niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: (or, for those who favor the alternative collective right view, ���the right of militia members to keep and bear their militia arms when called for by the state for militia service?�۝)
 Sent2: 2) ensure that the right to keep and bear arms for a militia is not infringed.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: 1) Does having laws regulating the the ability to carry concealed weapons violate the 2nd amendment of the constitution?
 Sent2: (i.e. restrictions on concealed carry, laws against brandishing) but we can not ban the carrying of arms altogether since that would violate the second amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: That includes populations, gun homicides, non gun homicides and households with weapons in them.
 Sent2: Presumably, the cops knew if there was a gun in the homicide house since they searched it (even if it was not used in the homicide.)
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: However, I do feel that there should be very strict laws on who can purchase assault weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: With the prohibition against releasing firearms trace data to the public at large, we will not know the answer.
 Sent2: If we're going to ban guns,we might as well bans knives,fireworks,and even computers.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Therefore you feel more guns is the solution to stopping gun crime.
 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: Similar
Sent1: If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or any of the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution are to be abridged, they must ne done so by legal means, i.e. constitutional amendment.
 Sent2: It took the 14th amendment for them to get the right to keep and bear arms and still today the gun grabber agenda is based on denial of rights, all rights and not just Second Amendment rights.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The fact that you like cars is why you will tolerate the fact that more kids are killed by cars then guns.
 Sent2: Also: More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The fact that you like cars is why you will tolerate the fact that more kids are killed by cars then guns.
 Sent2: people who want to kill, will kill if you ban guns, they will kill with knives, or something else.
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: If individual citizens should not, in your view, be permitted to own firearms, them make your case and let the amendment process work to make your view the law of the land.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The police must respect people's Constitutional rights, but this doesn't mean they don't prevent crimes from occurring.
 Sent2: So we should take things/ rights away from people because there is a potential they could do criminal things with them?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You can not use this as evidence that the reduction in crime is due to the gun ban.
 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 argument isn't that guns promote or cause crime, it is that when crimes happen having a gun involved causes more damage.
 Sent2: Again, I don't think anybody will argue that owning a gun prevents crime.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: 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 problem with gun hater pilot�۪s common sense bs is that the dangerous criminals these laws are meant to keep guns away from do not obey gun control laws!
Output: Similar
Sent1: If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or any of the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution are to be abridged, they must ne done so by legal means, i.e. constitutional amendment.
 Sent2: In effect, theyask the Court to hold the right to keep and bear arms as subject to adifferent body of rules for incorporation than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Perhaps if other types of firearms were as strictly regulated as machine guns are then we could make some real progress in reducing gun violence and murder.
 Sent2: Perhaps if other types of firearms were as strictly regulated as machine guns
Output: 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: Concealed carry laws put more legal guns on the street, in stores, etc. the is More Guns on the street for defensive use.
Output: 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: If we look at D.C. we can see that people who had registered their guns before the gun ban were allowed to keep their guns after the ban took effect.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: My point was that the theory that more gun control leaves people defenseless does not explain the lower murder rates in other developed nations.
 Sent2: That said, the idea that non gun homicides dont increase does not show causation between high gun ownership and increased murder rates.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is interesting how people that want to ban the right to bear arms never apply their logic to the rights they like.
 Sent2: If England wants to ban weapons, that is quite alright, but we should not trade with htem as long as they are violating the human rights of their citizens.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Federal law doesn't give them authority to require sale reports of multiple shotgun and rifle sales, only handguns.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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?
 Sent2: Now that said, one has to wonder why people for gun control or anti gun types keep telling people that defend the right to bear arms that they could not win a fight.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 1) Does having laws regulating the the ability to carry concealed weapons violate the 2nd amendment of the constitution?
 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: Similar
Sent1: Usually it is 'oh look out look out, them gun nuts are going to do something.
 Sent2: If it was just a gun thing then they could go from internation flights from countries with no guns, but it isn't.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You're the one who has to explain why the US crime rates are so high when other countries manage to have guns and not go nuts.
 Sent2: You can't just claim "Country A has more gun control and a lower homicide rate than Country B does" and leave it at that.
