niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
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: 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: 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: 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: Gun controllers make us conclude that they are being disingenuous, and even using these crime factors to further their aim of more and more and more and even more gun control.
 Sent2: Even "If criminals keep their guns",(if we were to confiscate all guns) " they wont be able to use them.
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: Perhaps once should ask why the majority of people who have challenged gun laws in the courts on Second Amendment grounds have been felons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Countries that ban guns or implement stricter laws concerning firearms have lower crime rates.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But I do not believe that a gun ban will make us any safer.
 Sent2: I seriously cannot believe that someone out there really thinks that we should allow EVERYBODY to carry weapons onto an airplane!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: sure you can kill with other things, but most homicide weapons are guns.
 Sent2: Please tell the murder victims in these other countries that gun control works.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The courts up to the supreme court have held that criminals can't be made to register guns.
 Sent2: An interesting question will be how the court views the registration requirements when a felon gets caught with an ���unregistered�۝ firearm.
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: Most violent crime with guns occurs at knife fighting range.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is not the legal gun doing the crime it is the illegaly owned guns, so if you take my guns the criminals have no one to stop them since they have guns we don't.
 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: Second of all, I wholeheartedly believe in the thinking that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
 Sent2: it isn't guns that kill people, is the mentality these people carry around in their heads that kill other people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The laws the gun haters want will keep the right to bear arms from the law abiding citizens!
 Sent2: All gun control laws do is stop law abiding citizens from having guns!
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: First you say no law will ever stop criminals from getting guns but now youre saying that criminals are never gun owners.
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: Muggings, burglaries, rapes, assault and battery are all examples of violent crimes that don't require a gun.
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: So I think gun control on the magnitude you want would effect it, how could it not?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The crime comes from using the gun (or any other weapon) to violate the rights of others.
 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: So, no, I wouldn't say there was any "gun control" as you (Galileo) tried to pass off as early gun control laws.
 Sent2: You say that gun control must not be effective because the study's conclusions about gun control were inconclusive.
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 fail to see how asking about gun ownership is any different.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't believe guns are good for anything, and I see no use in having them, but I believe it is everybody's right to produce or keep one, as it is just a weapon like anything else.
 Sent2: I don't think it's so much the media as the fact that no one is used to seeing people with guns, so when they do they assume they are in the middle of a combat zone.
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: 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: If you cannot demonstrate that more citizens owning guns leads to more violent crime, if the stats in fact support the opposite, what reason is there to ban guns?
 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: The gun control mentality that a felon is too dangerous to be allowed to legally buy a gun, yet they're not dangerous enough to take out of the public no matter how heinous a crime they've committed.
 Sent2: 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!
Output: 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: people who want to kill, will kill if you ban guns, they will kill with knives, or something else.
Output: Not 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: All of the Gun control you call for has been tried in other countries and the Criminals Still import guns in with their drugs.
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: Which would be worthless because you could just repeal that amendment and then repeal the 2nd.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Then we should ban so stupid people can't kill people with guns.
 Sent2: Cars kill people everyday just the same as guns, but nobody is trying to ban cars.
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: 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.
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: 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: Not similar
Sent1: The fact that you need a permit to do it does give the cops a pretext to ask to see your papers just as they can ask to see your DL if you're sitting behind the wheel.
 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: A gun ban would make guns on the same level as drugs....
 Sent2: Knives are used almost as often if not more so in crimes than are guns, the reason nobody is pushing to ban knives is because knives don't have the same negative cultural association guns have.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters are the extremist hate group demanding to ban the right to bear arms!
 Sent2: Anybody that wants gun control laws that infringe on the right to bear arms is a gun haters!
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Gun grabbers are criminal because they advocate eliminating the Second Amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.
 Sent2: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
Output: Similar
Sent1: So how is controlling the law-abiding going to help when murder is already illegal, it is already illegal for a convicted criminal to be even in the same room as a gun.
 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: 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: I worry that the reduction of gun ownership will increase crime rates even in households with a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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?
 Sent2: 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.
