that nobody can carry a gun or other dangerous weapon on board a plane.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: As far as guns, it is difficult to say because currently as in the past, you are not allowed to carry a gun on board an aircraft.
 Sent2: In fact, it seems as if allowing people to carry guns on board aircraft made it easier for the terrorists to hijack them, as the terrorists in many cases just walked right on board with the guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
 Sent2: If this is the case, then gun laws have a provable effect on how 'armed' criminals are - more gun control = less gun-carrying criminals, fact.
Output: Similar
Sent1: They didn't shoot someone because they were criminals, they because criminals because they shot someone, Your point boils down to 'Laws do not work because people disobey them-we should have no laws'.
 Sent2: Even in Japan, the nation with the most absolute strictest gun laws in the world, criminals are still getting their hands on banned guns and killing people with them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men.States With Higher Levels Of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates
 Sent2: A much higher gun ownership rate than other developed nations could explain this- that although crime occurs less frequently in the US crime is more likely to involve guns in the US so someone is more likely to die.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Some people who want to ban guns try to use simplistic arguments to suggest that murder rates are tied to the number of guns available for criminal misuse; and they suggest more guns = more crime and less guns = less crime.
 Sent2: If so, they need to explain why they would leave some firearms, handguns say, in the hands of the people which are involved in more officer deaths than the ones they recommend banning.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The whole reason why the Second Amendment exists is so that the people could defend themselves against the tyranny of their own government.
 Sent2: The Second Amendment, the right to be armed for all legal and lawful reasons, is finally recognized as not just a fundamental right, but an individual right held by the people, not any state or government.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Government does not possess the authority to enact a total ban on firearm owners actually transporting their firearms, it violates the "bear" of the "keep and bear" provision of the second amendment.
 Sent2: Why can a state attach limits "in their own individual RKBA" (such as prohibited concealed carry) that supercede the second amendment- unless the second amendment does not protect concealed carry.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Is your point that citizens should be allowed to have guns to defend themselves from the government or that citizens should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves from other citizens?
 Sent2: Aren't you the one who used to complain that airlines can't choose to allow private citizens to carry guns on planes because of government regulations?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Criminals kill people so gun haters like gun hater pilot want to pass gun control laws that only law abiding citizens obey!
 Sent2: The only gun control law that is needed is the law that prohibits a person from committing a crime with a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You have been shown the facts that most criminals get their guns from family members or they steal them, even from cops.
 Sent2: If anything, cops will come to where you live to take your guns, seeing as they work for the government.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Since they've never done this it's only safe to assume that they hate absolutely any kind of gun and want them all banned outright without exception.
 Sent2: Of course if a hate groups such as the gun haters want to ban a right they will claim this!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I only support common sense gun control measures, thing such as no guns in schools, no guns on airplanes, background checks for the sale of all firearms, tougher sentences for crimes in which guns are used, etc.
 Sent2: Having an age limit on the ability to buy guns is a gun control measure.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: School district employees should not be carrying weapons on campus, just as students should not be carrying weapons."
 Sent2: Students and teachers in schools need to defend themselves, too... Like laws banning guns in sensitive places, concealed carry laws are consistent with Heller�۪s self-defense rationale only because the Court claimed to limit the arms right to the home.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This is just further proof that gun control does not equal crime control and there are no "reasonable" nor "responsible" gun control laws.
 Sent2: Strange isn't where the law abiding are disarmed by the gun control idea of wet dream laws yet there are still firearms floating about the criminal classes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So now you're saying that just because somebody owns a gun, they're somehow more likely to start killing people than somebody who doesn't own a gun?
 Sent2: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
Output: Similar
Sent1: When neither party to a transaction is a licensed firearms dealer, firearms transfers must be completed through a licensed dealer.
 Sent2: The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: First you say no law will ever stop criminals from getting guns but now youre saying that criminals are never gun owners.
 Sent2: Just to be clear, you're saying that only gun laws, somehow, are unable to deter criminal acts?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The gun industry should be protected against lawsuits because criminal gun dealers who sell firearms to child killers are law abiding, model citizens according to the NRA.
 Sent2: The only way to prevent guns from falling in the hands of criminals is by law abiding people buying every gun that is manufactured and thus leaving no guns available for criminals to buy.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I really do not care particularly what gun control laws states or cities pass.
 Sent2: Name me one gun control law that has been effective as crime control!!!!!!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You would be surprised how many places you can legally buy everything from machine guns to anti tank missiles.