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: WE AGREE THAT CRIMINALS SHOULDN'T BE ARMED, and the laws already exist on the books to punish them when convicted criminals are caught with guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However, I can understand that people can use guns for recreation, hunting and sport.
 Sent2: Guns are used in friendly and legal competitions, guns put food on peoples table through means of hunting, guns save lives through defensive uses.
Output: Similar
Sent1: DC doesn't need to have an age restriction on gun ownership, because no matter what their laws say, you still have to be at least 18 to pass a federal background check to buy a gun.
 Sent2: 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?
Output: Not 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: 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: The 2nd Amendment is not there to entitle you to all of the gun control you want!
 Sent2: You're right that gun control isn't about guns, however, but 'control' is a secondary matter, a means to an end.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Since there are gun deaths in countries that have banned guns, the gun bans did not work.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The reality is that in developed nations with stricter gun laws than the US there are less outlaws owning and using guns.
 Sent2: Yes, that must be the reason why in other developed nations where there are more restrictions on guns less defenseless people are being murdered by criminals.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The Seventh Circuit described the rationale of those cases as ���defunct�۝ and recognized that they did not consider the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment�۪s Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment right to keep andbear arms.
 Sent2: We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amend-ment right recognized in Heller.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I agree that a firearm ownership ban coupled with effective confiscation methods would dramatically reduce the number of murders committed by individuals with firearms.
 Sent2: I worry that the reduction of gun ownership will increase crime rates even in households with a gun.
Output: Similar
Sent1: We have guns and we still have crime and lots of gun deaths.
 Sent2: Though I think we're gun obsessed in our culture, and a lot of times, we can defend ourselves more effectively without guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gun bans worked there would be no gun deaths in the countries that have banned guns.
 Sent2: Then why do nations which ban guns have a much lower gun crime rate than the US?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun laws and bans are put in place that only affect good law abiding free citizens.
 Sent2: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Also once you become an agent of the government you stop having right, you have authorities and you're controlled by the people the Constitution is supposed to protect you against.
 Sent2: You are asking of our government the abdication of their solemn oaths to uphold and protect The Constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If today we were to ban guns all the law abiding citizens would give up their firearms and protection.
 Sent2: Criminals don't care about gun bans, so a gun ban only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
Output: Similar
Sent1: "to keep and bear Arms" - this would include any gun
 Sent2: Gun haters will stop when the right to bear arms is banned!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: One private individual asking another if they have guns in the home and then offering them a pamphlet on firearms safety if they say yes has nothing at all to do with gun control or the second amendment.
 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: The crime comes from using the gun (or any other weapon) to violate the rights of others.
 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: Do you think that a gun-ban in the long run would mean that more criminals get their hands on guns or that less criminals get their hands on guns?
 Sent2: Less gun control probably means more criminals will have guns, however it also means more civilian lives will be saved.
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: Gun haters are like the dangerous criminals the gun haters want to keep guns away from.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: sure you can kill with other things, but most homicide weapons are guns.
 Sent2: You can debate that without guns there would be more deaths to other weapons although you can't debate it would be to the same extent as gun murders and crimes would be.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Now that said, one has to wonder why people for gun control or anti gun types keep telling people that defend the right to bear arms that they could not win a fight.
 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: You're the one who has to explain why the US crime rates are so high when other countries manage to have guns and not go nuts.
 Sent2: Then why do nations which ban guns have a much lower gun crime rate than the US?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters are the extremist hate group demanding to ban the right to bear arms!
 Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Sent1: One such person who is prohibited by federal law from having a firearm at all is the convicted felon:
 Sent2: But that does not change the fact that the law has made the individual into a prohibited person, so that her gun possession is, in itself, a federal felony.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Please note that the argument is that the reason people shall have the right to keep and bear arms is in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
 Sent2: THE 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.PERIOD.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: Guns are dangerous even though when they are banned people will still make them people think that they will still use them less people will use them less deaths will be by guns.
 Sent2: all guns are used for is killing, they are weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Doesn't hold together, though - you have no evidence that criminal arms supply is unaffected by gun control.