Output: 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: Why do people that want what they call reasonable limits on the right to bear arms demand laws that only law abiding citizens will obey?
Output: Similar
Sent1: I think a better debate would be when should gun control start?
 Sent2: I have a better theory as to why there's a supposed smaller availability of guns to criminals in the UK; because there are less people and obviously fewer guns were ever made or imported to begin with.
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: Guns don't kill people, if they did, they would go to jail for murder- not the murderers.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not affect criminals because criminals do not obey these laws.
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: Making guns illegal wouldn't solve anything except to take them away from people that want to defend themselves.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The criminal homicides almost always include illegally gotten guns- so that's not relevant either as gun control laws won't change that.
 Sent2: Gun control in the U.S. does not equal crime control.
Output: Not 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: 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: Like many gun control laws, Canada's Firearms Act was peddled as a badly needed "tool" against crime.
 Sent2: The people that want gun control laws are the ones using the militia lie.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If we're going to ban guns,we might as well bans knives,fireworks,and even computers.
 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: Background checks at gun shows, waiting periods, and restrictions on buying guns in bulk-
 Sent2: It's pointless people with criminal backgrounds aren't buying guns from gun stores (all of which already run background checks) there are no background checks on the black market and laws won't change that.
Output: Not 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: 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: Both show numbers between societies with differing amounts of firearms ownership.
 Sent2: Various groups have been unable to show that the criminal use of firearms leads to more deaths than the number of lives that are saved by private and legal gun ownership.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: To generalize gun owners in this way must mean you're either a complete dick or that your government likes to keep you ignorant.
 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: 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: Then why do nations which ban guns have a much lower gun crime rate than the US?
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 I think gun control on the magnitude you want would effect it, how could it not?
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: Guns don't kill people, if they did, they would go to jail for murder- not the murderers.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We could hypothesize that if guns are banned then law abiding citizens who usually didn't carry or own guns before the ban will be less likely to face armed opponents.
 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: The criminals already have plenty of guns, that means that ending gun ownership will play no real part in ending gun possession by criminals.
 Sent2: If that means gun control then so be it, but it does 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: People want all kinds of weapons but none of you douchebags wants the responsibility for having such freedoms.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If the second amendment protects a right to rebel, then it means that the people as a whole have a right to rise up and overthrow a tyrranical government rather than an individual like Timothy McVeigh.
 Sent2: The whole reason why the Second Amendment exists is so that the people could defend themselves against the tyranny of their own government.
Output: Not 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: My biggest disagreement is that I think one should carry any weapon one decides to.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However criminal organizations can still smuggle weapons and get assault weapons but the ban on weapons could lower the murder rate and hinder organizations from bulking up with annihilating firepower.
 Sent2: Keeping violent criminals in prison would do far more to reduce gun crime than banning guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You still have to prove that gun control equals crime control and your admission that it does not is proof that it is about control and dependency on government to protect you when they have no obligation to do so.
 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: Similarly, a company will still face civil liability in addition to criminal penalties if it has violated state or federal law or sold a gun knowing that it would be used to commit a crime.
 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 are banned, there will obviously be less guns in circulation.
 Sent2: A gun ban would make guns on the same level as drugs....
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I don't believe guns are good for anything, and I see no use in having them, but I believe it is everybody's right to produce or keep one, as it is just a weapon like anything else.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: Doesn't hold together, though - you have no evidence that criminal arms supply is unaffected by gun control.
 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: The criminals already have plenty of guns, that means that ending gun ownership will play no real part in ending gun possession by criminals.
 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: I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to modern guns.
 Sent2: I know people who want to limit ownership of guns to musket-type weapons as were used when the 2nd amendment was written and people that are for an insane amount of registration and background checks, etc.
Output: 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: 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: First you say no law will ever stop criminals from getting guns but now youre saying that criminals are never gun owners.
 Sent2: Perhaps you need to drop your prejudice you bring with you across an ocean and stop thinking of gun owners as criminals, they are not, we are the keepers of democracy, and the Federalist papers say so.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So... you feel that the sale of a type of gun could not have been banned if people didn't need permits in the first place?