 Sent2: A gun is an offensive weapon, not defensive - if you want to defend your home, buy a decent burglar alarm and/or surveillance equipment, or a safe room.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Or the belief that the militia is dependant on citizens being able to be armed as they see fit rather than the ownership of firearms being contingent upon militia service?
 Sent2: Especially considering the fact that most of the armed services would likely side with gun owners.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is legal to own weapons in this country, they are just tightly controlled, and as a result we have far less gun crime (particularly where it's not related to organised crime).
 Sent2: We have guns and we still have crime and lots of gun deaths.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think it is interesting that gun nuts always claim that when guns are banned people will just use knives instead, yet we find that with guns prohibited there are still only 200 deaths a year from knife like weapons.
 Sent2: Using a shotgun or an AK-47 will get the job done, so I don't see the need to ban assault weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Common sense gun control laws the gun haters want will only affect the law abiding citizens, not the criminals.
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not affect criminals because criminals do not obey these laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: "to keep and bear Arms" - this would include any gun
 Sent2: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Law abiding citizens are not going to misuse their firearms and those with criminal records are already banned from owning guns.
 Sent2: Something else you must keep in mind is that if we outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be outlaws, this leaves no defense for law abiding citizens.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Notice not one of the common sense gun control laws gun hater pilot is demanding is to punish dangerous criminals by keeping them in prison to keep guns away from them!
 Sent2: But gun hater pilot will demand that the right to bear arms be limited or banned to keep criminals from getting guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The crime comes from using the gun (or any other weapon) to violate the rights of others.
 Sent2: Using illogic, skewed statistics, revisionist history all in an attempt to violate my constitutional rights, that would be you and other gun grabbers who are trying to infringe on law abiding citizens rights.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Second Amendment, the right to be armed for all legal and lawful reasons, is finally recognized as not just a fundamental right, but an individual right held by the people, not any state or government.
 Sent2: Unless the second amendment is recognised as an individual right, and given the full protection of law as other rights are, there is nothing to say that a law could not be passed tomorrow banning all weapons in this country.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Most gun owners are just ordinary people who happen to own a firearm.
 Sent2: Gun owners don't drive into crowds of people simply because they had a gun in their car.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The only thing we've been over, is that government and gun control is racist, not the Second Amendment.
 Sent2: The Second Amendment was never about individual gun ownership, it's only purpose was proper case of a government organized and controlled militia."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I can understand your belief that gun control won't work and that owning guns is a good thing, I don't agree with it, but is hardly beyond comprehension.
 Sent2: I believe in gun control (and wrote this piece to satirize pro-gunners) because I hate guns and want to see them all banned, which is why I own guns and also enjoy reading firearms-related literature.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I worry that the reduction of gun ownership will increase crime rates even in households with a gun.
 Sent2: states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men.States With Higher Levels Of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They argue that the second amendment allows the people the power of weapons so that if the government intrudes on their rights they can defend themselves.
 Sent2: The gun right people demand that they be allowed to hand out pamphlets defending the right to have guns if the school allowed anti gun/gun control advocates to pass out pamphlets vilifying guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However, even though there were less deaths, there was a surge in gun crime, death and non-death related, after the ban on guns.
 Sent2: The figures for the number of gun related deaths in the US should be evidence enough that 'the people' cannot be trusted with guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If anything, it has ruled in favor of gun control, saying in the Miller case that "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."
 Sent2: First, the ruling was that the Second Amendment only applied to firearms that had a militia purposes and that the sawed-off shotgun in question didn't have any evidence of being suitable for a militia.
Output: Similar
Sent1: "to keep and bear Arms" - this would include any gun
 Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Only why would you need gun registration if guns were illegal?
 Sent2: It is just a case of prevention, remove guns being so easily accessible and you then decrease the gun crime and remove the need for guns to defend yourself.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The numbers above tend to indicate that fewer gun-related homicides is a direct result of stricter gun control laws.
 Sent2: Australia, for example, hasn't had one single mass shooting since it passed stricter gun laws over ten years ago.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Doesn't hold together, though - you have no evidence that criminal arms supply is unaffected by gun control.
 Sent2: This is just further proof that gun control does not equal crime control and there are no "reasonable" nor "responsible" gun control laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun Control does not work, well unless you mean by working that crime sky rockets in which case I would have to agree with you and then question your motives as to why you would want it here.
 Sent2: I can understand your belief that gun control won't work and that owning guns is a good thing, I don't agree with it, but is hardly beyond comprehension.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Because the term "gun nut" has come to mean a disparaging remark about anybody that supports the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, and favors gun ownership over gun bans.