 Sent2: Therefore you feel more guns is the solution to stopping gun crime.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We didn't ban all guns, just most of them, because our farmers need them and our police need them.
 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 Second Amendment was never about individual gun ownership, it's only purpose was proper case of a government organized and controlled militia."
 Sent2: Anybody else in American history able to lend credibility to your belief that the Second Amendment was all about gun control and how gun ownership was never intended to be an individual right?
Output: Similar
Sent1: Criminals enter gun free zones with guns to commit crimes against unarmed law-abiding citizens.
 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: 2) ensure that the right to keep and bear arms for a militia is not infringed.
 Sent2: Please note that the argument is that the reason people shall have the right to keep and bear arms is in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
Output: 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: 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: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States America states that, ���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: Please note that the argument is that the reason people shall have the right to keep and bear arms is in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
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: 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.
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: 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: People that read the 2nd amend as a militia thing also must think dangerous criminals will obey gun control laws.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: The people that want gun control laws are the ones using the militia lie.
 Sent2: I also say that when people commit a crime with a gun these people need to be punished not the law-abiding citizens!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: To inact a law that makes a crime of illegal gun ownership has no effect on criminal ownership of guns.
 Sent2: Gun ownership is a protected right, and the fact that criminals use guns in the commission of crime will never change this fact.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But gun hater pilot will demand that the right to bear arms be limited or banned to keep criminals from getting guns.
 Sent2: Gun haters think banning guns will make criminals stop being criminals.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Most gun owners are just ordinary people who happen to own a firearm.
 Sent2: Many people who would never dream of shooting a person can own a gun simply for the artistry of a well made machine, people hunt with guns as well.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If guns would be made illegal, then only criminals would have them.
 Sent2: Crime rates equals criminals which means if guns are illegal, they must be getting them from somewhere, hmmm, i wonder where, black market or illegal selling across borders anyone?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Handguns and assault weapons are explicitly protected by the 2nd Amendment because they are needed to fight against a tyrannical government, but tanks, fighter aircraft, helicopter gunships, and nuclear weapons are not protected for some reason.
 Sent2: The 2nd amendment only protects a states right to own a Militia.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Making guns illegal wouldn't solve anything except to take them away from people that want to defend themselves.
 Sent2: So if someone wants to protect themself from a wild animal do they need a gun?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A law-abiding gun nut who uses their gun in committing a crime, is a criminal, and not law-abiding.
 Sent2: In England, where currently the private ownership of hand guns by the law abiding is absolutely prohibited, crimes involving the use of guns are rapidly increasing: only the criminals have access to them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Even if today's well-regulated militia were the National Guard, the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You argue that the ban worked, yet at the same time you claim that gun makers found a way around the law, releasing the same weapons as before but in a way that made them technically legal.
 Sent2: Think you are missing the point, there is no way that you can really argue a gun ban within the constitution as is (whether the thing is really valid is another discusion entirely).
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: If you choose to not be prepared and not own a gun, that is your choice, you do not however have the right to tell me that I may not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: None are so fearful as those who need to have guns and more guns and more guns and more and more ammo, and assault 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: For instance I don't think that eliminating gun control is the only answer crime control is also needed.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If today we were to ban guns all the law abiding citizens would give up their firearms and protection.
 Sent2: Law abiding citizens obey the law, there can surely be no reason to prohibit them form having guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control laws only control the guns in the hands of people who follow laws.
 Sent2: All of the gun control laws the gun haters want will only be obeyed by the law abiding citizens!
Output: Similar
Sent1: People constantly trumpet about how having a gun means that they can protect themselves, but first they must be able to fire the gun on another human being, something that most people find hard to do.
 Sent2: Making guns illegal wouldn't solve anything except to take them away from people that want to defend themselves.
Output: Not 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: Only why would you need gun registration if guns were illegal?
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: You propose to abolish gun free zones, and allow people to carry guns into schools.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I pointed out that the US has higher levels of gun crime than most developed nations while you tried to focus on a few tragedies in response to someone questioning the claim that criminals will always get guns.