 Sent2: What about the fact that the UK feels the need to ban knives and toy guns now?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now tell me, how is gun control going to stop people from making their own?
 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: 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: Who can believe that the right to keep and bear arms could survive "community storage," with gun owners needing to ask government bureaucrats for permission to obtain access to their own guns?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 1) Protection - The argument suggests that guns protect us from dangerous individuals.
 Sent2: Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns.
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: The question is whether or not it really matters if guns were used less for self defense and more for aggression.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns.
 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: 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: You say that gun control must not be effective because the study's conclusions about gun control were inconclusive.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Interesting how some people insist that the RKBA is not limited by the militia, but here you let "arms" in the second amendment be limited according to the militia.
 Sent2: This makes sense when you consider that the second amendment protects the right of the people to bear arms in connection with an organized militia.
Output: 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: Gun controllers make us conclude that they are being disingenuous, and even using these crime factors to further their aim of more and more and more and even more gun control.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The organized militia is equivalent to the well regulated militia of the second amendment.
 Sent2: This makes sense when you consider that the second amendment protects the right of the people to bear arms in connection with an organized militia.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People who follow laws, aren't causing problems with the guns they own.
 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: The only thing we've been over, is that government and gun control is racist, not the Second Amendment.
 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: Or that the Second Amendment only keeps the federal government from passing new 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: 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 somehow seem to think that getting rid of guns will stop people from killing each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry conceled weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now tell me, how is gun control going to stop people from making their own?
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
Output: Similar
Sent1: FACT: Because it is already illegal for convicted felons to own guns, the Fifth Amendment protects felons from being forced to incriminate themselves by registering their guns.
 Sent2: Gun ban = No civilians can protect themselves using a firearm = Criminals can illegally purchase guns, like tons already do.
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: Let's be honest, it won't result in any more or less gun deaths and even if it resulted in more gun deaths it would be worth having the amendment.
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: For instance I don't think that eliminating gun control is the only answer crime control is also needed.
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: How can a people defend themselves from the government, unless they are able to maintain the same weapons as the government has?
Output: 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: Or that someone has pointed out that gun rights advocates seem to have been panic-buying firearms in case the White House bans them?
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: 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: Gun control laws will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws!
 Sent2: Gun control laws only control the guns in the hands of people who follow laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If gun control will not affect criminal ownership of guns and people will always be able to get a firearm if they want, why should a government make the effort to ban firearms as a precursor to atrocities?
 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: I don`t reallly see the inconsistency unless you view the right to keep andbear arms as a right that should be protected.
 Sent2: This makes sense when you consider that the second amendment protects the right of the people to bear arms in connection with an organized militia.
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: Muggings, burglaries, rapes, assault and battery are all examples of violent crimes that don't require a gun.
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: Gun haters think banning guns will make criminals stop being criminals.
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: 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: Criminals enter gun free zones with guns to commit crimes against unarmed law-abiding citizens.
 Sent2: Gun free zones are areas that criminals enter with guns because they know they are no armed law-abiding citizens there to stop them.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Finally it mentions that Swiss "gun control" is not the reason for the low crime rates and, granted, it also mentions that this system is not proof that more guns means less 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: Not similar
Sent1: I understand that banning guns will not stop criminals from accessing them, but it will surely drop the crime rate and make it much harder to get a gun.
 Sent2: Keeping violent criminals in prison would do far more to reduce gun crime than banning guns.
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: I think the precedent set by Heller was that the Second Amendment protects an individual right but judges can still do the mental gymnastics to justify the gun control laws they like.
Output: Not 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: While their by no means should be an outlaw of guns, I do believe restrictions should be put in place.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You keep claiming that you're not of the anti-gun camp, that you actually support the Second Amendment.
 Sent2: What stupid Americans like you don't understand is that revoking the Second Amendment wouldn't play any part on protecting anyone from criminals that're armed with guns.