 Sent2: Gun-control regulations impose varying degrees of burden on Second Amendment rights, and individual assertions of the right will come in many forms.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Innocent people were butchered where no guns were permitted, while nobody is being shot full of holes in the schools where carrying a gun is permitted.
 Sent2: You propose to abolish gun free zones, and allow people to carry guns into schools.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If most gun crimes are committed by illegal firearm holders then it means that legal ownership of firearms combined with government monitoring can have a positive effect.
 Sent2: In most studies legal purchases of firearms have no influence on the crime rate.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People that defend the right to bear arms that demand laws that punish criminals by keeping them in prison thus keeping guns away from them.
 Sent2: How can a people defend themselves from the government, unless they are able to maintain the same weapons as the government has?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 2nd amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED.
 Sent2: 2) ensure that the right to keep and bear arms for a militia is not infringed.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Neither you nor your side will admit that criminals use guns or other weapons to rob banks or citizens for money or other valuables to support their drug habits or other criminal achievements.
 Sent2: Is your point that citizens should be allowed to have guns to defend themselves from the government or that citizens should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves from other citizens?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a division of Handgun Control, Inc., disagreed with Lott's findings, as well as the overall assumption that a reduction in the availability of guns in society reduces violent crime.
 Sent2: So an article that is entitled "Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies" is not claiming that gun control is ineffective?
Output: Similar
Sent1: with regard to the fact that most gun crime is from illegl guns, in that case why not make all guns illegal.
 Sent2: If most gun crimes are committed by illegal firearm holders then it means that legal ownership of firearms combined with government monitoring can have a positive effect.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You claimed that the Supreme Court gave the green light to all kinds of bans and restrictions on guns and ammunition, something that never took place.
 Sent2: That's still pretty outrageous to claim, especially given you keep saying only 44 States prohibit the restriction of guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The crime comes from using the gun (or any other weapon) to violate the rights of others.
 Sent2: Most violent crime with guns occurs at knife fighting range.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think a better debate would be when should gun control start?
 Sent2: So I think gun control on the magnitude you want would effect it, how could it not?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: ********* logic is for companies and governments to deny a person the right to bears arms to defend ones self then not be held responsible when these companies and governments fail to protect the unarmed citizens!
 Sent2: Gun hater pilot logic is for companies and governments to deny a person the right to bears arms to defend ones self then not be held responsible when these companies and governments fail to protect the unarmed citizens!
Output: Similar
Sent1: Most of the "gun control" laws we have in the US have no potential to impact crime at all, except perhaps making the streets safer for criminals who have an unarmed public to prey upon.
 Sent2: That will take the criminals off the street and with them off the street there are no gun control concerns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Within the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder, whites have higher rates of gun ownership than blacks and much lower murder rates.
 Sent2: On average, the states that have done the most to regulate private gun sales appear to have lower firearm death rates and lower firearm homicide rates.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We should protect gun laws because of crazy people who go out of control with them and guns these days are getting more advanced and easier to get
 Sent2: I could easily point out how many people are killed by criminals because they aren't armed and able to fight back, and that could be seen as grounds for removing the restrictive gun laws we have in this country.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Since there are gun deaths in countries that have banned guns, the gun bans did not work.
 Sent2: If the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states then there is no Second Amendment legal protection against state gun laws (which would include any state laws that ban guns in school areas).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So if its cause people in high crime areas want to buy guns for protection then why do they only want protection against gun murders but not other crimes.
 Sent2: So if someone wants to protect themself from a wild animal do they need a gun?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Most gun owners are just ordinary people who happen to own a firearm.
 Sent2: I like guns as much as the normal person does but if guns are abused by people, we need restictions.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Perhaps if other types of firearms were as strictly regulated as machine guns
 Sent2: No, but they might like to challenge the conclusion that states with less strict firearm laws are more often the source of guns used in crimes, in other states, than guns from states with stricter gun laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If guns would be made illegal, then only criminals would have them.
 Sent2: That will take the criminals off the street and with them off the street there are no gun control concerns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Second Amendment was never about individual gun ownership, it's only purpose was proper case of a government organized and controlled militia."
 Sent2: Yeah, thing is that the second ammendment makes the point that guns should be allowed because a _well organised militia_ is an important tool for a nation.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Making guns illegal wouldn't solve anything except to take them away from people that want to defend themselves.
 Sent2: Simple if gun haters want people defending the right to bear arms to be in militias, why would you want the militias to have lesser weapons then the enemies they are defending against?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are zones where criminals will have guns because criminals will not obey the laws about gun free zones.