 Sent2: This question has pretty much become a circus, with you trying to convince me that ccw states will not pursue illegal carriers, and that if you have a gun, all the criminals will have a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Please tell the murder victims in these other countries that gun control works.
 Sent2: Are you saying that since all guns have been banned for civilian use in Countries like England, that murders by guns and gun crimes have gone to absolute zero there?
Output: Similar
Sent1: They never said anything about allowing bans on commonly owned firearms, or ammunition, or allowing for heinous restrictions that wouldn't be considered constitutional when applied to other rights.
 Sent2: Machine guns are not in common use so I see no reason to believe restrictions on them would be lifted based on the ruling.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 1) Protection - The argument suggests that guns protect us from dangerous individuals.
 Sent2: I like how anti gun people say we need to protect everyone from the rare gun events by banning guns, but when someone suggests banning the more frequent hammer and club attacks, they can justify those deaths.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People who follow laws, aren't causing problems with the guns they own.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
 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: Similar
Sent1: 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?
 Sent2: We have a right to use a gun to defend ourselves and others.
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: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you believe what you say in:as it is presently, gun crimes still occur, people have their rights to own guns revoked on a case by case basis, and dying of gun shots is actually very rare.
 Sent2: The only case you could possibly make is more accidents with more guns at gun shows.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However, I can understand that people can use guns for recreation, hunting and sport.
 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: Therefore, while most people are hindranced by the laws, criminals will still obtain weapons illegally.
 Sent2: ...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 'Gun control' does not mean a ban on all self-defence
 Sent2: Less gun control probably means more criminals will have guns, however it also means more civilian lives will be saved.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: What I wonder is, if citizens/subjects are supposed to defend themselves with their bare hands (because guns are heavily regulated and knives are next ) why do police need to shoot people to stop them from causing harm?
 Sent2: Their argument is hardly valid, they want to stop the selling of firearms to people because they think it will decrease the crimes and school shootings along with other dangers that are caused by guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We didn't ban all guns, just most of them, because our farmers need them and our police need them.
 Sent2: One of the reason we are the country we are is because of our right to own guns.
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: Gun haters must attack people defending the right to bear arms by calling them fanatics.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Let's see what they get, when REAL trouble happens, and they have to stop everything, and try to load the gun!
 Sent2: Usually it is 'oh look out look out, them gun nuts are going to do something.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So, no, I wouldn't say there was any "gun control" as you (Galileo) tried to pass off as early gun control laws.
 Sent2: Name me one gun control law that has been effective as crime control!!!!!!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry conceled weapons.
 Sent2: Lott's More Guns, Less Crime is the bible of the national movement to persuade state legislatures to pass so-called "concealed carry" laws, which permit citizens to carry concealed firearms.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Guns are dangerous even though when they are banned people will still make them people think that they will still use them less people will use them less deaths will be by guns.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Do you think that private companies should be able to restrict freedom of speech as well as any other parts of the constitution?
 Sent2: The medium of 'free speech' has changed, but that does not affect that free speech should still exist - just as with the other constitutional points (with a few exceptions, if you believe Bush).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In England, where currently the private ownership of hand guns by the law abiding is absolutely prohibited, crimes involving the use of guns are rapidly increasing: only the criminals have access to them.
 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: Similar
Sent1: I think we have enough people against kids owning guns to pass an amendment to the second amendment or else the 13th saying that kids don't have quite as many rights.
 Sent2: I've been told by gun activists that the second amendment protects a limited right and therefore people can be banned from owning WMD's.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The laws the gun haters want will keep the right to bear arms from the law abiding citizens!
 Sent2: Gun hater pilot's lack of logic is to not allow law abding citizens the right to bear arms, and do nothing to protect the unarmed law abiding citizens.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I support a persons right to own a gun but if people start getting too many freedoms dealing with their weapons then things could get worse.
 Sent2: I keep hearing about assault weapons "mowing people down", yet nobody has ever managed to provide me with an example of this.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In short, Norway has more guns, yet less people killing each other.