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: 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: Similar
Sent1: Look at any country that has significantly tighter gun control laws than America, go far enough back and you'll eventually see that gun control was very simple at first.
 Sent2: I really do not care particularly what gun control laws states or cities pass.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Gun ban = No civilians can protect themselves using a firearm = Criminals can illegally purchase guns, like tons already do.
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: That will take the criminals off the street and with them off the street there are no gun control concerns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters are like the dangerous criminals the gun haters want to keep guns away from.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: now imagine if no criminals could get hold of a gun, you wouldn't need a protection, as no criminals have guns.
 Sent2: 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?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control laws will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws!
 Sent2: All of the gun control laws the gun haters want will only be obeyed by the law abiding citizens!
Output: 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: 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: 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: Private citizens can never hope to acquire firearms when gun control laws exist, but all 'criminals' have instant connections to black-market arms dealers.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The first part indicates the importance of the militia, the second part illustrates that the people may be part of that well regulated body or not without infringement of their right to keep and bear arms.
 Sent2: In order to have a 'well regulated' militia you can not bar the civilian populace of its right to keep and bear arms!
Output: Similar
Sent1: I don't even carry a gun concealed nor openly, but I have to defend what is right, just because it is right!
 Sent2: I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry conceled weapons.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The opposite of "more guns = less crime is not true" is not "more guns = more crime".
 Sent2: You've accepted the first posit - that less guns will result in less gun killings.
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 says MILITIAS have the right to carry guns, not private citizens, and that is why the militias are there to protects us and are composed of....private citizens.
Output: 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: They do not have the expressed, enumerated power to pass any law regarding guns in the constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The number of background checks carried out for the purpose of buying a firearm have increased.
 Sent2: It's pointless people with criminal backgrounds aren't buying guns from gun stores (all of which already run background checks) there are no background checks on the black market and laws won't change that.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So how is controlling the law-abiding going to help when murder is already illegal, it is already illegal for a convicted criminal to be even in the same room as a gun.
 Sent2: Therefore, while most people are hindranced by the laws, criminals will still obtain weapons illegally.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: When a person walks into a gun shop with the expressed idea of buying a gun to kill someone - in a premeditatd act - that - is a problem isn't it.
 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: All gun free zones can do, is keep law-abiding citizens from having guns.
 Sent2: Gun free zones are areas that criminals enter with guns because they know they are no armed law-abiding citizens there to stop them.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Common sense gun control laws the gun haters want will only affect the law abiding citizens, not the criminals.
 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: While proximity to the border appears to be a major factor affecting which states are top sources, controlling for population reveals that even among the Southwest border states, certain states export crime guns to Mexico at disproportionately higher rates.
 Sent2: The states with the higher numbers of minorities have the higher rates of gun control because they claim they have more crime.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And because as he so convincingly puts it : MORE GUNS= LESS CRIME
 Sent2: All that does is imply that crime rate depends on more than just the presence/absence of guns - it disproves 'more guns = more crime' about as much as it disproves 'more guns = less crime'.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is interesting to note that the DOJ stats reveal our crimes and murders dropped 63% during the time that the newly "gun free" nations increased and while we were adding many more guns and passing carry laws.
 Sent2: For every one crime gun that California exports, we get more than two crime guns imported back into our state."
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Therefore, if you avoid gangs (those who tend to have guns - they are still criminals), there is little point in carrying a gun yourself.
 Sent2: Perhaps you need to drop your prejudice you bring with you across an ocean and stop thinking of gun owners as criminals, they are not, we are the keepers of democracy, and the Federalist papers say so.
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: 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.�۝
Output: 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: In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The second amendment is not primarily there to protect our right to keep hunting weapons.
 Sent2: Gun haters if the 2nd amend did not protect the right to bear arms then all guns in America would be banned.
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: That will take the criminals off the street and with them off the street there are no gun control concerns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But I do not believe that a gun ban will make us any safer.
 Sent2: Perhaps even Zimbabwe where gun control is a cracking success?Thank god that we live in a society that banned guns from the law abiding so the criminals will feel safe.