 Sent2: Gun free zones are zones where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to have guns because law-abiding citizens obey the law about gun free zones.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Even back in the 60's gun owners were saying that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, and gun safety being stressed, and maybe even mandatory for children will produce benefits.
 Sent2: You claimed that the Supreme Court gave the green light to all kinds of bans and restrictions on guns and ammunition, something that never took place.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Not only will the criminals still have access to guns, but they will also have the added knowledge that either the person they intend to rob does not have a gun or they are breaking the law.
 Sent2: NATO, Galileo has claimed that these laws are designed to reduce criminal use of guns (which would have to mean that they target the people, not the guns).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns by law.
 Sent2: Unarmed law-abiding citizens are victims of gun crimes because criminals do not obey the gun ban in that gun free zone.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You claimed that the Supreme Court gave the green light to all kinds of bans and restrictions on guns and ammunition, something that never took place.
 Sent2: The courts up to the supreme court have held that criminals can't be made to register guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The crime comes from using the gun (or any other weapon) to violate the rights of others.
 Sent2: However none of these exceptions would apply to a criminal obtaining a specific firearm through the black market or outright theft, and then going on a shooting spree where others are killed or otherwise maimed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And by the same token the anti-gun crowd believe that honest people can't be trusted, yet criminals can; unless there are laws that reinforce the Second Amendment right, which will make criminals more likely to get a gun.
 Sent2: That most people can't be trusted, so we should have more laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Do you understand that any proposed gun control law must pass the strict scrutiny test due to the Second Amendment being recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution?
 Sent2: You keep claiming that you're not of the anti-gun camp, that you actually support the Second Amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: and who commits crimes, Criminals, so if you take guns away from law abiding citizens insuring that criminals will still be able to get weapons will have more targets to attack because people don't have any defense against criminals.
 Sent2: Law abiding citizens are not going to misuse their firearms and those with criminal records are already banned from owning guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control laws do not deprive gun ownership for those who do not follow laws.
 Sent2: No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Notice not one of the common sense gun control laws gun hater pilot is demanding is to punish dangerous criminals by keeping them in prison to keep guns away from them!
 Sent2: Common sense gun control laws the gun haters want will only affect the law abiding citizens, not the criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Are you saying that the only reason there are criminals armed with guns is because we're not willing to accept gun prohibitions as the answer?
 Sent2: Once we disarm law abiding citizens, the only armed civilians around will be criminals who would never willingly give up their weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control laws will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws!
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not deprive gun ownership for those who do not follow laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Speaking of the 14th amendment, there is one scholar that says an individual right to own a gun came with the 14th amendment, not the second amendment.
 Sent2: Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you need guns to ensure that your government doesn't become corrupt or tyranical you wouldn't want them to know where the guns are, would you?
 Sent2: Police do not know how many guns are in the state or where they are.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 Sent2: In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They didn't shoot someone because they were criminals, they because criminals because they shot someone, Your point boils down to 'Laws do not work because people disobey them-we should have no laws'.
 Sent2: Criminals that do not obey gun control laws will be able to obtain guns and use them on the unarmed law-abiding citizens.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In my view I think that complete gun control helps solve a major problem in crime and it would allow people to feel safer because they wouldn't need to have a gun to protect themselves.
 Sent2: And as far as carrying in public, as long as I have commited no crime, then why should anyone need know I have my gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Since that ruling most lower federal courts have continued to reject the argument that the second amendment protects an indivual right to own a gun.
 Sent2: What you've been doing isn't a debate about gun control, it's criticism of the Supreme Court for saying the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for legal purposes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If guns are banned, the only people that will be affected will be the people that buy guns for protection from criminals, who get their guns illegally anyway.
 Sent2: The only way to prevent guns from falling in the hands of criminals is by law abiding people buying every gun that is manufactured and thus leaving no guns available for criminals to buy.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Screw "putting more guns on the street", how about we give gun owners more rights and more legal opportunities to use them and stop pandering to the criminals.
 Sent2: Many thousands of Guns are stolen and used in GUN CREATED CRIME because most legal gun owners
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They do not have the expressed, enumerated power to pass any law regarding guns in the constitution.
 Sent2: Which passed the law requireing "smart guns", if they ever become available (right now they do not exist).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So to avoid any (more) backlash about the law, Reid included a provision to further protect gun owners from either seeing their insurance rates increase, or from having their names collected and entered into some federal gun owner database.
 Sent2: Right now it is against the law for the government to keep a database of gun owners, that that law would have to be changed, and I think you also know this.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Keeping violent criminals in prison would do far more to reduce gun crime than banning guns.