 Sent2: Yes, that must be the reason why in other developed nations where there are more restrictions on guns less defenseless people are being murdered by criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry conceled weapons.
 Sent2: Her: I don't think people should be allowed to carry guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Guns don't kill people, if they did, they would go to jail for murder- not the murderers.
 Sent2: people who want to kill, will kill if you ban guns, they will kill with knives, or something else.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The higher rate of gun ownership by criminals is far outweighed by the threat of citizens owning guns.
 Sent2: I worry that the reduction of gun ownership will increase crime rates even in households with a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Second of all, I wholeheartedly believe in the thinking that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
 Sent2: Also: More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And that assumes that gun control will have no effect on illegal firearm ownership.
 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've made the argument that registration of firearms is perfectly legal and constitutional, despite the fact that the Firearm Owners Protection Act forbids any and all type of database of guns or gun owners.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Do you think that a gun-ban in the long run would mean that more criminals get their hands on guns or that less criminals get their hands on guns?
 Sent2: Its liberals like you who make it easy for criminals to get their hands on guns and liberals like you who make it possible for them to be used in the murders for which your nation is famed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime.
 Sent2: There's no evidence to prove the believe that when guns are less available, less criminals will be armed than if guns were more readily available.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But gun hater pilot will demand that the right to bear arms be limited or banned to keep criminals from getting guns.
 Sent2: Now if you want gun control laws that limit or ban the right to bear arms you are a gun haters.
Output: 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 more crime than fully armed countries not because we don't have guns.
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: 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: Similar
Sent1: All gun control laws do is stop law abiding citizens from having guns!
 Sent2: Gun control laws will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws!
Output: Similar
Sent1: I do see the sense in some measures such as restricting access to guns for people who have committed violent crimes.
 Sent2: I'd love to see how gun rationing, ammunition documentation, ending private sales, gun registration, and restriction of right to carry, has helped reduce violence crimes and make things difficult for criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The problem is that widespread guns means greater criminal access to guns which means greater criminal gun use which means bad things.
 Sent2: Less gun control probably means more criminals will have guns, however it also means more civilian lives will be saved.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If the Second Amendment were purely about the militia, and absolutely nothing else, then there would be no way retired members would be allowed to remain armed for their own private purposes.
 Sent2: Amendment protects the right of the states to arm their militias.
Output: 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: You would rather be confronted by a guy with a baseball bat because you are FAR more likely to get killed by the guy with the gun.
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: Gun control makes criminals lives much easier, because they can keep their guns, while they don't have to deal with armed citizens.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Simple if the gun haters did not want your guns why do gun haters only want gun control laws that law abiding citizens obey and criminals do not?
 Sent2: Gun control laws will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws!
Output: 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: One private individual asking another if they have guns in the home and then offering them a pamphlet on firearms safety if they say yes has nothing at all to do with gun control or the second amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: it isn't guns that kill people, is the mentality these people carry around in their heads that kill other people.
 Sent2: Also: More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Also if both points are true, would you sacrifice you right to protect your rights with guns (rather than politically) for a crime rate low enough where you don't feel you need a gun for protection?
 Sent2: Therefore you feel more guns is the solution to stopping gun crime.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I believe that some of my gun control friends know in their hearts they are unable to debunk the overwhelming historical evidence which proves the Second Amendment was intended to recognize an individual right.
 Sent2: The language and historical intent of the Second Amendment mandates recognition of the individual right to keep and bear firearms and other personal weapons.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to modern guns.
 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: 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 opposite of "more guns = less crime is not true" is not "more guns = more crime".
Output: Not similar
Sent1: sure you can kill with other things, but most homicide weapons are guns.
 Sent2: You would rather be confronted by a guy with a baseball bat because you are FAR more likely to get killed by the guy with the gun.
Output: Similar
Sent1: We border two countries one of which is quite corrupt, what makes you think that criminals can't get guns.
 Sent2: We have more crime than fully armed countries not because we don't have guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think we recognize that gun control laws can reduce the number of criminals owning guns although not disarm every criminal.
 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: If gun bans worked there would be no gun deaths in the countries that have banned guns.