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: Even "If criminals keep their guns",(if we were to confiscate all guns) " they wont be able to use them.
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: 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: Gun haters must attack people defending the right to bear arms by calling them fanatics.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: because I've made a legitimate point that not all gun owners abide by the law?
 Sent2: I would support any law that target criminals, but I will not support you as long as you target lawfull gun owners.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun ban = No civilians can protect themselves using a firearm = Criminals can illegally purchase guns, like tons already do.
 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: Similar
Sent1: It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.
 Sent2: The only people that obey gun control laws that prevent people from taking guns any where are law abiding people.
Output: 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: And that assumes that gun control will have no effect on illegal firearm ownership.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Federal law doesn't give them authority to require sale reports of multiple shotgun and rifle sales, only handguns.
 Sent2: Which passed the law requireing "smart guns", if they ever become available (right now they do not exist).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I do see the sense in some measures such as restricting access to guns for people who have committed violent crimes.
 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: 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: Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens' right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So what happens is they call for more protection, more security, more police, more laws, more protection.
 Sent2: 35) Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
Output: Not 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: 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: Not similar
Sent1: Because many people have interpreted the 2nd amendment as an individual right, the states have lost their militas.
 Sent2: Amendment protects the right of the states to arm their militias.
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: 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: Gun haters are like the dangerous criminals the gun haters want to keep guns away from.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: Her: I don't think people should be allowed to carry guns.
 Sent2: My biggest disagreement is that I think one should carry any weapon one decides to.
Output: Similar
Sent1: That is why current federal law specifically forbids registration of gun owners and guns and gun transactions: "any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions.
 Sent2: One such person who is prohibited by federal law from having a firearm at all is the convicted felon:
Output: Not similar
Sent1: To suit the people that believe guns should be completely illegal....I do feel that stricter laws need to be enforced to acquire such equipment.
 Sent2: However, I do feel that there should be very strict laws on who can purchase assault weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So if you want to ban guns, 1,531,764 people will get killed or injured, and you'll only take guns out of the hands of those who don't even commit gun crimes.
 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: Criminals don't care about gun bans, so a gun ban only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
 Sent2: One such person who is prohibited by federal law from having a firearm at all is the convicted felon:
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Someone caught red-handed robbing or murdering someone with a firearm could get out on bail and immediately go replace the weapon taken from them by police.
 Sent2: Guns don't kill people, if they did, they would go to jail for murder- not the murderers.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: DC's highest gun deaths per capita coincidences with the fact that guns are legal there, doesn't mean anywhere guns are legal crime rates will be high.
 Sent2: In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: In some states, some guns are just not allowed and it sticks as a law.
 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: That pretty much boiled down to laws against felons having weapons, laws against the mentally defective having weapons, and laws against carrying weapons in sensitive places.
 Sent2: Before the Brady Law any criminal could walk into a gun store and easily purchase a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Criminals kill people so gun haters like gun hater pilot want to pass gun control laws that only law abiding citizens obey!
Output: Similar
Sent1: Then we should ban so stupid people can't kill people with guns.
 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: 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 will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Sent1: Machine gns are currently legal (despite an unconstitutional tax that is required to purchase one) and there has NEVER been a single case of a private citizen using a legally owned machine gun to commit a crime.
 Sent2: Many thousands of Guns are stolen and used in GUN CREATED CRIME because most legal gun owners
Output: Not similar
Sent1: where gun control laws prohibit good law abiding citizens from carrying a gun to protect themselves and others.
 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: Felons are not allowed to buy guns.....terrorists would not be allowed to take guns on planes.
 Sent2: Before the Brady Law any criminal could walk into a gun store and easily purchase a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Some advocate banning Assault Weapons, and you yourself have put forth several arguments that the 2nd amendment is not an Individual Right, and it applies only to a states right to form a militia.
 Sent2: Because many people have interpreted the 2nd amendment as an individual right, the states have lost their militas.
Output: Not similar