 Sent2: You can not use this as evidence that the reduction in crime is due to the gun ban.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If more guns present means that more criminals will be able to commit more killings and violent criminals, wouldn't they have allowed the ban to remain in place?
 Sent2: Banning guns will not ban the threat of criminal violence it will just make the law abiding subject to the will and whim of the stronger thugs
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You have been shown the facts that most criminals get their guns from family members or they steal them, even from cops.
 Sent2: Therefore, if you avoid gangs (those who tend to have guns - they are still criminals), there is little point in carrying a gun yourself.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I have some experience in dealing with violent crime, and in my opinion we do not have a gun violence problem in America, we have a violence problem in general.
 Sent2: We have more crime than fully armed countries not because we don't have guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Police officers around here don't generally use or carry guns and, in any case, knowing what the police are like I wouldn't trust them looking after kids anyway.
 Sent2: Police do not know how many guns are in the state or where they are.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Criminals enter gun free zones with guns to commit crimes against unarmed law-abiding citizens.
 Sent2: Criminals do not obey the laws about gun free zones.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The legal market for firearms gets killed off in hopes of hindering criminals, and instead the criminals continue buying from the black market, importing them illegally, or making their weapons themselves.
 Sent2: If you take away the civilian's only right to self defense, how are they suppose to defend themselves from the criminals who buy weapons and drugs from the black market illegally.
Output: Similar
Sent1: if one wants to own a gun i have no qualms with them but if they wish to own guns such as a AK47 and AK74u they should be dealt with in a more civilized manner to protect the people.
 Sent2: So if its cause people in high crime areas want to buy guns for protection then why do they only want protection against gun murders but not other crimes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
 Sent2: The Second Amendment, the right to be armed for all legal and lawful reasons, is finally recognized as not just a fundamental right, but an individual right held by the people, not any state or government.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It's absurd to think that the Second Amendment was intended to protect a right to commit a crime.
 Sent2: so the NRA is so stupid to believe that the second amendment means terrorists can tote around assault rifles
Output: Similar
Sent1: I would support any law that target criminals, but I will not support you as long as you target lawfull gun owners.
 Sent2: Right now it is against the law for the government to keep a database of gun owners, that that law would have to be changed, and I think you also know this.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Simple if gun haters want people defending the right to bear arms to be in militias, why would you want the militias to have lesser weapons then the enemies they are defending against?
 Sent2: Of course if a hate groups such as the gun haters want to ban a right they will claim this!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The organized militia is equivalent to the well regulated militia of the second amendment.
 Sent2: Yeah, thing is that the second ammendment makes the point that guns should be allowed because a _well organised militia_ is an important tool for a nation.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You will go to your grave trying for more and more and even more gun control.
 Sent2: If you need guns to ensure that your government doesn't become corrupt or tyranical you wouldn't want them to know where the guns are, would you?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: First you argued that the Second Amendment was a collective rights tool designed to ensure that each state had its own private militia.
 Sent2: First the argument was that the Second Amendment was a collective right reserved for the sole purpose of guaranteeing states the ability to have private militias.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Since that ruling most lower federal courts have continued to reject the argument that the second amendment protects an indivual right to own a gun.
 Sent2: And I don't think that the second amendment is a good argument against gun control since the federal courts have not recognized gun-control as being offensive to the second amendment.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Or that the Second Amendment only keeps the federal government from passing new gun control laws?
 Sent2: In the dicta from a maritime law case the Supreme Court commented that state laws restricting concealed weapons do not infringe upon the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Second Amendment."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: IF you previously had laws that made openly carrying weapons illegal, and you then pass a concealed carry law, if somebody is carrying a gun and it is not concealed, they are breaking the law.
 Sent2: Concealed carry laws put more legal guns on the street, in stores, etc. the is More Guns on the street for defensive use.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: What it seems like you are claiming is that if the owner would otherwise let you in if you didn't have a gun, you have a right to go in by the 2nd amendment.
 Sent2: Perhaps you should show how registration is an infringement on 2nd amendment rights.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Not only will the criminals still have access to guns, but they will also have the added knowledge that either the person they intend to rob does not have a gun or they are breaking the law.
 Sent2: Why do people that want what they call reasonable limits on the right to bear arms believe criminals will obey a law stating criminals cannot have guns?
Output: Similar
Sent1: Loose control of his firearm to a person who does not have the right to be in posession of the firearm.
 Sent2: Gun control should be left to the person holding the gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All one can reasonably conclude is that more firearms does not increase the homicide rate, nor does less guns reduce it.
 Sent2: And if the ban failed to lower crime rates, why not support less gun control to effectively accomplish this?
Output: Not similar