 Sent2: there are too many gun deaths and while there will never be a ban in America i find it appalling that so many fight to prevent gun restrictions and background checks.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It was in no way illegal for a student to keep their legally owned firearms on school property while attending class and then go hunting after they were finished for the day.
 Sent2: Exactly how many shootings took place in these settings when students were allowed to not only bring their legally owned guns with them to school, but could also store them in their lockers inside the school?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control makes criminals lives much easier, because they can keep their guns, while they don't have to deal with armed citizens.
 Sent2: Gun owners don't drive into crowds of people simply because they had a gun in their car.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Although I think a gun-ban should be effective since you can�t eliminate criminality entirely, and it�s the criminals, lunatics and otherwise unbalanced people that you don�t want to have guns or have an easy time getting guns.
 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: Similar
Sent1: We didn't ban all guns, just most of them, because our farmers need them and our police need them.
 Sent2: Biggest problem we have with guns is actually modified starting pistols rather than smuggled guns, our gangs not quite measure up to yours, despite what many of them would like to think ;)
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: This is needed to prevent gun owners from covering up sales to prohibited purchasers by later claiming ��� when those guns are traced to crime ��� that their guns were stolen.
 Sent2: If a gun owner knowingly sells to a prohibited felon who commits a murder with the gun, then the felon alone is responsible for the murder.
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: 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!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Please explain further how "to keep and bear arms" is a qualifier on "the people".
 Sent2: Please note that the argument is that the reason people shall have the right to keep and bear arms is in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: ,   and I was being kind when I say there was no change in the murder rate, The Anti-gun argument was that at least England�۪s gun control will stop mass shootings.
 Sent2: The homicide rate has climbed drasticaly with every gun control measure.
Output: Similar
Sent1: where gun control laws prohibit good law abiding citizens from carrying a gun to protect themselves and others.
 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: And that assumes that gun control will have no effect on illegal firearm ownership.
 Sent2: The criminal homicides almost always include illegally gotten guns- so that's not relevant either as gun control laws won't change that.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You will go to your grave trying for more and more and even more gun control.
 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: 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: Somebody even made the argument that the definition of arms in the Second Amendment was limited to 18th century flintlocks only, so no modern guns were protected, and the court rejected this argument as well.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control should be left to the person holding the gun.
 Sent2: Gun locks are designed to keep kids from playing with guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
 Sent2: You would rather be confronted by a guy with a baseball bat because you are FAR more likely to get killed by the guy with the gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Law abiding citizens obey the law, there can surely be no reason to prohibit them form having guns.
 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: While this revelation tends to debunk long-standing claims by gun control proponents that more guns in circulation leads to more crime, gun rights organizations contend that this bolsters their contention that armed citizens deter criminals.
 Sent2: The argument isn't that guns promote or cause crime, it is that when crimes happen having a gun involved causes more damage.
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: 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: I don't care about the number of people who buy guns or how many they buy per day or per month.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Also: More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by guns.
 Sent2: Cars kill people everyday just the same as guns, but nobody is trying to ban cars.
Output: 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: If guns are more advanced now, then that's all the more reason we should have the right to defend ourselves against them, not less.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Background checks at gun shows, waiting periods, and restrictions on buying guns in bulk-
 Sent2: Having an age limit on the ability to buy guns is a gun control measure.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: While many guns are taken off the street when people are arrested and any firearms in their possession are confiscated, a new study shows how easily arrestees believe they could illegally acquire another firearm.
 Sent2: You have been shown the facts that most criminals get their guns from family members or they steal them, even from cops.
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: So anybody who has a gun for self protection is now dead because they dont have guns, just the criminals.
Output: 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: They will not only confiscate the guns, but then charge the owners of those guns for being terrorists.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 2) ensure that the right to keep and bear arms for a militia is not infringed.
 Sent2: THE 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.PERIOD.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun haters if the 2nd amend did not protect the right to bear arms then all guns in America would be banned.
 Sent2: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Not 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: So I think gun control on the magnitude you want would effect it, how could it not?
Output: Not similar